The Farce That Was

Recall that Al Gore has predicted global destruction in less than 8 years from now...

OK, let's pick up the narrative at where we left off. In time gone by, not much time actually, the UN IPCC said that positive feedback's were going to swamp the planet and Earth will become a hot house in a mere matter of (you got pick it) years. But then the cooling started, The silliness progresses, but the data lagged behind. In fact the data downright misbehaved and went negative on them. Well what to do is the question of the hour.

How could the computer models that predict the future be so wrong in so short of time. Well, first the sun decided it had had enough of those nasty sunspots and decide that zero was a nice round number for sunspots since about fall 2005. Sure there have been a few, but many would say that the small ones, the Tiny Tims", that there were would not have been counted under instrument conditions that existed during the Maunder Minimum, i.e. the last min-Ice Age.. Then comes the pronouncement from NASA that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation(PDO) has reversed from a warming period to now a cooling period -- It does this naturally on about a 30 year cycle.

The last bit of linguistic jujitsu and nonsensical analysis comes our way in the realist community via this, the scientists are now saying, the whacky-doodle alarmist ones at least, that natural variability will swamp out the man made global warming and result in global cooling. Well Duh, the natural variability? You mean the climate naturally changes? No it impossible, isn't it?

Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.

OK, I say so much for the AGW hypothesis and the future predictions -- If you can't predict the future until it actually happens then what good are the computer models in the first place.

Note I correctly call the predictions of catastrophic global warming computer models, because that is all the hoax is based on. Do you know what GIGO is? It is a term used by engineers, and probably others, to express computer models and their outputs, Garbage In, Garbage Out -- GIGO. Exactly what this hoax is based on. No empirical evidence whatsoever, just fabricated computer models and a whole lot of arm waving. Anybody can cook you up a computer model to prove anything you want. Here is the twisting and turning trying to save the AGW hypothgesis ...

Writing in Nature, the scientists said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [manmade] warming."

The study shows a more pronounced weakening effect than the Met Office's Hadley Centre, which last year predicted that global warming would slow until 2009 and pick up after that, with half the years after 2009 being warmer than the warmest year on record, 1998.

Commenting on the new study, Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre said the model suggested the weakening of the MOC would have a cooling effect around the North Atlantic.

"Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"That emphasises once again the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades."

But he said the use of just sea surface temperatures might not accurately reflect the state of the MOC, which was several miles deep and dependent on factors besides temperatures, such as salt content, which were included in the Met Office Hadley Centre model.

If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain, he added.

Bailout time, the models are not complete, of course everyone knew the most important parts were missing, the results cannot predict anything, hence the UN forbidding the use of predict in future discussions, the models now provide guidance only ... Huh? Time to be honest, if the models could they would? So precipitation and clouds are left out, they are too hard to model, and now precipitation is thrown over the transom, because it's not modelled. Does anyone know what happens during a rainstorm -- Yes you in the back "it gets cold" -- Yes you are right.

The whole house of cards is not going to remain standing much longer. There are enough scientists to take down the hoax, like with DDT before, it will fail the smell test shortly.

Read the rest here.

BTW: The time is quickly arriving where reputations will be irreparably damaged by supporting the hoax. Think about it, mke sure you are on the right side, the data is piling up that it's a hoax.

For some real laughs, the piece's author leaps into action, spinning and twisting while jumping, you got to read this article, global warming causes global cooling. They really are concerned that people might see through the hoax and then the backlash against the tax tax tax to say you can control the weather might really kick in. They really are trying to protect their hoax industry and alGore's carbon credit scam.

-----

As a footnote: The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is that a hypothesis is UNPROVEN, it's a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. The empirical data taken and testing that has been done to date, has all come back negative. Whereas a theory is a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. Don't allow people to confuse the two in order to win the upper hand in a debate with you. Words mean things.