back to article Global warming stopped in 1998? No it didn't. If you say that, you're going to prison

In extraordinary developments, assorted scientists and other academics have waded into the debate over the widely-acknowledged absence of global warming seen over the last 15+ years. The various researchers, one group of whom are based at Stanford, say that actually the hiatus simply didn't happen. "There never was a hiatus, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    Interesting law to apply

    RICO is special as it allows asset confiscation long before a court decision.

    It is interesting, do the esteemed scientists writing this letter understand that it cuts _BOTH_ ways and for example a grant from let's say Company X building solar panels can look very interesting from a RICO perspective.

    IMHO this crossed a fine line as far as debate is concerned. Sure, you can investigate specific cases under whatever statute you want. Labeling EVERYONE disagreeing with you as a RICO target is beyond the pale.

    1. Eddy Ito

      Re: Interesting law to apply

      Yes but Senator Whitehouse is an unmitigated buffoon. If he really wants to abuse RICO I say they should start with his trading extravaganza a month before the beginning of the market crash in 2008.

    2. Charles Manning

      Re: Interesting law to apply

      Socialists never expect things to cut both ways.

      Both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton tell everyone they need to ride bikes.... but need to use private jets.

      1. Fraggle850

        Re: Interesting law to apply

        You've got a pretty odd idea of socialism if you think either of those two are socialists. I'd colour them as centre right at best. I guess that the USA has had a pretty distorted political system since they demonised proper socialism in the McCarthy witch hunt, shame really as they had a fine tradition of socialism prior to that. Thought we were going the same way in the UK until last Saturday and the selection of Corbyn as the Labour leader.

        1. WalterAlter

          Re: Interesting law to apply

          "Proper socialism"?, snicker. Socialism is a technophobic reaction to feudal-monopolist early 19h century oligarchic capital accumulation for putting hand built craftsmen out of work by allowing the the unwashed access to cheap household durables. Yah, people were tired of eating with wooden spoons and not being able to afford a "proper" tea cup. Know this in your yarbles: technology is INHERENTLY DEMOCRATIZING. This is why the aristocracy and their shill priesthoods are caught in a schizophrenic conflict much like the radicals who are in bed with Islam because it is anti-American while at the same time spits on every issue of human justice that they hold "proper".

          The aristocracy watched helpless as INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY erased all barriers of scarcity in commodities AND education for the working class, and created the bourgeoise which challenged their birthright power with meritocracy and productivity. The aristocracy hates technology as much as the dumbed down New Age Druid/pagan animist left, a left recognizable by its aristocratic libertine hedonism and delusions of superiority,

          To reiterate: what is called capitalism today is not. It is an insecurity/neurosis-driven monopolist feudal war lord overlay upon money symbol value exchange. "Proper" capitalism is anti-monopolist and anti-corporate in so far as the primary concern of the corporation is to pay out dividends rather than create excellence in its products and efficiency in its society. "Proper" capitalism is not money driven, it is humanely driven by the desire to create perfection over the long term and recognizes that exploitation will come back to bite it on the ass. "Proper" capitalists recognize that the wealth of any nation is in the mind of its citizen and emphatically not to be found in profit as a goal.

      2. Charles Manning

        Re: Interesting law to apply

        Oooo... down votes!

        It must have been for my terrible grammar in the last sentence. I'll fix that. "Both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton tell everyone to ride bikes, but need to use private jets for themselves."

        Or maybe the lefties just can't handle facts and do what they always do: try to shut down anyone that does not put their ideology ahead of reality. That's the sort of mindset that tries to use RICO laws to shut down any discussion.

        1. Naich

          Re: Interesting law to apply

          "Or maybe the lefties just can't handle facts and do what they always do: try to shut down anyone that does not put their ideology ahead of reality. That's the sort of mindset that tries to use RICO laws to shut down any discussion."

          Nah, you get downvoted when you spout a load of old bollocks.

    3. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      Re: Interesting law to apply

      There is a bigger chance of sea levels rising by 25 meters tomorrow morning than of a US court accepting a RICO complaint such as this.

    4. john devoy

      Re: Interesting law to apply

      Welcome to modern debate, either agree with the mob or be shouted down as a heretic.

      1. Richard Altmann

        Re: Interesting law to apply

        @ john devoy

        What´s modern on that?

    5. Faux Science Slayer

      Re: Interesting law to apply....THERMODYNAMICS !

      There is NO Carbon climate forcing, NO magic greenhouse gas and NO phantom 'back radiation warming' force. There is a rigged, three sided FAKE debate, and two sides are wrong, see

      "Greenhouse Gas Ptolemaic Model"

      "Lukewarm Lemmings and the Lysenko Larceny"

      coasttocoastam.com/show/2015/03/18 > Climate Change & Thermodynamics, a two hour interview on 615 radio stations with 2 million listeners. The GHG hypothesis is FRAUD.

    6. Tom 13

      Re: Interesting law to apply

      As Lewis noted in his bootnote, a RICO investigation might actually be in order. It is just that the people who need to be investigated are the ones calling the most loudly for others to be investigated.

  2. Groaning Ninny

    Is this some sort of Turing test?

    Apparently my post must contain lettuce.

    1. Tromos

      Re: Is this some sort of Turing test?

      Yes, it's sorely needed here as we've already got the bacon and tomato.

      1. Mark 85

        Re: Is this some sort of Turing test?

        All we need now is some toast.

        1. Eddy Ito
          Pint

          Re: Is this some sort of Turing test?

          Cheers!

  3. heyrick Silver badge

    So if I understand this correctly...

    ...climate "science" is one bunch of lunatics arguing with another bunch of lunatics?

    Wake me up when something science-like happens.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      Re: So if I understand this correctly...

      Yup. That's about the size of it.

      Found this titbit worth a chuckle though: "Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist who has previously produced research proving to his satisfaction that climate sceptics are mostly lunatics who refuse to let their children be vaccinated"

      More proof that you can spin statistics to "prove" absolutely anything at all.

      I also second your quotation motion:

      Dear Reg,

      "Climate science" is an oxymoron. While there's obviously actual science involved in studying climate you'll find those sciences to already have proper names... physics, chemistry, biology, geology etc... lumping little niches of proper sciences together, then stirring in liberal lashings of politics, superstition, simulation, paranoia, corruption, dogma, speculation, fear, etc., does not a new "science" make.

      Henceforth, please remember to always enclose "climate science" in the appropriate punctuation.

      Otherwise, keep up the good work.

      AC

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Headmaster

        Re: So if I understand this correctly...

        mostly lunatics who refuse to let their children be vaccinated

        It's a tradition over there. "Progressive" and "Left-leaning" sites publicize out such studies to prove that gun advocates, truthers, conservatives, libertarians, stand-your-grounders, those who doubt that people of colors can do no wrong and doubters in the god-given wisdom of socialist policy have been wrongly raised and are suffering some kind of brain damage (probably to be corrected in an institution).

        "YOU SHALL BELIEVE!"

        1. Desidero

          Re: So if I understand this correctly...

          It would be more consistent to not trust the scientific establishment on global warming *AND* vaccines/disease control, *OR* believe in them both.

          The scientific and PR methods in both are similar - why should 1 be sound & the other flawed?

          Unless there's a huge money motive to gin up one and not the other - but from where I sit, there's lots of cash to be made in both expanded vaccines & mitigating warming.

          1. Tom 13

            Re: to not trust the scientific establishment

            The scientific establishment is never to be trusted. They tend to be a bunch of fuddy-duddies trusting to yesterday's bone throwing prognostications.

            The scientific method is quite another story. And if "Climate Scientists" ever actually engage in writing a scientific paper in which lays out both their scientific methods and data (as in raw plus corrections and the precise reasons for the corrections) then I shall consider what they say.

      2. Tim99 Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: So if I understand this correctly...

        you'll find those sciences to already have proper names... physics, chemistry, biology, geology etc.

        My Chemistry tutor said the same thing over 40 years ago, and he was not too sure about anything other than physics and chemistry. There is a quote by Rutherford about only physics being science and everything else being stamp collecting, although that may be ironic because his Nobel Prize was in Chemistry (because what he did for the Prize, was).

        I have come to a similar conclusion about engineering - Unless it involves big lumps of metal, engines, and hammers - That many professions with engineering in their names may not be.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So if I understand this correctly...

          "was" ? What what, stamp collecting?

        2. Sgt_Oddball

          Re: So if I understand this correctly...

          There's a few software engineers and computer scientists who might disagree....

          But refusing to acknowledge data outside of your conclusion is not science, calling everyone else heretics because they don't agree with you is taking us back to the dark ages.

        3. razorfishsl

          Re: So if I understand this correctly...

          So you have a problem with "software Engineering " then?

          1. Andrew Williams

            Re: So if I understand this correctly...

            Yes, I do have a problem with "Software Engineering." I am a victim of it every day. It is an odd coincidence that the car I use, the roads I use, the buildings I live and work in and most of the planes and boats I've had occasion to use have orders of magnitude less failures than I experience with the products of "Software Engineering."

            I suspect it has to do with the rise of hacker culture, where getting things to work in a sometimes, somewhen manner is the height of "Software Engineering" practice in the modern world.

            At this point in time I am wondering how long it is before some evil bastard decides to remote control my car because of frankly inadequate "Software Engineering."

            1. Fraggle850

              Re: So if I understand this correctly...

              All of those oh so reliable engineered things that you refer to have long histories of fail behind them, many of which were incredibly hazardous until our understanding grew over time. The De Havilland Comet ruled the jet age briefly until metal fatigue led to fatal crashes, the first steam boilers of the industrial revolution were prone to exploding and going back to the Tudor/Stuart period early city buildings had defective chimneys that served to poison their inhabitants and acted as a flash point which led to buildings catching fire.

              Engineers have always been hackers first and foremost.

              Software engineering is still relatively young and incredibly complex, given the interconnectedness of so many systems. It will mature over time but no doubt have its traumas along the way.

    2. Craigness

      Re: So if I understand this correctly...

      "Wake me up when something science-like happens."

      There is some science-like stuff going on, but there is a lot of politics-like stuff attached to it. I think what would wake people up is if the people telling us there is an emergency behaved as if there were an emergency.

      I have no car, holiday in the UK and am too cheap to turn on the heating in the winter (the flat below can heat mine, I'll just wear a jumper!). I bet I use a tiny fraction of the CO2 which climate lobbyists use. And unlike them I'd not come out in hives if RICO was shone in my direction.

    3. Charles Manning

      Re: So if I understand this correctly...

      Climate science must be a real science. After all, it is a branch of that other real science: political science.

      As some wag once remarked: If it has science in its name then it probably isn't science: political science, social science, domestic science,...

      1. Bob Armstrong

        Re: So if I understand this correctly...

        Ken Iverson ( father of APL ) was one .

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not sure about global warming myself, I do think more co2 = more tree's and plants as there has to be some sort of balance however the thing that confuses is me is that they can predict it will be warmer over the next two years however they can't get the weather right for the next two weeks.

    Maybe it's a vegan conspiracy where they are blaming the cows for methane so they can bump them all off and get us to follow their dungaree wearing bearded bean eating shoreditch hipster religion where we can all sit round a solar panel listening to blues basking in the glow of our own beard stroking hipness.

    Anon for obvious reasons.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yawn.....

      Gosh, I can't predict whether I will down four pints of IPA or a bottle of red, but I can predict I will have a hangover. I also can predict with fair confidence that it will be colder in January than it this month, and I don't know who is going to win Stoke City vs Leicester City on Saturday, but I can predict that neither will win the title come end of season.

      And no, it's not a vegan conspiracy, we have much more sinister plans than that (basically it's the old UN World Gov., confiscate your guns and SUV, tattoo 666 on your forehead, first 5 chapters of the Apocalypse, but don't tell anyone.. it's meant to be a secret)

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: Yawn.....

        >>"Gosh, I can't predict whether I will down four pints of IPA or a bottle of red, but I can predict I will have a hangover. I also can predict with fair confidence that it will be colder in January than it this month, and I don't know who is going to win Stoke City vs Leicester City on Saturday, but I can predict that neither will win the title come end of season."

        None of these are good analogies for what the person you're replying to said. A better response would be "I can't tell you what the next three coin tosses will come up as, but I can tell you that over the next 500 they'll be fairly evenly split between heads and tails".

        I'm actually a skeptic on AGW but the OP's argument was poor logic. One does not need to predict immediate results in order to predict and overall trend.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Yawn.....

          Of course and I agree wholeheartedly, my logic was also supposed to highlight the unpredictable nature of weather and climate whether that is long or short term.

          I might as well consult rune stones or ask a shaman or just make up my own weather forecast.

          At tomorrow's climate change parade there will be rain due to 14 years of no increase in temperature. I did however run it through a separate statistical model and it's going to be sunshine and government grants all round. Yay.

          On a serious note we have a plethora of satellites and weather stations now so realistically the answer should be straightforward and not need different calculations to prove or disprove a theory. It's either getting warmer or it's not, either the ice caps are melting or they are not. Though basing theories on around 100 years worth of data when the planet is 4.543 billion years old (2 millionth of a percent) is a bit silly especially since we know of ice ages, were the woolly mammoths an industrial society producing co2? I think not, they were too busy playing in the snow playing with sloths.

    2. Teiwaz

      Why anon?

      Are you expecting a low-fatwa to be issued against you, or just fear a tribe of 'dungaree wearing bearded bean eating shoreditch hipsters' to come round and incessantly plague you with home made vegetarian quiche and parsnip non-alcoholic wine?

      They are unlikely to come brandishing machettes, more likely paper-mache.

    3. Sarah Balfour

      I'll agree with you about Veganists

      I've always referred to them as such because it is, let's be honest here, almost a religion and, like Xian fundies, and creationists (which are, almost always, one and the same thing), they refuse to listen to any counter-arguments, all of which are likely to be based on ACTUAL SCIENCE ("Christian/creation science" is another oxymoron). The only way veganism will save the planet is by killing off the human race.

      Please forgive me - I know you're all bored of my favourite soapbox - but the truth is this: every organism on Earth has its own unique dietary blueprint, set down by evolution and genetics; Homo sapiens didn't evolve to be herbivorous, nothing in our physiology is 'designed' (for want of a better word) to derive nutrition from plants, they have extremely low density, both in terms of energy and nutrition, and humans lack any physiological features for deriving either from them, at least in any quantity worth bothering about. Not only that, but plant proteins (mostly) aren't complete - herbivores don't require the same amino acids we do, nor do they require the same vitamins and minerals (there's no plant source of 'true' B12, for example, and we can't really do anything much with non-heme iron; furthermore, many plants - grains and legumes (particularly soy) - contain substances which are toxic to humans if consumed in large quantities (grains contain phytates which prevent the body from absorbing many vital nutrients (many mimic B complex vitamins, for example, tricking the body into believing it's assimilating more Bs than it really is, leaving people deficient), spinach, and other leafy greens to a lesser extent, contains oxalate preventing iron absorption by mimicking iron (oxalate also prevents the absorption of iron from any iron-containing foods the spinach is eaten with, so greens and steak isn't a sensible idea) as well as leeching Fe from the body. Soy contains phytoestrogens (those hormones touted as being good for you because they're "clinically proven to lower your cholesterol. You don't need your cholesterol lowering, high cholesterol - except in very exceptional circumstances - is a GOOD THING, as the higher your overall cholesterol, the lower your risk of developing heart disease). Phytoestrogens bugger up your thyroid as they mimic thyroxine, tricking your pituitary gland into believing it's telling it to produce too much T4, so it produces less TSH. Eat soy for long enough and, eventually, the opposite will be the case - your thyroid will quit producing T4 altogether (which means your TSH will shoot stratospherically high and you'll develop hypothyroidism).

      (If you want an IT angle, Steve Jobs likely developed pancreatic cancer because he was vegan; an all sugar diet (which is what a vegan diet is - all carbs turn to sugar once consumed) will, obviously, hammer the pancreas far harder than a standard diet (which is still FAR too carb-heavy) and, when you abuse an organ like that, bad things are liable to happen. Despite what the NHS wants you to believe, eating meat DOES NOT cause cancer, of any kind (what the meat might have eaten, or been injected with, might, hence it's always best to eat grass/naturally-fed if at all possible). A vegan diet is also devoid of B12, which is anti-carcinogenic).

      Because a vegan diet is so nutritionally poor, far more of the planet would need to be destroyed to accommodate humanity's nutritional requirements (just try telling a vegan much of their food contains palm oil and see their reaction - if the orangutang becomes extinct, it'll be vegans who are largely to blame). A vegan will tell you there's more protein in broccoli than steak; even if that was true (it's not) only around 10% of that protein will be assimilated, and it's not complete (I've a chart somewhere I saved when I was in the habit of trolling vegan FB groups, which makes the extraordinary claim that a cucumber is 24% protein, thus proving being vegan makes you extremely stupid (or perhaps vegans don't believe/think/know a cucumber is 99% water). The owner of this one particular group also had a dog and a cat, both obviously fed a vegan diet, and here was I thinking that veganists were vegan because they didn't like being cruel to animals (I did use to point out that humans are animals too so, by being vegan they were, in actual fact, being cruel to an animal… they never understood the logic…). I never saw any photos of the cat, but the dog… well, if I'd been in a position to, I'd have had her up on cruelty charges, the poor thing looked almost DEAD! Thank FUCK she didn't have kids (feeding kids a vegan diet is abuse as far as I'm concerned, as you're denying them adequate nutrition. A woman in France was a jailed in 2011 for 10 years for manslaughter after her 10-month-old daughter died of pernicious anaemia; her mother was a raw foodist, and she was one of those who believed in breastfeeding for as long as possible. She also didn't believe in hospitals so, when the child became sick, she wrapped her in boiled cabbage and bentonite clay poultices (to "draw out the toxins").

      Us obligate carnivorous omnivores (I've always referred to the human diet as such, as we can live without plants, but NOT without meat) won't be the ones who'll destroy the planet.

      I nearly gave you a down-vote for the apostrophe in 'trees'. I have not the foggiest why some think that, because a word ends in a vowel its plural requires an apostrophe. Apostrophes, in standard English usage, denote possession or omission, neither of which applies here.

      1. Fraggle850

        @ Sarah Balfour Re: I'll agree with you about Veganists

        There is a middle way: vegetarianism and moderate meat eating both offer reasonably healthy lifestyles. We aren't herbivores but neither are we carnivores from a gut-physiology perspective, our physiology is that of an omnivore.

        Being on a meat-heavy diet can also lead to health problems, including bowel cancer. It also leads to environmental problems as the world's population becomes wealthier and demands meat at every meal.

        I've been a veggie for more years than I was a meat eater at this point. I try not to be a prick about it though, I don't whinge about people cooking my veggie sausages on a barbie that has meat on it and when we have friends over for dinner we make it our business to cook them a nice, responsibly sourced piece of meat, after all our friends are good enough to cater for our veggie tastes when we visit them.

        I must be doing something right because the opposing militant camps of vegans and carnivores both dislike people like me, similar to taking a balanced approach in the AGW debate really.

        Fundies are bad in any context.

        So this is my riposte to your meatist screed, in the interests of balanced debate.

        (BTW: I was tempted to put some spurious punctuation in just to wind you up but that would be trolling)

      2. NomNomNom

        Re: I'll agree with you about Veganists

        "Us obligate carnivorous omnivores (I've always referred to the human diet as such, as we can live without plants, but NOT without meat)"

        You are wrong and there are lifelong vegetarians and vegans out there that prove it, with blood tests and all.

        "Homo sapiens didn't evolve to be herbivorous"

        neither did we evolve not to murder. You are confusing evolution with moral behaviour. Just because we can eat animals doesn't mean it's right.

    4. Gordon 11

      I do think more co2 = more tree's and plants as there has to be some sort of balance
      Not necessarily the case when you are cutting down all of the trees at the same time (== deforestation).
      the thing that confuses is me is that they can predict it will be warmer over the next two years however they can't get the weather right for the next two weeks.
      Hint - look up "acute" and "chronic" in a dictionary,

      1. Vargs

        Deforestation must be "Green"

        Interestingly, a large chunk of the deforestation is caused by bogus "sustainable" policies.

        Mandatory biodiesel requirements in the EU and US have led to the clearance of vast swathes of native rainforest for palm oil plantations.

        The almost bizarrely insane conversion of, previously unsubsidised and cost-effective, coal-fired power stations to burn wood chips leads to heavily subsidised generation at the cost of bulldozed US hardwood forests.

        Neither policy leads to any reduction in CO2 emissions and may actually emit more.

        1. Fraggle850

          Re: Deforestation must be "Green"

          If you use wood as a fuel but take it from sustainably managed forests then it is remarkably green, young, growing trees use and lot more co2 than older, mature trees.

          The loss of biodiversity in the destruction of ancient woodlands is an issue but this needn't be the case, sustainability is the key.

    5. siluri

      Met Office :-o

      Yes you are right about predicting the weather lol , just recently the Met Office spent a billion pounds and a supercomputer system to predict the weather 1 week ahead after spending billions over the years buying crays and other supercomputers the 2 weeks has dropped to 1 week so it seems the weather is more Fractal than they thought with a hint a Chaos Theory thrown in so basically they only can predict the weather at 3 days ahead and even then it can throw a spanner in the works so how the hell can scientists pseudo or not claim that global warming is happening ffs its just bad weather because we have the equipment to measure that even fifty years ago could not measure , record or film let alone a hundred years or so when the records started ,, Oh the trees are not the lungs of the world ,,Plankton is the largest supplier of oxygen to the planet ,,i know cause it was on the BBC's QI program and another bit of useless info Tacitus the roman historian said about Britain in roman times having very warm weather for growing things like olive trees and vineyards as well as the wheat and barley because he said that it was too hot in italy or spain to grow most things ,,so there you have it we were warmer in the roman times..lol

    6. Baron Warlord

      Global Warming is a myth devised by Government to create additional taxes that more than pays the wages of the 'Scientists' that they have employed to 'prove' that such a phenomenon exists.

      World studies of climate from the earliest records prove that the climate is forever changing - i.e what caused the last ice age and why did it disappear? How did the gulf streams come into being? etc.,

      Where did the hole in the ozone layer disappear to? That was another money spinner.

  5. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Ben Liddicott

      Re: this is in the wrong place

      If you had read the article, you would have found out that so-called scientists have written to the POTUS asking for sceptics to be investigated with a view to prosecution.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: this is in the wrong place

          Hey - no fair - I disagree 100% with almost everything LP says on climate - and tend to say so - but I've never had a comment cut.

          1. asdf

            Re: this is in the wrong place

            He has rejected a few of mine but usually because I was making fun how the El Reg the amateur climate science blog also tended to do much better IT articles (not always but often) on the side. Still LP/AO cherry picking is legendary and quite obvious after a few of these articles so again I have no idea why I am posting except its Friday and I am really bored. Already collected my downvotes for the weak trolling all those dumb bastards defending Irving Texas earlier in the week as well.

  6. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. asdf

      Re: Sun for the day

      Lot of effort simply to increase your downvote total. You think you are changing minds lol or are you just bored?

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.