Obama’s Global Warming Plan Turns The Corner

After a couple of years of non-stop global warming scare stories and massively faked temperature data – the next phase of the plan has begun.

President Obama is planning to take credit for saving the planet, which simply requires making a fake deal in Paris, funding good news climate research instead of bad news climate research, and telling Gavin and Tom to start reversing their cheating with the climate data.

The first evidence of this appeared a few days ago, when Mikey Mann changed his BS from bad news to good news. He started pimping the patently false idea that CO2 emissions were declining due to the good work of President Obama. This has had immediate benefits, suckering clueless journalists like Frank McDonald at The Irish Times

ScreenHunter_8030 Mar. 20 07.53

Similarly, the New York Times just ran a big story about “The Hopeful Al Gore”

The switch from negativity to positivism is an essential part of the plan. Look for more of this as we head to Paris.

We didn’t listen to the climate deniers, did the right thing and saved the planet. All hail Emperor Obama and patron saint Al Gore.

But where does this leave the climate scientists who have been milking the scam? We can be quite certain that Hayhoe, Mann, Hansen et al have been quite well compensated for their efforts. They will be awarded medals of Freedom by the President.

Bookmark this post.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

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

15 Responses to Obama’s Global Warming Plan Turns The Corner

  1. R Shearer says:

    And still atmospheric CO2 will rise annually.

  2. Simon Platt says:

    Surely you’re wrong here, Steve? If the Mauna Loa data are typical, the rate of CO2 increase is itself increasing (roughly) linearly, and the increase in concentration must be superlinear.

    I seem to remember reading a blog post about that recently – something to do with sea level.

  3. Yet models and reality will still diverge.

  4. Tel says:

    This was the original plan for the 2009 Copenhagen Summit, which would have dovetailed nicely into the cyclic cooling if it wasn’t for those meddling kids… I mean, if not for the emails being released and various world leaders dropping out in a very public way. Now they figure they have nothing left to lose, so they will adjust history to set things back on the rails again.

    Anyhow, seems to me that your graph of growth rate is pretty close to growing linearly (left hand side looks significantly lower than right hand side). Atmospheric CO2 growth would then be parabolic… gonna be difficult hide that. There were zero years where the CO2 measurement has actually been falling, so if that clown is correct and emissions are falling (unlikely) it would suggest that atmospheric CO2 is not tightly coupled with emissions. As I’ve pointed out earlier, we don’t see any years where atmospheric CO2 measurement went backwards during the 1970’s oil crisis either (oil prices went through the roof), and that has to make you wonder.

  5. gator69 says:

    Well, there are millions of Americans who now sit at home instead of commuting to work daily.

  6. emsnews says:

    As the climate cools, CO2 drops.

    The claims that the last two years are the ‘warmest years EVAH’ is a lie and so when cold eats up CO2, they can claim this is happening while it is hottest ever so it is still CO2 running things instead of the other way around.

    CO2 has, like the temperatures, leveled off and will soon begin dropping again as Ice Age conditions spread from Antarctica and Canada more and more and winters grow longer and ice takes longer to melt just like in previous down cycles.

  7. Dave says:

    The Republicans should cut Gavin’s budget.

  8. Tony B says:

    I suspect it’s more to do with the inability of NOAA to keep up with the “Hottest year evaaaah!” adjustment scam in the face of what might be the start of a descending temperature trend.

    • Gail Combs says:

      At Mauna Loa we use the following data selection criteria:

      3. There is often a diurnal wind flow pattern on Mauna Loa ….. The upslope air may have CO2 that has been lowered by plants removing CO2 through photosynthesis at lower elevations on the island,…. Hours that are likely affected by local photosynthesis are indicated by a “U” flag in the hourly data file, and by the blue color in Figure 2. The selection to minimize this potential non-background bias takes place as part of step 4. At night the flow is often downslope, bringing background air. However, that air is sometimes contaminated by CO2 emissions from the crater of Mauna Loa. As the air meanders down the slope that situation is characterized by high variability of the CO2 mole fraction…..

      4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur…..
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

      The assumption is made that there is NO VARIABILITY and the data is adjusted to reflect that.

      Second WHY are the results from various sites so in close to each other:
      In the paper by Tom Quirk “ Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide” The isotopic balance in the atmosphere is far more complex and there are many more variables than most think. Consider 94% of all anthropogenic CO2 is released into the northern hemisphere. Next the CO2 is not as well mixed as the IPCC state. From the nuclear tests in the 60’s the mixing north to south is very slow, like several years ( another rhetorical question) so why is the average northern hemisphere CO2 not higher than the south?
      As Dr. J. A. Glassman so aptly put it in one of his replies,

      “So why are the graphs so unscientifically pat? One reason is provided by the IPCC:
      The longitudinal variations in CO2 concentration reflecting net surface sources and sinks are on annual average typically calibration procedures within and between monitoring networks (Keeling et al., 1989; Conway et al., 1994). Bold added, TAR, p. 211.
      So what the Consensus has done is to “calibrate” the various records into agreement. And there can be no other meaning for “calibration procedures … between monitoring networks”. It accounts for coincidence in simultaneous records and it accounts for continuity between adjacent records. The most interesting information in this procedure would be the exact amount of calibration necessary to achieve the objective of nearly flawless measuring with the modern record dominating. The IPCC’s method is unacceptable in science. It is akin to the IPCC practice of making “flux adjustments” to make its various models agree. See TAR for 87 references to “flux adjustment”, and see 4AR for its excuse, condemnation, and abandonment. 4AR p. 117.
      http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8

      In other words there is agreement between sites because they were ADJUSTED just like the temperature records.

  9. Brian H says:

    Watch out for overshoot. Obama will cool us into the ending of the interglacial.

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