Global Warming To Triple Frequency Of Intellectual Prostitution

ScreenHunter_422 Jun. 11 23.42

The authors of this study have absolutely no clue what future temperatures will be, much less what their effect will be on droughts and floods along the Indian Ocean.


About stevengoddard

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

31 Responses to Global Warming To Triple Frequency Of Intellectual Prostitution

  1. Pathway says:

    But they were paid handsomely to not know.

  2. Truthseeker says:

    Which study? A link would be useful …

  3. Andy Oz says:

    Thankfully, Obama’s birthplace has his financial support to build lots of eagle choppers fully subsidised by a US Government Agency named the US Private Investment Corp (UPIC). This will surely drop the IOD to sub-armaggedon levels. Now that is a bit of a co-incidence…… it not?
    Kenyans thank the US taxpayer!

  4. Robertv says:

    It’s like the bad guys in Afghanistan are the good guys in Syria but again the bad guys in Iraq. Like climate change they can be anything they want.

  5. philjourdan says:

    I think your title is too conservative.

  6. Andy DC says:

    Climate change will also triple the amount of dandruff, tooth decay, bath breath and BO. Not to mention ring around the collar. Now, where is my grant money?

    • Jason Calley says:

      Not only that, but climate change is making my skin wrinkly and giving me little brown spots on the backs of my hands. I started noticing them about a decade ago, not too long after my 50th birthday. They just keep getting worse and worse. I think it must be carbon poisoning.

  7. David D. says:

    Climate change is real to everyone except Republicans. It’s not real because the GOP says it’s not real. The GOP’s fundamental philosophy: money is more important than human lives. I think we’re making a good response. However, the conservatives should calm down, from what I’ve seen and read, it’s too late anyway to stop. What’s done cannot be undone. I think the second best strategy is just to prepare for higher sea levels and the changes they will cause. We should still continue our efforts towards green energy, but in the long run we must prepare for a different planet. Come on Republicans, you can at least deal with that. I’ve given you a semi-respectable way out. Go for it.

    • I am an independent, and there is absolutely no truth in anything you have written above. If this were my blog (which is a science blog, not a political forum), I would not accept such a comment.

      • David D. says:

        Ok. We know the sea level is going to rise. What can you do about? I am a medical doctor with a strong scientific background. If political ideology would stay out of science we would all be better off. I trust science. But the latest data indicate its too late to stop the damage. Best thing is to prepare for it and continue working on a sane energy policy. Just accept this and deal with it.

        • philjourdan says:

          If you trust science, why are you supporting CAGW? It is not science. It is not even an hypothesis yet. It is hysteria for political reasons.

          So you are either lying or ignorant. You pick.

    • _Jim says:

      What a maroon; the actual measurement of temperature by the best means available shows NO WARMING yet these clowns still make these kinds of claims.

      Oh, I forgot. This kind of ‘clown’ is only a cheer leader and not capable of looking at the data and the weighing evidence and making a rational conclusion.

      Nope. To this clown it’s all POLITICS. A Sheep. One of those who ‘follows the crowd’.

      Bah. We can go ANYWHERE and get that kind of ‘weak’, unbased perspective … like SS for instance.


      • David D. says:

        Who’s talking about temperature? The fact is that polar and Antarctic and Greenlands ice is melting at never seen before rates. This has been documented. We can do nothing about it now except have coastal cities prepare. Is this so difficult to grasp? I think the government and millenials will deal with this despite some people’s horror. But your “science” is something so different than my training. You can’t believe this way for long. It’s not safe. I was confused by your allusion to SS. Do mean social security or Schutzstaffeln? I’m asking this on a need to know basis. Choose your reply very carefully.

        • geran says:

          David, you have not examined the science. If you think you have, then you are not thinking.

          Your comments make you a clown. If you really have a medical doctor license, you bought it in Nigeria. You have no knowledge of chemistry, physics, or Earth sciences. You are probably a loner in your parents basement, or a paid hack.

          If I am wrong, then please explain, in 100 words or less, how CO2 can warm the planet.

          Your turn.

        • philjourdan says:

          David, what state do you practice medicine in? I want to avoid it as I want to stay healthy.

          Try this graph.

          And try something else new for you – LEARNING

    • Gail Combs says:

      I am also an independent as well as a chemist. It was BUSH (the Shrub) who saw to it that the SOCIALIST Maurice Strong became chair for Kyoto. (Strong had donated to his campaign)

      Betcha didn’t know that did you?

      Betcha didn’t know:

      The United States signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty on June 121992 UNDER BUSH!

      It was ratified Oct 15, 1992 again UNDER BUSH!

      George Herbert Walker Bush served as the 41st President of the United States from 1989 to 1993.

      • geran says:

        Yeah, “Read-my-lips” Bush was a phony, but when I voted for him I had no real choice. Bush or Fritz–kinda tells you something, huh?

      • David D. says:

        Betcha didn’t know that no one gives a shit. But I do know how nonsensical your scam is. I’m a socialist and I don’t like you.

        • Jason Calley says:

          I bet you are not a socialist with your own money. You may very well agree with taking MY property and redistributing it, but I am quite sure that you don’t do it with YOUR money. Median income for an individual is a little less than $30,000 a year. You say, “I am a medical doctor with a strong scientific background.” I would think that you make more than that each year. How about it? Does your income over $30,000 go to the “less fortunate?” Are you a socialist with your own money, or only with mine?

        • philjourdan says:

          I’m a socialist and I don’t like you.

          😆 Translation – you are an idiot and hypocrite and you cannot stand facts.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yeah Climate Change is real but they elite never bothered to tell the serfs it is going to change to COLD not warm long term.

      You can wade through all the papers quoted here: Glacial Inception: the climatic ‘madhouse’

      It is only about 35 pages. It is mainly excerpts from the most important papers in Paleoclimate science on glacial inception. Given that William handed me his collection of over 300 papers on the subject it really is just a brief survey of the literature.

      As William says in the comments:

      Some appear to have taken the ploy of adopting the opposing point of view for the purposes of discussion to mean that I support AGW. I do not.

      The purpose of doing that was to confront those that do with the logical absurdity of even thinking of removing CO2 from the late Holocene atmosphere if:
      (a) it may already have prevented glacial inception [the early anthropogenic hypothesis of Ruddiman (2003, 2005)]
      (b) if they are right about CO2, removing it might very well precipitate glacial inception.

      The very real possibility of glacial inception at a half-precession old interglacial makes a mockery of the AGW case.

      I do not believe either case. What I do believe is that we are and will be at insolation values close to those where glacial inceptions did occur during at least MIS-11 and MIS-5e. What I felt was important was to communicate, in the authors words, the thinking on this fascinating subject and what they suggest are some of the tell-tale signs. I do not possess the expertise in oceanography or climatology to render judgement on those issues, so I did not. But I felt that they should be put together by someone in one place for the first time.

      This is a subject completely out side the IPCCs mandate of finding evidence of mankind effect on the climate and therefore a subject rarely touched outside of Paleoclimate science circles.

      A fall 2012 paper “Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?”gives the solar insolation and CO2 for termination of several interglacials. Current values are insolation = 479 and CO2 = 400 ppmv

      MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2, CO2 = 256 ppmv
      MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2, CO2 = 259-265 ppmv
      MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2, CO2 = 225 ppmv
      MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2, CO2 = 240 ppmv
      MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2, CO2 = 240 ppmv

      To give you a feel for how close to glaciation we are, you can look at the calculations from NOAA:
      depth of the last ice age – around 463 W m−2
      NOW (modern Warm Period) 476Wm-2

      Are we headed into glaciation? Who the heck knows. However since “…Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes…” ** I would think long and hard about curbing CO2 with its many benefits for the plant kingdom. and crops. Especially since more than one paper indicates high CO2 levels are keeping the earth out of full glaciation and other papers indicate C3 plant CO2 starvation during the Wisconson Ice Age.

      ** Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic (2010)

      Click to access MillerArctic.pdf

    • philjourdan says:

      And how has cheap energy increased the life span of ALL humans, not just the select few like algore and Mikey mann?

      Seems the republicans love ALL people, while alarmists and liberals only like SOME people. They seek to terminate (euthanize) the rest.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    That “…Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes…” is the real killer for CAGW.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the change in forcing for anthropogenic CO2 was 1.5 W/m 2 [cf., Reid, 1997]. So that gives us a ball park number to compare to.

    9% less solar energy translates to ~120 W/m² less solar energy based on 1,361 W/m² (solar min) and 1362 W/m² (solar max) @ ToA.

    Even if you are talking 9% of Trenbreth’s “incoming solar radiation… absolute forcing,… around 340 W m–2 at the top of the atmosphere” the reduction in solar radiation since the Holocene climate Optimum (11,000 years ago ) is 30.6 W m–2, and is close to equivalent to the entire CO2 forcing [32-44 W m–2] with mankind’s contribution being 1.5 W/m 2 for the forcing of anthropogenic CO2 [cf., Reid, 1997].

    Can you see how completely nonsensical the whole scam is once you look at the entire Holocene?

    (I really hate the word ‘Forcing’ since CO2 is only retarding out-going radiation if that.)

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s