Want to see the perfect encapsulation of the anthropogenic global warming hysteria?
Time is running out in the fight against global warming, the UN’s top climate change official warned as a new round of UN talks got started here Thursday.
“There is little time left to get a solid negotiating text on the table. Clearly the clock is ticking,” said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
“People in a burning house cannot afford to lose time in an argument,” he said, citing an Ashanti proverb.
First, in Climahysteria World, you are not allowed to debate. You will comply. Resistance is useless. Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service us.
Second, it is all about yap yap and treaties, but not about really doing anything to solve the “climate crisis.” Though it is about controlling economies, and, by extension, people. But, anyhow, time is running out. Running out for the climahysteria movement.
The first half of 2008 was the coolest for at least five years, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Wednesday.
The whole year will almost certainly be cooler than recent years, although temperatures remain above the historical average.
Global temperatures vary annually according to natural cycles. For example, they are driven by shifting ocean currents, and dips do not undermine the case that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing long-term global warming, climate scientists say.
Chillier weather this year is partly because of a global weather pattern called La Nina that follows a periodic warming effect called El Nino.
Got that? The Earth has made it cooler, but, don’t worry, Man will fuck it up, just like he has been doing! Funny how nature can make such a quick change, eh? Anyhow, it is highly humorous the lengths the Believers go to in order to keep the “theory” going. And, yes, weather is a part of climate.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of hundreds of scientists, last year said global warming was “unequivocal” and that manmade greenhouse gas emissions were very likely part of the problem.
Very likely? How about some hard data, folks? Is it or is it not? How about some science to tell us which?
And, from a few days ago, Anthony Watts finds this amusing story
Increasing temperatures can contaminate blood meant for transfusions, say researchers.
Is there nothing that AGW can’t do?
Teach said: Very likely? How about some hard data, folks? Is it or is it not? How about some science to tell us which?
Here’s the “hard dataâ€, Teach. Page 22 (Box TS.1) in the Summary for Policy Makers explains the confidence interval.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
If you dispute it than please provide the data that refutes it.
Silke, That’s easy. See that oh-so famous graph on ‘forcings’? The one where it says it’s all CO2? You need to look at the right hand column – headed ‘LOSU’. http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg
‘LOSU’ stands for ‘level of scientific understanding’. Got that? See where for ‘natural’ – solar, cloud albedo – the LOSU is rated as low? Got that?
They’ve made up their minds, it appears, before really getting all the facts and data.