Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » But the cold dead are many

But the cold dead are many

As Europe freezes with its most severe winter in decades you can’t be surprised that the global warming millinerain panic merchants may well be scrambling to explain just how these events can be fitted into their climate narrative:

click for source

Are they really making any ground on the “warming bad” and “cooling good” argument?

Hmm I don’t think that the freezing and  homeless poor would agree at all.

Cheers Comrades

Oh and check out what James Dellingpole has to say the Warministas  it here

Advertisements

36 Comments

  1. Simplexion says:

    It seems you have a firm understanding of climate science like Andrew Bolt. It is fine to deny the anthropogenic side of it but this argument about a cold snap is ignorant of science.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Hi Simplexion
    Firstly welcome to The Sandpit
    Read what else I have written on the subject rather than just this wry observation and you may reassess your opinion, but I rather expect that for you its a religious matter couched in the vestments of science as it is for most of those who “believe” in AGW.
    Happy to be proved wrong BTW so please feel welcome to try
    😉

  3. Craigy says:

    Um…Iain, from this IPCC document….

    UK and Western Europe “Increased coastal erosion and flooding….greater winter storm risk and vulnerability to transport of winds”.

    And in Central Europe – “Increased frequency and magnitude of winter floods…”

    http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/van_ypersele.pdf

    You really should read a bit before parroting your Guru – Mr. Bolt every time he types something.

    This document explains well the unknown and the probabilities of the predictions based on the unknown. It is VERY clear, no faith required.

    So far the observations seem well within the variabilities that are openly stated by climate scientists like this fellow.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy
    Your link does not work

    and your argument seems like gibberish:

    This document explains well the unknown and the probabilities of the predictions based on the unknown. It is VERY clear, no faith required.

    So how is that different to religious faith?
    Photobucket

  5. Craigy says:

    Iain, the link is fine….it is a large pdf, so on your connection it may be slow. It explains my comment about probabilities, based on the amount of data available for the various predictions.
    Comprehend that old friend or do I need to spell it out for you?

    The predictions fit the current weather being felt in Europe, so your attempt at an attack on the science, based on Bolts typing this week, shows your devotion to the wingnut Guru.

    Anyway….grass fire just up the road….wind very strong….got to go….

  6. Simon says:

    Global Warming is so last Century. It’s Climate Change now.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Simon
    how long have we been subject to global warming/climate change dire predictions?
    and just how close have they been to what we have seen in say the last thirty years?

  8. GD says:

    Craigy, having perused the 50 pages of your pdf, which is a 2008 third party document, not an IPCC document, I can’t find any proof for your claim that:

    The predictions fit the current weather being felt in Europe

    Really, Craigy, you are grasping at straws. Europe is in the grip of the worst freeze in living memory, and yet you continue with the nonsense that this is caused by man’s CO2 emissions. Do you not recognise that inane, and insane, green policies enacted in Europe have driven up energy prices at the very time that people, old people, impoverished people, are dying because they can’t pay for heating?

    At a time in history when the human race is able to ensure that the most people possible benefit from technology, along comes the loony green movement intent on trashing everything mankind has achieved in the last hundred years.

    Craigy, it’s a disgrace that you should even attempt to find a document that agrees with your twisted ideology, while people are freezing in Europe.

  9. Craigy says:

    Thanks for reading that GD, I hope you learned something, but I doubt it. Those wingnuts who follow Guru Bolt are so blinkered as to lose all comprehension and reading skills when his silly arguments are demolished by science found with a simple search. You are a good example and so is Iain.

    Anyway I’m interested in Iain’s views not yours. Unlike JM, I don’t want to have to take a shower every time I argue with you. So if you don’t mind, I would rather not argue with your type. I’m sure this won’t shut you up though, just don’t expect a response….Thanks.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    I’m off to do the shopping but I’ll try again later to down load your PDF Craigy then I’ll get back to you OK?
    Cheers
    Iain

  11. Iain Hall says:

    OK Craigy

    I managed to get the PDF to download but I don’t see anything new there just the same old Warminista what ifs and maybes, nonsense about the melting of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland which is just wild speculation. Sure it has lots of pretty pictures and graphs but its hardly that “scientific” any more than someone like Phillip K Dick was terribly scientific, he wrote great yarns that look scientific but more often than not the science was just a tool to tell a good fantasy story.
    Photobucket

  12. Craigy says:

    Okay Iain I know you deny the science, so we won’t debate that.

    But you are aware that the IPCC has been suggesting that it is very likely that climate change would intensify and increase the number of winter storms in Europe?

    You do realise that Bolt is lying when he claims the terrible storms in Europe prove the IPCC has it wrong…. And you have followed him blindly as usual?

    In fact the storms in Europe are exactly what has been predicted and the temperature rise this decade is also just about spot on when compared to the models you don’t trust.

    So deny away, as I have said many times, you are not a scientist and have enormous ‘faith’ in Andrew Bolt. I’ll stick with the scientists who work in this area, so if I have any ‘faith’ at all it is in their hard work.

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy
    The weather in Europe has not been “winter storms” its been a very much colder winter

    I’ll stick with the scientists who work in this area, so if I have any ‘faith’ at all it is in their hard work.

    That is essentially the problem with this branch of science Craigy, there are huge gaps in what is truly known about climate and those on the AGW bandwagon fill those gaps with their own articles of faith.

    In any case it has yet to be established that “climate change” will in fact be a bad thing even if the warming is as predicted which was somewhat my point with this post.

  14. Craigy says:

    What do you think more frequent more severe storms in Europe means Iain? It means more snow, rain, wind and colder temps, as predicted by the IPCC scientists…….

    If you look at the global temps, the colder weather over winter in Europe hasn’t stopped the long term rising trend, even with a ‘La Nina’. I don’t look forward to the next ‘El Niño’ in Australia which is likely to be another bad drought as extremes get more common as predicted.

    “there are huge gaps in what is truly known about climate

    Yes and the document I linked to, along with the IPCC report and all the other science based reports I have seen state that clearly, they also give you a likelihood of each predicted outcome.

    As I said, you need to read more than Bolt….Start with the science. You only think there are significant gaps because your Guru said so. And he is wrong most of the time as we know.

    I’m not making this up, there is no way you know enough about the science to understand the gaps in it, you are just repeating unqualified denialist rubbish on faith and you know it.

    And the models (that scientists use and denialists hate) are getting the rising temps right, this must hurt……

  15. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy

    What do you think more frequent more severe storms in Europe means Iain? It means more snow, rain, wind and colder temps, as predicted by the IPCC scientists…….

    strangely enough Craigy I don’t see the report saying that there are “storms” at all frankly I think that you need a certain level of wildness that seems entirely absent in the reports.

    If you look at the global temps, the colder weather over winter in Europe hasn’t stopped the long term rising trend, even with a ‘La Nina’. I don’t look forward to the next ‘El Niño’ in Australia which is likely to be another bad drought as extremes get more common as predicted.

    Hmm I think that we are into the wet weather for a while yet Craigy, something that Flannery et al were saying would not happen again.

    there are huge gaps in what is truly known about climate

    Yes and the document I linked to, along with the IPCC report and all the other science based reports I have seen state that clearly, they also give you a likelihood of each predicted outcome.

    That is just guess work based upon speculation and like all predictions not that reliable

    As I said, you need to read more than Bolt… Start with the science. You only think there are significant gaps because your Guru said so. And he is wrong most of the time as we know.

    No Craigy my thinking there are significant gaps is simply because there are significant gaps, especially when it comes to “paleoclimatology” and the reconstruction of past climates.

    I’m not making this up, there is no way you know enough about the science to understand the gaps in it, you are just repeating unqualified denialist rubbish on faith and you know it.

    Craigy You don’t have to read much science to know how much is not known about the hugely chaotic and complex climate system.

    And the models (that scientists use and denialists hate) are getting the rising temps right, this must hurt……

    I don’t hate models Craigy its just as a predictive tool they are very seriously dependent upon the underlying assumptions used in their creation:
    Shit in = shit out is no myth mate

  16. damage says:

    “………..there is no way you know enough about the science to understand the gaps in it……….”

    But Craig there is also no way you know enough about the science to excuse the gaps in it either. Yet you do?

  17. GD says:

    Damage, of course he does…he listens to ‘the scientists’ 🙂
    and as Joolia told us, the science is settled 😦

  18. Craigy says:

    “Temperatures in parts of the UK have plummeted to the coldest on record for November.

    The Met Office has issued severe weather warnings for heavy snow for eastern Scotland, and north east England, down to Yorkshire and Humber.”…….

    “There is at least two feet of snow now. We tried to go out earlier in the car and we got stuck. We couldn’t make it out of the car park and our neighbours had to help us get back in. We brushed the snow away but within 15 minutes the wind has blown it back again. The snow keeps coming in, in big waves. it is biting cold out there.

    This morning there was a blizzard, with thunder and lightening. The nearby A9 motorway is blocked and I haven’t seen any cars drive past our house, just a few people walking.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11856790

    Willfully blind Iain?

    The best science has to offer or the opinions of Andrew Bolt?? What a hard choice.

  19. damage says:

    So Craig why do you excuse the gaps you yourself admit exist in the science?

  20. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy

    Willfully blind Iain?

    The best science has to offer or the opinions of Andrew Bolt?? What a hard choice.

    The question still remains as to the virtue or vice of any “Warming” if indeed it is actaully happening, Oh yeah and do you really believe that “climate scientists” are really such paragons of virtue after the climategate scandal? Really truly?

  21. craigy says:

    climategate? LOL…..yes that really discredited all climate scientists and their research….not.

    Anyway, I’ve said my bit, I’ll leave you and the winged monkeys to it.

  22. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy

    Climategate may not have “discredited all climate scientists and their research” but it certainly did show the world that they are no different to any other powerful clique and that they are both driven by their ideology and that their feet are made of clay.
    Face it you and the other Warministas are fighting a losing battle with a now very cynical public who don’t believe the scares or that the mooted “solutions” will do anything beneficial now or into the future.

  23. damage says:

    Yes. Ignore the question then run like hell.
    Craigy’s back.

  24. GD says:

    spot on, damage!

  25. Luzu says:

    The most common misconception that people have about scientists is that they are neutral and free from bias, bravely following the facts wherever they lead.

    Newsflash: Scientists are as biased as any other human being, their intelligence notwithstanding. Add in the lure of grant/government/Big Green money and we may have a problem.

    The downside of all the AGW hysteria is that people are cooling towards environmentalism as a whole, a very sad development. The environment needs to be protected and preserved as well as used for the benefit of people. Sadly, the enviro-Nazis that currently infect the body politic are not the people to be trusted with such an important task.

  26. Craigy says:

    “Nevertheless, we still have to reduce CO2 emissions through worldwide emissions trading. And there are also other reasons to burn fewer fossil fuels. We don’t have that much coal, oil and gas left in the world, so we have to economize more. We also have to become less dependent on imports from totalitarian countries.”

    Good to see you agree with this Luzu, nice work.

    Just a question for you though. Do you think the TFI through the NGGIP will have the resources to get the data right? And will options presented by WGIII be politically acceptable to yourself and others?………You do know what I’m talking about, don’t you?

    And check this out

    It proves beyond any doubt the point made by Vahrenholt in that interview…..so thanks again!

  27. Luzu says:

    I don’t think anybody except the most perverse person alive thinks we can continue to burn fossil fuels at our current rate. But can you not see his reasoning? It is not: Humans are heating the world to hell through their CO2 Emmissions. It is: There are reasons to diminish reliance on fossil fuels because of scarcity and the nature of the countries who monopolise the market. Big difference, I would have thought (and I am in agreement with him).

    What do you make of his thoughts on the IPCC? Clearly they are not the impartial body that we have been lead to believe they are and yet, here you are, spouting their propaganda for them in the form of a link. I will not, on principle, read anything that the IPCC puts out. You may need to re-read my comments (and those of Vahrenholt) when it comes to the impartiality of scientists and the IPCC.

    And thanks, Craigy, for the above question. It did make me look more closely at the various acronyms. But, unfortunately for you, most of them lead right back to, you guessed it, the IPCC, surely by now, an institution that is largely discredited.

    May I quote?

    Vahrenholt: All I’m saying is that CO2 is a climate gas, but that its effect is only half as strong as the IPCC claims.

    Vahrenholt: It’s not like that. However, I am critical of the role played by the handful of lead authors who take on the final editing of the report. They claim that they are using 18,000 publications evaluated by their peers. But 5,000 of them are so-called gray literature, which are not peer-reviewed sources. These mistakes come out in the end, just like the absurd claim that there will no longer be any glaciers in the Himalayas in 30 years. Such exaggerations don’t surprise me. Of the 34 supposedly independent members who write the synthesis report for politicians, almost a third are associated with environmental organizations like Greenpeace or the WWF. Strange, isn’t it?

    Vahrenholt: The fear mongers are still shaping the political debate. According to the German Advisory Council on Global Change, environmentally minded countries should forcibly bring about reduced consumption for the sake of protecting the climate. This takes us in the direction of an environmental dictatorship.

    Let me guess, Craigy. Now you’ll say that Vahrenholt has no expertise, is not a climate scientist and therefore shouldn’t voice an opinion?

  28. damage says:

    IPCC on climate = KKK on race relations.
    I would avoid quoting either Craigy.

  29. GD says:

    I particularly like these quotes from Fritz Vahrenholt.

    “I couldn’t take it any more. I had to write this book.”

    [Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy.]

    “I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy.”

    “I want new scientific findings to be included in the climate debate. It would then become clear that the simple equation that CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases are almost exclusively responsible for climate change is unsustainable. It hasn’t gotten any warmer on this planet in almost 14 years, despite continued increases in CO2 emissions. Established climate science has to come up with an answer to that.”

  30. damage says:

    Craigy is now climbing a hymalayan peak from wich to throw himself into a melted glacier.

  31. GD says:

    Perhaps Craigy is praying to Gaia to keep his faith in AGW strong, despite the evidence..

  32. GD says:

    Here’s a good one for the warmist converts or their kids, seeing as how their kids are being indoctrinated at school…

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: