Global Warming

Global Temperature: What Do You Want It to Be?

New study suggests "hiatus" could last 30 more years.

|

Globalwarming
dreamstock

Most of you will recognize the old joke referenced in the headline variously attributed to statisticians, economists and, my favorite version, accountants:

Finally, the businessman interviewed an accountant. When he asked him what two plus two was, the accountant got up from his chair, went over to the door, closed it, came back and sat down. Leaning across the desk, he said in a low voice, "How much do you want it to be?"

I am not accusing climate scientists of engaging such behavior, but for a "settled" science there's plenty to argue about. For example, just three months ago I reported a study published in Nature Climate Change that predicted that the globe would warm at rates unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years by 2020.

Yet, earlier this week another study published in Nature based on cooling ocean temperature trends in the North Atlantic concluded that the current 18-year hiatus in the increase of average global temperature could extend for several more decades. From Phys.org:

A new study, by scientists from the University of Southampton and National Oceanography Centre (NOC), implies that the global climate is on the verge of broad-scale change that could last for a number of decades.

The change to the new set of climatic conditions is associated with a cooling of the Atlantic, and is likely to bring drier summers in Britain and Ireland, accelerated sea-level rise along the northeast coast of the United States, and drought in the developing countries of the Sahel region. Since this new climatic phase could be half a degree cooler, it may well offer a brief reprise from the rise of global temperatures, as well as resulting in fewer hurricanes hitting the United States.

By "brief reprise," the authors note that fluctuations in the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation impacts climate on timescales of 20-30 years. Of course, other researchers blame the hiatus on the Pacific Ocean. So climate change warriors on both sides can pick (and I do not mean "cherrypick") studies to back their views of how much global average temperature is likely to increase.

NEXT: Florida Cop Allegedly Left K-9s in Overheated SUV to Die

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn

  2. I am not accusing climate scientists of engaging such behavior,

    Because you’re a pussy?

  3. One of the warmists new favorite talking points is that there is no pause. Pretty sure this is bullshit based on excluding one data set. Anyone care to elaborate?

    1. There wasn’t a pause until they figured out an excuse to say it is temporary and not to let it stop you from giving them money and power.

      1. Some of them are now saying there is no pause.

        1. Statistically and otherwise it is hard to differentiate the last 16 years from each other. ’98 was quite hot, the early 90s were somewhat cooler, but 1999-2015 doesn’t have any real outliers or pattern

          1. BUT 2014 WAS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD! SEA ICE! 2015 EVEN HOTTER! I forget the rest of the current talking points.

    2. In addition to the link in the article, this may help. It’s amazing how easy it is to find things when one’s Google is working properly.

      1. Holy shit Tony, SciAm?

        And you wonder why we ridicule and laugh at you?

        1. I didn’t realize that SciAm was part of the liberal conspiracy. Please direct me to the real science reporting at Breitbart or wherever the fuck you get all of your thoughts from.

          1. Re: Tony,

            I didn’t realize that SciAm was part of the liberal conspiracy

            Their writers are quite the little Marxians, Tony. You don’t need a conspiracy when everybody’s on the same page.

            If Global Warming theory was not something that could be used to justify massive government interventions, you and I would not see but a few ho-hum references to it in the magazine, alongside articles about the part of the brain that handles love or how dogs can count.

            1. If you don’t think dogs can count then come to my house in the evening and I will charge you with passing out the evening treats. Try and short one dog one treat and see what happens.

              For that matter, try giving one dog a smaller treat than everyone else gets and there will be no peace.

          2. Once SciAm was a serious science periodical. It has become a joke.

            Let me put it this way: If YOU can read the articles and understand them then it isn’t a serious scientific periodical.

          3. Here’s one example of how Scientific American has abandonned any objectivity it once had.

      2. Re: Tony,

        Let’s be clear: The planet is still getting hotter. The so-called pause, or hiatus, in global warming means the rate of temperature rise has slowed. The average global temperature is still going up, but in the past 10 to 15 years it hasn’t been going up as quickly as it was in the decades before.

        That’s NOT what the models were predicting, by the way. Scientific American was at the forefront of Global Warming scaremongering and all of a sudden they’re accepting that the globe is not heating nearly as fast as they “predicted.”

        The temperature of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, particularly the upper layers, goes through natural cycles of warmer and cooler,

        That’s quite an admission from the same folks who not long ago were saying that there was NO natural explanation for the rise in temperatures or that there were enough natural buffers to stem the increase in temperatures. Now they are admitting that oceans go through natural cycles of warm and cold. Again, the models did not apparently take this cycle into account.

        I would’ve read the link before posting, Tony. it actually makes the case that the science is NOT settled at all when it comes to Global Warming.

        1. Past models being wrong does not vindicate a belief that the greenhouse effect is a myth–even if you knew what the fuck you were talking about.

          It is a straw man to claim that anyone believes that the planet’s entire climate system and all of the physical processes that affect it are 100% understood. What is settled is that there is warming caused by an increase in greenhouse gases largely caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

          1. Re: Tony,

            Past models being wrong does not vindicate a belief that the greenhouse effect is a myth

            Don’t be mendacious ?who said it was a myth?

            What is becoming less and less likely is that the notion of Catastrophic Global Warming and its offshoot bogeyman “Climate Change” are exaggerations.

            1. Re: Tony,

              Also, the moving of the goalposts does not lend itself to credulity, for instance (from the article)

              And their analysis, published online today in Science, suggests that the slowdown will end in the next few decades.

              And when the “next few decades” come and gone, and no change is noticed, will we see a mea culpa issued by the magazine, or will they simply shrug and set another future date for Judgment Day, like the Pyramidalists of the late 19th Century?

              Yes, incorrect models do NOT discredit a theory, but the models are supposed to be constructed according to the theory to test the theory against the real world and not to make forecasts so politicians can make grandiose calls for global social engineering. In other words, the Climate Change charlatans have it exactly backwards.

              1. You are too ridiculous to be believed. I guess I’m sorry that rightwing bullshit media did this to you.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  You are too ridiculous to be believed.

                  “La-la-la-la-la! La-la-la-la-la!”

                  Take a look at what a “mature” little Marxian sounds like, people.

          2. Past models being wrong does not vindicate a belief that the greenhouse effect is a myth

            It vindicates a belief that the model makers don’t know what they’re doing.

          3. “What is settled is that there is warming caused by an increase in greenhouse gases largely caused by the burning of fossil fuels.”

            A single sentence that tells anyone who knows how science works that you don’t have a fucking clue what you are talking about.

            Ignoramus.

          4. “Past models being wrong does not vindicate a belief that the greenhouse effect is a myth”

            But it does vindicate claims that man made green house gases are not the primary driver of climate and that basing models that focus on green houses gases have ALWAYS failed to produce reliable results.

            “What is settled is that there is warming caused by an increase in greenhouse gases largely caused by the burning of fossil fuels.”

            Not based on any measure of climate observed. You are confusing the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation (known fact) with the dis-proven theory that current levels of C02 can be shown to have any measurable effect on current temperatures.

          5. Maybe the Earth is warming due to man made C02 production, maybe not. I don’t know, but I’m open to being convinced. What I do know is if you tried to publish a scientific paper in any other field based upon data that you manipulated to adjust for inconsistent and imprecise measurements taken by instruments many decades ago, your peer reviewers would save the paper in their desk so they could pull it out and share a drunken laugh about it at office parties.

            Climate study has become the Special Olympics of science, held to a lower standard than every other field of study because they “mean well” and if they are right its the END OF THE WORLD so we can’t wait around for better data and more rigorous adherence to the scientific method.

      3. The SciAm science is settled:

        An Epidemic of False Claims
        False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is particularly egregious in biomedicine. Many studies that claim some drug or treatment is beneficial have turned out not to be true. We need only look to conflicting findings about beta-carotene, vitamin E, hormone treatments, Vioxx and Avandia. Even when effects are genuine, their true magnitude is often smaller than originally claimed.

        The problem begins with the public’s rising expectations of science. Being human, scientists are tempted to show that they know more than they do. The number of investigators?and the number of experiments, observations and analyses they produce?has also increased exponentially in many fields, but adequate safeguards against bias are lacking. Research is fragmented, competition is fierce and emphasis is often given to single studies instead of the big picture….

    3. They are so invested in this now that even if the pause turned into a perpetual worldwide winter they would still be telling everyone that you can’t draw any conclusions by looking out of your window.

    4. In a set of ocean temperatures, data at the ends of the pause changed to give it a steeper slope. By adjusting more recent and accurate Argo and other float data to be in line with much older measurements made using buckets and engine room water temperatures. This had the effect of making only one slope over the 25-30 year period instead of two different regimes that one could call a pause or slowdown. It also, interestingly, made the slope over the whole period slightly lower than the steepest had been in the 90’s so making the “problem” smaller in one sense, even though it removed the pause. They got a lot of flack for this even from other climate scientists, including some well-known alarmists. This ocean data set is then used in data sets and has an effect on them as well. Tom Karl at NOAA’s paper. There are many weblinks on this from a variety of sources, including climate scientists who think GW is a problem but disagree with this paper. Search for Tom Karl and/or pause buster.
      This one is Richard Muller’s description of six types of climate change thinkers (instead of two) and is very, very close to what I would have come up with myself. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..29598.html

  4. drier summers in Britain and Ireland,

    Drier summers in Scotland, you say?

    *Buys old Land Rover Defender, keeps it running constantly outside house*

    1. Yeah, it was odd that the five or six years I played at the World Pipe Band Championship (Glasgow 1st week of August) we only got rained on once. Rained all week leading up to it – beautiful when we played on Saturday. As Napoleon Dynamite would say, “Luckyyyyyyy!”

      Literally got a sunburn the one year we were there, the weather was so nice!

      The last couple years I stayed home and watched the BBC telecast over teh innertubes – fokin’ sideways rain for most of it.

      “Oh, aye, THAT’S a pipe band contest in Scotland now….”

  5. “I am not accusing climate scientists of engaging such behavior…”

    Well, maybe not ALL of them. But, if you think that much of this “science” isn’t bought and sold then you really aren’t paying attention… or you’re really, really stupid.

  6. Of course, other researchers blame the hiatus on the Pacific Ocean.

    There’s a joke in here, but I got nothin’.

    1. …they also blamed it on the rain, and the stars that shine at night?

      … something, something Godzilla?

      …don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos?

      …KOCH BROTHERS!

  7. You know who else experienced a multi-decade hiatus?…

    1. Amelia Earhart?

      1. I guess her hiatus could be blamed on the ocean as well.

        1. The Pacific Ocean no less.

          1. Singing to an ocean, I can hear the ocean’s roar
            Play for free, play for me and play a whole lot more, more!
            Singing about good things and the sun that lights the day
            I used to sing on the mountains, has the ocean lost it’s way.

            1. Now that is going to be stuck in my head all day.

              *pulls up some bluegrass on YouTube as an antidote.*

              1. Seems like you’d enjoy Doug Kershaw sawing out “Louisiana Man” on the fiddle, Suthen?

                Amirite?

                1. Well…uh…yeah. I am from the redneck side of the line but I can go for the rednecky stuff or the coonass stuff. Its all good.

      2. Steve Rogers?

    2. Mandela?

    3. Colonel Sanders?

      1. Should have stayed haitused. The commercials are just weird. They were going for Jack in the Box relaunch and got a fizzle.

        1. Yeah – Reanimated Col. Sanders is teh creepy.

          I don’t care. I still buy a bucket about once every other month. Cause America.

        2. Popeyes and Bojangles are both better than the Col. Screw Industrial-Military-Chicken Complex

          1. Popeyes doesn’t serve chicken. Have you ever seen a chicken drumstick 21/2 inches long? Those have to be pigeons.

            1. Dont’ care. Still tastes good.

              1. My wife and I finally tried Popeyes on the way down South for Vacay recently. Two thumbs up…it was tasty.

                Still – KFC is KFC, and I will always need a fix every couple months…

                1. Still – KFC is KFC, and I will always need a fix every couple months…

                  He puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly.

              2. “Dont’ care. Still tastes good.”

                Want a good southern fried chicken recipe? You can get some decent size chicken and make it yourself. 10x better than ol’ Al’s recipe, god rest his swishy soul.

                1. Gotta a newsletter I can subscribe too?

                    1. Nice.

        3. I’m baffled by Darrell Hammond taking this gig. He should be a very successful SNL alum by now. Yet he’s playing Zombie Col Sanders.

          1. It may be because of some serious personal issues.

            During an October 2011 interview with CNN, Hammond revealed that his mother had brutally abused him during his childhood. This trauma from abuse led to cutting, several hospitalizations due to psychiatric issues, and diagnoses which include bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and borderline personality disorder.[13] Hammond says that he was medicated throughout his tenure on Saturday Night Live, and that he cut himself backstage and was once taken from the studio to a psychiatric ward.

            1. Dayum

            2. Yeah, Hammond is yet another funny dude who’s a total mess.

    4. Cthulhu?

      1. He’ll be back for the 2016 campaign.

        “Don’t vote for a lesser evil”

    5. George Lucas?

    6. You mammals all suck… Multi-decade? Like maybe 40 years… Something about being stuck in the wilderness. How could you assholes miss that?

      1. What the hell does that have to do with Hitler?

    7. Jesus?

    8. R. V. Winkle?

      1. Robbie, not Rip

    9. A cicada?

  8. I’m kind of hoping for less precipitation over Central and East Texas.

    1. Unfortunately, it appears El Nino is going to bring a lot more of the same for that area.

    2. Hush Brett. After the damn drought I swore I would never complain about rain again.

      *Bites tounge*

      And Ron, goddammit. A global warming article? Now I am pissed. I wish you had just stuck to probing sexual stuff today.

      1. Oh, and speaking of rain, Iatt lake is a mess. There are tens of thousands of tons of salvinia that the flooding has washed into the lock on the south end of the lake and has plugged it up. Mountains of the shit. No one here has ever seen anything like it. When and if it breaks loose it will be headed my way on the bayou.

        Dammit. I already can’t catch anything because the water is up so high.

        I am tempted to drive the mile or so upstream and shoot a photo to upload here.

        1. Preach it man. Haven’t been able to catch water on Rayburn all year. I pretty much gave up.

          It’s gonna fuck up hunting just like last year too. There were so many damn acorns the deer didn’t even have to get out of bed.

      2. Hey, just move to Michigan. If you don’t like the weather, just wait a minute….IT’LL CHANGE!!!

        HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

        /parochial weather humor

      3. Probing sexual stuff…

  9. By “brief reprise,” the authors note that fluctuations in the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation impacts climate on timescales of 20-30 years.

    So, 20 – 30 year patterns are “brief” and of little concern for long-term temperature trends.

    Remind me, how long was that warming trend that came to a screeching halt around 2000 or so?

    1. Remind me, how long was that warming trend that came to a screeching halt around 2000 or so?

      I believe it was FYTW years long.

    2. Understand that people are talking about the rate of change, not that warming has stopped.

      You will find no facts from credible sources that confirm what you want to believe: that burning fossil fuels comes with zero cost to the environment.

      1. Tony, please find me a quote from anyone here who believes that. Actually, I bet you could find *one.* Please find two.

      2. An Epidemic of False Claims
        False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is particularly egregious in biomedicine. Many studies that claim some drug or treatment is beneficial have turned out not to be true. We need only look to conflicting findings about beta-carotene, vitamin E, hormone treatments, Vioxx and Avandia. Even when effects are genuine, their true magnitude is often smaller than originally claimed.

        The problem begins with the public’s rising expectations of science. Being human, scientists are tempted to show that they know more than they do. The number of investigators?and the number of experiments, observations and analyses they produce?has also increased exponentially in many fields, but adequate safeguards against bias are lacking. Research is fragmented, competition is fierce and emphasis is often given to single studies instead of the big picture….

    3. Remind me, how long was that warming trend that came to a screeching halt around 2000 or so?

      50 years…with a pause/reversal of about 10 years in the 70s.

      There may or may not have been warming prior to the 1950s but none of that can be attributed to man made green house gases as their concentrations were not high enough to make a difference.

      Fun fact: the hide the decline graphs end in the 60s (intentionally cut off to literally hide the decline)….so for the “proof” those provide it was only 10-20 years

      1. As we are invited to dismiss “brief” trends of, say, 20 years or less, sounds to me like what we have on the record is:

        A brief warming trend that ended in the 70s.

        A brief plateau/cooling trend in the 70s.

        A brief warming trend that ended around 2000.

        A brief (so far) plateau since then.

        I see nothing to be concerned about.

        1. “I see nothing to be concerned about.”

          I am concerned with when does this madness end. I mean we have been hearing this doom bullshit since the mid 90s. 20 fucking years 18 of which has had zero actual climate warming.

          Am I going to be dead from old age before they finally abandon this new version of Phrenology?

  10. Thanks to Ron’s updates, I have at last been able to overcome my scientific reservations and settle on a value of climate sensitivity per doubling of blog forcing : estimates of temperature will decline about 1.2 degrees per year per million dollars paid the ten most frequent Heartland Institute conference speakers.

    Or if you prefer to model lump sum impacts, about $4 million annually in the right pockets would turn everyone talking climate on Fox , from Morano to Singer , into screaming warmists .

  11. OT — Ex-House Speaker Dennis Hastert paid to conceal sexual misconduct, sources say (TRIGGER WARNING: Pillow-biter pedophile)

    WASHINGTON ? Indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was paying an individual from his past to conceal sexual misconduct, two federal law enforcement officials said Friday.

    One of the officials, who would not speak publicly about the federal charges in Chicago, said “Individual A,” as the person is described in Thursday’s federal indictment, was male and that the alleged misconduct was unrelated to Hastert’s tenure in Congress.

    The actions date to Hastert’s time as a Yorkville, Ill., high school wrestling coach and teacher, the official said.

    “It goes back a long way, back to then,” the source said. “It has nothing to do with public corruption or a corruption scandal. Or to his time in office.”

    Thursday’s indictment described the misconduct “against Individual A” as having “occurred years earlier.”

    Asked why Hastert was making the payments, the official said it was to conceal Hastert’s past relationship with the male. “It was sex,’?” the source said. The other official, when asked if the misconduct was sexual abuse, said, “That’s correct.”

    http://www.startribune.com/ex-…..305501491/

    1. You would think that during the Clinton sex scandal Republicans would have been able to find a single Speaker of the House or nominee for the position who wasn’t an adulterer or rapist.

      1. Tony, are you still supporting Hillary, whose campaign is funded by countries who behead homosexuals?

        1. Asks the person whoring for the oil such countries produce.

          1. I’m whoring myself? Show me the paycheck. I can point to Bill’s and Hillary’s. Explain again how they are so much more moral than the rest of us whores, Tony.

            Most of the people you rail against want domestic fracking to stop sending money to those countries so we can stop caring what they think. Tony, who supports candidates funded by those countries, want to stop fracking. I wonder why, whore-Tony.

              1. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays. Tony supports a candidate who is funded by countries that rape women and behead gays.

            1. Because Republicans are psychopathic morons who wreck countries and rape little boys.

              1. Well thank God we have a Democratic party which would never elect anyone accused of rape, and would never wreck a country.

                1. I love that he doesn’t shy away from his support of people who take money from countries that behead gays and wants to stop the one thing that America can actually do in the present that decreases those countries importance.

      2. Why would you think that? We are talking about Top. Men. here.

  12. So climate change warriors on both sides can pick (and I do not mean “cherrypick”) studies to back their views of how much global average temperature is likely to increase.

    That is what Settled Science? looks like, folks: Pick up your goal posts. Place them. Pick them up again. Place them. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

    1. The Heartland Reversees would of course be free to invest their new income stream in a goal post laundry, one of the few service industries as yet unrepresented on K Street.

      1. It hurts, doesn’t it? Don’t worry, the PDO and AMO will eventually both reenter their warm phases, the sun will wake up, and you’ll be able to claim unprecedented (well, over the last 30 years at least) warming again. Oh, and the government gravy train will still keep sending out your payola grant checks.

    2. Thinking back on the old school profs I had for chem, physics, bio, engineering etc, those guys would have had any student who engaged in the kind of behavior the warmistas are thrown out of school and blackballed.

      What they are doing is not science, and anyone who thinks it is doesn’t know what science is. Yeah, I am looking at you Tiny.

      1. Re: Suthenboy,

        One lesson that should be taken from this sorry affair is that whenever scientists stake too much of their reputation on a theory to the point of excluding other complementary explanations or theories, a reasonable person should immediately be concerned about the objectivity of those scientists.

        Almost all the alarms and hysteria about global warming was based on the temperature forecasts created by Mann and others. In that article that Tony linked to, it mentions that Mann has calculated a 2?C to 3?C increase in temperatures by year 2036, if the rate of CO2 levels continue to increase due to our usage of fossil fuels. You have then the same person whose previous models overstated the increase by a factor of TWO (at least) and now he wants us to believe that temperatures in the near future will increase by a factor of FOUR TO SIX the current temperature increase (which has been only +0.5?C until now).

        It may happen, perhaps. But the problem is that Mann et al did not take into account the cycle of heat distribution in the oceans. What else have they missed besides this variable? What happens in 20 years when the temperatures do NOT go up 2?C to 3?C? Will Mann concede that his models are junk then, if he is still alive?

        1. The models cannot reproduce ENSO events, so by definition they are wrong. The best argument the climastrologists have is that the models aren’t TOO wrong, which is to say they’ve got nuthin. Oh, and it’s going to get even worse once the latest aerosol estimates are factored in.

        2. “Will Mann concede that his models are junk then, if he is still alive?”

          I assume this is a rhetorical question?

          The majority of the human race use emotion as a means of arriving at conclusions. They are also unable to distinguish between belief and knowledge. Expecting them to understand something as basic as the scientific method is absurd. Expecting scientists with even a small lack of integrity not to take advantage of that is equally absurd, especially when they have armies of sycophants like Tony shilling for them. Shits like Ehrlich and Mann expect to get away with lies, and they usually do. Only a small percentage of people can see through their bullshit.

          In a hundred years the warmistas will be a black mark on science that will make the Piltdown man look like a flea’s turd, but they don’t care. All they want is money and power now. Fuck science and fuck everyone else.

  13. Whore-Tooooonnnnnyyyyy, who supports a candidate funded by countries that rape women and behead gays:

    I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here’s How.
    …We science journalists like to think of ourselves as more clever than the average hack. After all, we have to understand arcane scientific research well enough to explain it. And for reporters who don’t have science chops, as soon as they tapped outside sources for their stories?really anyone with a science degree, let alone an actual nutrition scientist?they would discover that the study was laughably flimsy. Not to mention that a Google search yielded no trace of Johannes Bohannon or his alleged institute. Reporters on the health science beat were going to smell this a mile away. But I didn’t want to sound pessimistic. “Let’s see how far we can take this,” I said….

    1. …With the paper out, it was time to make some noise. I called a friend of a friend who works in scientific PR. She walked me through some of the dirty tricks for grabbing headlines. It was eerie to hear the other side of something I experience every day.

      The key is to exploit journalists’ incredible laziness. If you lay out the information just right, you can shape the story that emerges in the media almost like you were writing those stories yourself. In fact, that’s literally what you’re doing, since many reporters just copied and pasted our text….

  14. “So climate change warriors on both sides”

    Oh fuck this strawman bullshit in the ass Ron.

    You know full well skeptics make no claim as to what temperatures are going to do. Only claim that they do not know and you don’t know and no one knows. The fact that science can’t predict what temperatures are going to be based on one parameter, green house gas concentrations in the atmosphere, squarely puts this ambiguity in their favor.

    Simply put one group of “climate warriors” is wrong (your side) and the other group is right (my side).

    1. “Oh fuck this strawman bullshit in the ass Ron.”

      OUCH! Clearly you have never had a genuine roll in the hay.

    2. Thanks, Corning.

      Here’s a thought: when two sides are in disagreement, that doesn’t mean that they are morally equal. One of them just might be right, and the other wrong.

  15. So, basically, the climate scientists are now saying we won’t have to worry about warming for another 2-3 decades, which is exactly how long it will likely be before we have cheap, clean fusion energy.

    I’m glad the battle is over and we can stop worrying about this crap.

    1. Good luck with that. Fusion has always just been right around the corner…

      1. Right. Which is why I figure the breakthrough has to happen at some point. It’s not like warp-drive or something purely theoretical. Fusion reactors of various designs already exist as working prototypes.

  16. A geologic Ice Age is a period where the poles are frozen.

    We have been in a geologic Ice Age for 2.5 million years.

    Why do we want to stay in an Ice Age? The earth being this cold is much more dangerous than it warming up slightly.

    If a cooling phase occurs, caused by the wobbles that occur in the earth’s orbit, crop failures and massive famine would be the result.

    That would be a disaster compared to what is forecast due to global warming forecasts.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.