TheBryster opened this issue on Nov 26, 2009 · 49 posts
PJF posted Mon, 30 November 2009 at 5:44 PM
"odd how these documents came out JUST before a major climate change conference"
Interesting that your cynicism isn’t applied the other way – to the deluge of climate alarmist stories breaking in the run-up to Copenhagen. You soak up that barrage without question, yet the one story that pulls out the rug you regard with grave suspicion.
"These emails have not been verified as genuine."
Other than an out and out formal admission by University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU), they have been so verified. Many people directly involved in the email exchanges have come forward to offer verification, and not one single example of falsehood, not from the emails nor the code nor the data, has been claimed by CRU after more than a week.
"Yes the Artic IS warming or the ice pack wouldn't have mellted os much last year."
Arctic sea ice melted less last year than the year before, and it melted less this year than last year:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
2007 was an extreme anomaly and the ice extent is now back within the decadal norm. The following page gives some interesting context to arctic sea ice conditions:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/#more-7368
Indeed, the arctic has been taking an awfully long time to conform to scientific predictions of meltage, as this archive snippet from 1934 shows:
"If the climate change sby 2 degrees C or more in a century, be it by man made or any other cause, the death toll will probably be in the billions, fyi."
This is likely true. The historical record shows that low temperatures are disastrous for humanity, with millions dying from famine, pestilence and war, with whole cultures collapsing. Let’s hope that those predicting global cooling are wrong.
"This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office."
** **
And from which outfit does the UK Met Office derive much of its information? Look up HadCRU if you’re curious. You need to know just how deep the Met Office is into chanting the AGW mantra before you go quoting them as evidence. The Met Office is part of the UK Ministry of Defence – it’s a government body trotting out the establishment political line (just like the BBC).
From the leaked emails of CRU, we have the private, behind the scenes opinion of one of the IPCC lead authors, Kevin Trenberth :
“… where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
The truth is these muppets took La Nina and El Nino into account when they made their IPCC predictions of sustained warming, but the predictions were falsified by observation. Their (peer reviewed!) theories and models are all wrong, and they haven’t got a clue what drives climate.
The icebergs off of New Zealand today broke away from the Ross ice shelf back in 2000, and that calving wasn’t related to “global warming”. You have to go all the way back to 1931 for a previous example. This should tell you that icebergs off of New Zealand are nothing new and predate significant fossil fuel derived CO2.