Even the NY Times reckons ‘manbearpig’ is bullshit

The argument is essentially over…the BBC caved, many other media outlets are facing reality, even the railroad engineer at the IPCC has given up.

Global Warming hasn’t happened for 17-18 years. Even the warming that did occur was negligible.

Now one of the last bastions of warmist propaganda outfits, the NY times has finally thrown in the towel. But they can’t quite get there to admitting it has stopped, referring instead to a “slowdown”.

As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming.

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean. 

They try a valiant last ditch attempt at the defence of global warming, by attacking the messenger, when even NASA has concluded that they got it wrong, there isn’t any warming and in fact CO2 is a coolant not the other way round.

As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.

Somebody who wanted to sell you gold coins as an investment could make the same kind of argument about the futility of putting your retirement funds into the stock market. If he picked the start date and the end date carefully enough, the gold salesman could make it look like the stock market did not go up for a decade or longer.

But that does not really tell you what your retirement money is going to do in the market over 30 or 40 years. It does not even tell you how you would have done over the cherry-picked decade, which would have depended on exactly when you got in and out of the market.

Hahaha, they are too funny..what about carbon salesmen wanting us to invest in carbon bonds?, carbon credits? and futures?…scam artists. What about all their “green schemes”…ask investors in electric car companies how that is going for them.

What to make of it all?

We certainly cannot conclude, as some people want to, that carbon dioxide is not actually a greenhouse gas. More than a century of research thoroughly disproves that claim.

Uhmmm…some of those people are NASA you munters.

I can;t wait for the day when all these liars and charlatans are lined up and made to apologise tot eh world, then indicted for fraud.

  • Andy

    At least Tim “trougher” Yeo has been outed for his dubious dealings out of the Big Green Scam in the UK, but there are still a hell of a lot more of them out there.

    Even if the science gets shown as bunk, there are still feeding off it all and will be for years.

  • johnbronkhorst

    Bull shit is always found out. You don’t have to step in it to know it’s bull shit!

  • Harry B’Stard

    lets sink some carbon in to the lying cheating scumbags

    • coventry

      carbon slugs – who needs 3d printed ammo

  • Lion_ess

    When will the NZ Government man-up to this scam and remove the ETS? It won’t be too soon if I never hear of green-house gases again. Anyone remember the dreaded Ozone hole and evil cfc’s? Another day, more bullshit, and no doubt there will be some new bullshit to take its place.

    • Andy

      The Greens were pushing for 40% reduction in emissions by 2020 (I think) leading up to 90%. This was from their one day climate conference last week.

      There can be no doubt that these kind of reductions would lead us back to the era of the donkey cart, but the scary thing is that the NZ Greens are basing this on the UK model, where very real damage is being done right now

    • dyannt

      But weren’t the forest planters of the ’90′s promised hugh profits because they’d get green Brownie points. Does anyone know who the major forest planters are that the govt. is having to kowtow to?

  • Bunswalla

    “The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.” – no shit, Sherlock.

  • Magoo

    The article says the following:

    ‘Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.’

    This is complete bullshit. Only 2 temperature records show the 1997/98 El Nino as the start point of no warming, all other records show a stasis warming starting prior to these dates. According to skepticalscience.conjob, all the temperature datasets show a lack of warming for between 15-23 yrs – both satellite and surface based records. Don’t forget to set the ‘autocorrel’ dates as well under ‘show advanced options’.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    ‘Data sources: GISTEMP, NOAA, HADCRUT, RSS, UAH, BEST.’

    No warming trend greater than the +/- error margins from the following dates:

    GISTEMP 1994 – No warming in 19 yrs
    NOAA (Land/Sea) 1994 – No warming in 19 yrs
    HADCRUT3 1993 – No warming in 20 yrs
    HADCRUT4 1994 – No warming in 19 yrs
    BEST 1998 – No warming in 15 yrs
    NOAA (Land) 1997 – No warming in 16 yrs
    RSS 1990 – No warming in 23 yrs
    UAH 1994 – No warming in 19 yrs

  • AXjarv

    The climate “rockstar” Bill McKibben in the horrids article this morning claiming simple maths holds the key to climate threat obviously hasn’t read the latest reports. I assume he swam here so as not to add to the carbon problem that isn’t

  • Goldstein

    I read a report recently that points the finger at CFCs. “Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide, study says” https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says

  • flashman

    It’s well known in academic circles that when senior academics have built their reputations on particular ideas they’re published on, they tend to fight anyone who comes along and disproves it. Often you have to wait until they’re publishing-inactive (that is, dead) before the new theory can gain some traction. So the upshot is, the global warming proponents will be defending this to the last and searching around for data that support their previous statements, because they don’t want to be wrong. It shouldn’t be that way, but that’s how it is.

57%