climaterealists's blog

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2981923/posts

Posted on Saturday, 26 January 2013 11:11:01 a.m. by Da Bilge Troll

Doubled CO2 means just 1.9°C warming, says Norwegian gov

New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as "truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper safe limit of 2°C for many decades.

“In our project we have worked on finding out the overall effect of all known feedback mechanisms,” says project manager Terje Berntsen, who is a professor at the University of Oslo’s Department of Geosciences and a senior research fellow at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO).

“We used a method that enables us to view the entire earth as one giant ‘laboratory’ where humankind has been conducting a collective experiment through our emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, deforestation, and other activities that affect climate.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/fake_but_accurate_science_113294.html

by Robert Tracinski- February 29, 2012

For years, we've been lectured at by the global warming establishment about how anyone who doubts them is an enemy of science. One of them in particular, a fellow named Peter Gleick who was the chair of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics, kept lecturing us about how much more scientific integrity the warmists have compared to us unscrupulous skeptics.

Well, now we know what the "scientific ethics" of this global warming establishment actually amounts to. It's not just that Gleick has confessed to stealing internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a think tank that supports global warming skepticism, or that he is suspected of forging another document in an attempt to defame Heartland. It's the fact that a whole section of the scientific establishment is defending Gleick on the grounds that it's OK to lie to promote their cause.

By David Rose  13 January 2013

Last year The Mail on Sunday reported a stunning fact: that global warming had ‘paused’ for 16 years. The Met Office’s own monthly figures showed there had been no statistically significant increase in the world’s temperature since 1997.

We were vilified. One Green website in the US said our report was ‘utter bilge’ that had to be ‘exposed and attacked’.

The Met Office issued a press release claiming it was misleading, before quietly admitting a few days later that it was true that the world had not got significantly warmer since 1997 after all. A Guardian columnist wondered how we could be ‘punished’.

But then last week, the rest of the media caught up with our report. On Tuesday, news finally broke of a revised Met Office ‘decadal forecast’, which not only acknowledges the pause, but predicts it will continue at least until 2017. It says world temperatures are likely to stay around 0.43 degrees above the long-term average – as by then they will have done for 20 years.

Scientific Alliance in the UK, by its director Martin Livermore:

14 December 2012

Not surprisingly, perhaps, no big new issues have come to the top of the environmental agenda in the last year. Climate change remains the key issue which has dominated thinking for the 21st Century so far. However, the Copenhagen COP15 summit in 2009 arguably marked the high-water level of momentum on mitigation efforts. After the failure to make any substantive progress on agreeing a post-Kyoto settlement, succeeding conferences in Cancun, Durban and Doha have received fairly low-key coverage in the media and expectations remain low.

Activists have tried for some time to put forward lurid visions of a planet nearing the point of no return and committed to temperature rises of several degrees, bringing catastrophe to both the human race and many of the other species we share the Earth with. They realise that there is only a certain window of opportunity to embed new opinions in people’s minds and generate a groundswell of backing for action to be taken. It takes time to get to that position and, once the momentum begins to fade, it is pretty much impossible to revive it.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012 ... cientists/

Engineers in industry know that their continued employment depends on being brutally honest and accurate. When engineering fails, there is no place to hide.

Scientist’s employment has different challenges. They have to convince politicians that they should receive money for their research. The easiest way to do this is by hypothesizing about future potential disasters. The global warming gravy train has been the most reliable ever, and honesty and accuracy got crushed on the tracks sometime around the year 2000.

The vast majority of “climate change scientists” have no marketable or useful skills. For people in that position, honesty and accuracy are irrelevant. It is all about survival of their pay check, not survival of the planet.