Climate Deniers In Their Third Decade Of Destroying The Planet

20 Jan 1992

Greenhouse cynics gambling with future’ .

One of the CSIRO’s top scientists says doubters of the greenhouse effect are gam bling with the future of the world.

Dr Graeme Pearmao, coordinator of the CSIRO’s climate change research program, said yesterday there was little doubt global warming was a reality according to all the best scientific models.

He was supported by the latest international estimates issued by the Minister for the Environment, Ros Kelly, which showed the earth was heating up at the rate of 0.3 degrees a decade, enough to cause major disruptions to the climate.

The estimates, made by an international group of scientists backed by the United Nations, were issued for a conference in

Canberra which will examine the impact of agriculture and forestry on global warning.

A small number of sceptics in the scientific community have cast doubt on the greenhouse effect, claiming it is an unproved theory on which it would be unwise for governments to base public policy.

20 Jan 1992 – ‘Greenhouse cynics gambling with future’

The January-July RSS temperature in 2013 was only 0.08C warmer than the same period in 1991. According to CSIRO, it should have been 0.6C warmer.  They exaggerated their warming forecasts by almost an order of magnitude.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Climate Deniers In Their Third Decade Of Destroying The Planet

  1. gator69 says:

    The good doctor has since moved on to ‘con-sulting’, and insulting our intelligence further. Instead of admitting he was wrong twenty years ago, he has doubled down on his fraud, claiming there is a less than 5% chance that warming was due to natural variability.

  2. Andy Oz says:

    150 climatologists in the Bureau of Meteorology are still trying to justify their jobs.
    They should get their CV’s ready.

  3. scizzorbill says:

    “according to the best scientific models” the models all include a value for re radiation of heat back to the ground by atmospheric CO2 which has never been observed let alone measured. using this fake value of re radiation, the models will always show increasing heat as CO2 rises. the models are worthless.

    the propagandist also says “there is little doubt” that means there is doubt, and way more than he admits to.

    • miked1947 says:

      BUT! BUT! They observed the re-radiation in the “Chicken Bones ” after the scattered them to read the signs. As verification they swirled the tea residue in the bottom of the cup and found agreement with the Chicken Bones. Those results they used as input for their latest Super Sciency virtual global climate models.

    • shazaam says:

      Er, you missed a step.

      A true climate scientist would “re-arrange” those chicken bones to match the tea leaves before declaring a consensus!!

      • SilverBear says:

        LOL!

      • gator69 says:

        “Re-arrange” is sooooo unscientific, the proper terminology would either be “extrapolate”, or “homogenize” said chicken bones.

        • leftinbrooklyn says:

          And they’re only guessing if the bones are even from a chicken.

        • shazaam says:

          Sorry about that. I do tend to put things in plain English. And putting things in plain English is something a true climatologist would never do. Thus my “re-arrange” the bones must become “homogenize” dem bones.

          (OK the “dem bones” part was another slip, but I liked it…)

    • SilverBear says:

      Good point. After all, the basic purpose of this whole Climate Change industry is to gain political and economic control over all “carbon.” The lynchpin in their train of errors is the notion that carbon dioxide “reflects” IR like a giant Pane of Greenhouse Glass in the sky. Until they can demonstrate that effect –at all– and then make a working model of how 4 ppm of such a trace gas can act as a reflective solid barrier, the use of the terms “greenhouse effect” and greenhouse gas” tells me that the writer/speaker is a religious fanatic, not a scientist.

  4. darrylb says:

    At present, the best conclusion is that any CO2 increases may cause an increasingly small amount of warming. As a certain women said ‘What difference does it make?’ The best course of action regarding CO2 is in fact no course of action.
    For the most part we are using solar energy which has been stored over a long period of time.
    or current solar energy. The stored energy is finite. It may be that my unborn great grandchildren will have lived their lives when fossil fuels become scarce, but someday they will become scarce and as that time approaches we either will have acquiesced to the fact that our main energy source will be nuclear or we will not have life as we know it.

  5. Andy DC says:

    They are exaggerating a tiny trend in order to create a “crisis” that does not exist. Usually humans are pretty good at solving problems when the problems become real.

  6. Traitor In Chief says:

    This article got me so excited, I think I’ll go outside and light a fire under a helpless steak.

  7. stewart pid says:

    OT but … Steven will like this one … first Canuck snowfall warning of the season just north of the waders I think!!
    http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/its-official-the-weekend-saw-the-first-snowfall-warning-of-the-season/11312/

  8. Kaboom says:

    Climate alarmists are committing crimes against humanity by redirecting funds better used to provide clean water, basic health care and improving farming in third world countries into harebrained schemes to avert an imaginary future disaster. They should all spend the remainder of their natural lives plowing fields in Eritrea.

  9. Bob Campbell says:

    Then is the faulty OCR rendering –
    “He was supported by the latest international estimates issued by the Minister for the Environment, Ros Kelly, which showed the earth was beating up at the rate of 0.3 degrees a decade, enough to cause major disruptions to the climate.”
    “The group noted that sulphur emissions in the northern hemisphere had a cooling effect and could be expected to partially offset global wanning over the next few decades.”
    Very true, very true.

    • Must have been a sudden jump in sulfur after 1998. Every that or a sudden jump in scientific dishonesty.

      On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Real Science

    • Streetcred says:

      This was the same Ros “Whiteboard” Kelly that doled out grants to her favourite supporters when she was the Minister of Sport & Recreation, recording the process on a whiteboard, only to have it erased so that there was no longer evidence for examination of her corruption.

  10. Bob Campbell says:

    In Australia ‘a beat-up’ is newspaper story concocted out of trivia/nothing.

  11. Chewer says:

    I the alarmists back off from their fear mongering junk science statements now, the repercussions from the public would be beyond belief, and they of course know it.
    They are prolonging the backlash as long as possible, because after all their livelihoods depend on it…

  12. @njsnowfan says:

    Arctic Rowers are in for Snow storm after Snow Storm and cold weather. Click on Loop all.
    http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/model-guidance-model-parameter.php?group=Model Guidance&model=gfs&area=namer&cycle=20130819%2018%20UTC&param=850_temp_mslp_precip&fourpan=no&imageSize=M

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s