Graeme on greenhouse

OK.

Now the thing is I’m right about global warming and you guys are wrong.

Before we can sort out the best policy implications we have to get the science right.

We have three very good summary reports on where the science is now. Or at least at where the science WAS at the time each report was compiled.

These summary reports are what you get from going to the various specialists in their fields….. Not going to them and asking them their opinion on world-wide taxation. Or on renewables or any of that JIVE!!!!

But instead going to the various specialties and finding out the concrete facts of the situation. In this regard one ought pay scant attention to whether the specialist himself is for or against a carbon tax. One ought not consult these guys expect to clarify the state of things within their narrow specialities.

The three excellent reports, relevant to this subject:

There is the one by wonderful, brilliant scientist and libertarian, Art Robinson (et al)….. which is attached to the Oregon petition.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Then there is the new one by that fellow Monkton.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=LKPUPM2TWL1M5QFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0

And also there is this one by David C Archibald.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf

Now this last one by David Archibals is very interesting. Because as far as I can make out he was just finding out the implications of what was a very strong consensus within the solar science specialists………

He was merely following through the implications of the consensus forecast to do with SOLAR CYCLES 24 AND 25.

Now its not David C Archibald who did the original research regarding solar cycles 24 and 25. He merely worked through the implications.

If Solar cycle 24 was to be a very strong cycle. And solar cycle 25 was to be a weak cycle it would be quite difficult to make a good prediction of how that would pan out in the climate, particularly with all this CO2 around- A new circimstance in recorded history.

But what Archibald found was just amazing. Because since the solar people were claiming TWO VERY WEAK CYCLES IN A ROW he was justified, and in fact the only conclusion he could come to, was that WE, were entering a very strong cooling phase.

A strong cooling phase wherein the average global temperature was going to drop by around 1.5 degrees (being conservative).

Now I ask you? Did you hear that from these tendentious bastards at real-climate? Do you think that THESE assumptions were part of the modelling at the U(nited) N(azis)?

Do you suppose that this idiot, Lambert at the ultimate anti-science-commie-site Deltoid were going to inform us about this?

Did Quiggin factor this former solar consensus into his thinking and report this to us at his own hateful blog?

The state of the science community is so very very bad that this revelation came as a scoop to Archibald. Yet his striking conclusion was pretty inescapable.

But now it seems a new prediction is out. And instead of cycles 24 and 25 being both weak solar cycles, it appears that solar cycle 24 is going to be a really big bastard. And that cycle 25 is going to be the weakest in centuries.

I suspect that it will be too difficult to draw any strong conclusions as to how things will pan out with the new forecast. And I do not yet know if this is the consensus forecast. And on top of that I cannot find anyone willing to take a punt on cycle 26.

But this is not the important thing to note here. The important thing to note is these cranks and charlatans at Quiggins site, and at the UN-division for:

scientist junkets, and bad-scientist power-seekers, and global taxation……

The important thing to note is that these cranks at the UN and at Deltoid and in the alarmist community more generally didn’t appear to be the least bit fucking interested as to what the Sun-Studiers had to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Alright everybody.

Now the thing is you guys are not going to be able to come up with evidence for catastrophic global warming. What you will find instead is an inbuilt planetary bias to catastrophic cooling which has been around for 39 million years and which has, if anything, grown steadily worse over that time.

The important thing, when you look in the evidence closet and find it to be bare…. is not to run away…. not to get distracted…. but instead to admit that I’m right and you are wrong.

And from there, and only from there, can we begin to sort out rational policy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: