Dont you just hate it when someone doesnt break down a box before throwing it in the recycle box? Drives me nuts. Just take 2 seconds and break it down
- the_cause2000

this actually does drive me crazy.

James Taylor
- the_cause2000

Sweet baby James.

Dont you just hate it when someone doesnt break down a box before throwing it in the recycle box? Drives me nuts. Just take 2 seconds and break it down
- the_cause2000

I throw them in that way.

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

--- June 24, 1974 quote from Time Magazine in an article entitled Another Ice Age?.


"If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish."

--- Quote from Prof. Phil Jones, July 5, 2005.


"I note that my box on the lapse rates was completely and utterly ignored which may explain to some extent my reaction, but I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run."

--- Quote from David Parker to Prof. Phil Jones, February 21, 2005.


"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"

--- Quote from Maurice Strong, founder of the U.N. Environment Program, opening speech from the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro.




As The Consensus Among Scientists Crumbles, Global Warming Alarmists Attack Their Integrity
Global warming alarmists are attacking the integrity of scientists, desperately seeking to minimize the damage presented by a recent survey of geoscientists and engineers regarding global warming.

A recent survey of more than 1,000 geoscientists (commonly known as earth scientists) and engineers reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that only 36 percent agree with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assertion that humans are causing a serious global warming problem. By contrast, a majority of scientists in the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
http://www.forbes.com/sit...s-attack-their-integrity/

Doppy it's not your fault

http://www.forbes.com/sit...on-promoting-solar-power/

It's not your fault

It's not your fault
- the_cause2000

yes it is

Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday

http://www.washingtonpost...ear-record-high-saturday/





Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.

On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site. That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.

Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday

http://www.washingtonpost...ear-record-high-saturday/




- Doppleganger

Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong and Willie Soon, Special to Financial Post | 08/10/13 | Last Updated: 09/10/13 9:15 AM ET
Climate forecast: All’s well, despite what the IPCC says

For thousands of years people have expected the climate to remain more-or-less the same while weather varies and seasons sometimes disappoint. Using forecasts no more sophisticated than these, the human race has prospered. Are things different now?

For the fifth time, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims they are. The difference, the IPCC claims, is increased human emissions of carbon dioxide, a colourless, odourless, non-toxic gas; a gas that is a byproduct of growing prosperity. The IPCC assumes that a relatively small human contribution of the gas will trap the warmth of the Sun and cause dangerous warming in the future. Other scientists contest that assumption on the grounds that the effect of the gas is smaller than IPCC assumes, and that the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood that the net effect of human emissions on warming cannot be calculated with any confidence.

The computer models that the IPCC rely on are complex representations of the IPCC assumption that human carbon dioxide emissions will substantially overheat the Earth. The models include many assumptions that mainstream scientists question.

The modelers correctly state that they produce scenarios. Scenarios are stories constructed from a collection of assumptions. Well-constructed scenarios can be convincing, in the same way that a book or a film can be. The IPCC and its supporters promote these scenarios as if they were forecasts. Scenarios are not, however, the product of evidence-based forecasting procedures: Our audit of the procedures used to create the IPCC scenarios found that they violated 72 of 89 relevant scientific forecasting principles.

Astonishingly, given the expensive policies proposed and implemented in the name of “climate change,” we are aware of only one published peer-reviewed scientific paper that claims to provide long-range climate forecasts. The paper is our own 2009 article in the International Journal of Forecasting. In it we examined the state of knowledge and the nature of the data available in order to select appropriate evidence-based procedures for long-range forecasting of global mean temperatures. We determined that the complexity and uncertainty of the situation meant that the no-change model would be the proper model to use.

We tested our no-change model using the same data that the IPCC uses. To do so, we produced annual forecasts with no trend from one-to-100 years ahead starting from 1851 and stepping forward year-by-year until 1975, the year before the current warming alarm was raised. We did the same for the IPCC scenario of temperatures increasing at a rate of 0.03°C per year in response to exponentially increasing human carbon dioxide emissions. This procedure yielded 7,550 forecasts for each method.

There are no scientific forecasts of dangerous global warming

The results? Overall, the no-trend forecast error was one-seventh the error of the IPCC scenario temperatures. The no-trend forecasts were as accurate or more accurate than the IPCC scenario temperatures for all forecast horizons. Crucially, the relative accuracy of the no-trend forecasts increased for longer horizons — for example, the no-trend forecast error was one-twelfth that of the IPCC scenario temperatures for 91-to-100-year ahead forecasts.

Our research in progress tests more forecasting methods, uses more and better data, and extends the validation tests to the present time. The findings strengthen our conclusions that there are no scientific forecasts of dangerous global warming.

Without scientific forecasts, the alarm is false. Government programs, subsidies, taxes, and regulations put up as responses to the global warming alarm can only result in wasteful misallocations of valuable resources.

Is it surprising that the government would respond to an alarm lacking scientific support? In our study of situations that are analogous to the current alarm over scenarios of global warming we identified 26 earlier movements based on scenarios of manmade disaster, including the global cooling alarm in the 1960s. None of them were based on scientific forecasts. Yet governments imposed costly policies in response to 23 of them. In no case did the forecast of major harm come true.

We predict that the global warming movement will eventually fade like all the others but that, also like the others, harmful policies will remain. We hope we are wrong.

Humanity can do better with the old and simple no-trend climate-forecasting model. This model is also consistent with the current need to reduce government expenditures. Eliminating government programs based on unscientific alarmist scenarios would be good for science, good for the budget, and good for people.

Kill the IPCC: After decades and billions spent, the climate body still fails to prove humans behind warming
Judith A. Curry, Special to Financial Post | 30/09/13 | Last Updated: 01/10/13 8:22 AM ET

The IPCC has given us a diagnosis of a planetary fever and a prescription for planet Earth. In this article, I provide a diagnosis and prescription for the IPCC: paradigm paralysis, caused by motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking; worsened and made permanent by a vicious positive feedback effect at the climate science-policy interface.

In its latest report released Friday, after several decades and expenditures in the bazillions, the IPCC still has not provided a convincing argument for how much warming in the 20th century has been caused by humans.


In the 1990’s, the world’s nations embarked on a path to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change by stabilization of the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, which was codified by the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty. The IPCC scientific assessments play a primary role in legitimizing national and international policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This objective has led to the IPCC assessments being framed around identifying anthropogenic influences on climate, dangerous environmental and socio-economic impacts of climate change, and stabilization of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

At the time of establishment of the UNFCCC, there was as yet no clear signal of anthropogenic warming in the observations, as per the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990. It wasn’t until the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report in 1995 that a “discernible” human influence on global climate was identified. The scientific support for the UNFCCC treaty was not based on observations, but rather on our theoretical understanding of the greenhouse effect and simulations from global climate models.

In the early 1990’s there was the belief in the feasibility of reducing uncertainties in climate science and climate models, and a consensus-seeking approach was formalized by the IPCC. General circulation climate models became elevated to the central role by policy actors and scientists from other fields investigating climate change impacts and applications – this has in turn has elevated the role and position of these climate models in climate change research. Very substantial investments have been made in further developing climate models, with the expectations that these models will provide actionable information for policy makers.

News : The Philippines Have Always Had Super Typhoons
Posted on November 9, 2013 by stevengoddard



Oct 22, 1882
“Observatory says lowest barometer at 11.40 a. m., 727.60 ; highest velocity wind registered, 144.4 miles an hour. Unable to measure greatest velocity of typhoon as anemometer damaged.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/38278695

The Philippines government says that the top speed today was 146 MPH.

Oct 21, 1897
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/14101833

Dec 16, 1900
“A terrific cyclone was encountered on December 16, when the vessel was to the eastward of the Philippines. The tempest raged for three days, and the vessel was absolutely uncontrollable.”
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/14356766

Sep 27, 1905
TYPHOON AT MANILA. THOUSANDS HOMELESS.
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/4965581

Sep 20, 1906
Destructive Typhoon in the Philippines.Vessels wrecked.1000 lives lost in Hongkong.
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/4343461

10 Jan 1907
TYPHOON IN THE PHILIPPINES. A HUNDRED MEN KILLED.
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5052954

23 Sep 1908
TYPHOON IN THE PHILIPPINES.GREAT LOSS OF LIFE.
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5187348

19 Oct 1912
GREAT TYPHOON.Heavy Loss of Life.Damage of £5,000,000.
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/10518642

30 Nov 1912
A BIG TYPHOON.DEVASTATION IN THE PHILIPPINES.THOUSANDS KILLED.
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5355894

12 May 1913
TYPHOON IN PHILIPPINES.FIFTY-EIGHT LIVES LOST.EXTENSIVE DAMAGE.
The typhoon was the most severe experienced for eight years.
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/90934517

27 Oct 1915
PHILIPPINES TYPHOON.A TOWN WIPED OUT.
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/10434066

3 Sep 1920
TYPHOON IN PHILIPPINES.MUCH DAMAGE DONE.
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11490381

12 June 1923
Disastrous Typhoon.
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2008470

27 June 1925
TYPHOON IN PHILIPPINES. ELEVEN PEOPLE KILLED.
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/84052280

28 Nov 1928
The Philippines have been swept by a typhoon described as the worst known for years.
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/29319617

10 Dec 1938
TYPHOON RAVAGES PHILLIPINES. HUNDREDS HOMELESS.
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/76063407

Renowned Warmist Scientist Peter Lemke: Antarctic Sea Ice “More Extensive, Thicker, And More Densely Packed” Than In 1992!

By P Gosselin on 8. November 2013

Polar scientist Dr. Peter Lemke of Germany’s renowned Alfred Wegener Institute was interviewed here about climate change, its affect on the Earth’s polar regions and about his recent winter expedition to Antarctica.

In the Arctic part of the interview, Lemke repeats the usual man-is-melting-the-Arctic narrative that you often hear from many state-funded alarmist climate scientists. No surprise here.

But as always, when it comes to sea ice, eventually warmist polar scientists get tripped up by Antarctica. And sure enough, Lemke trips and stumbles when Antarctic sea ice gets brought up. Before too long he is forced to concede he is stumped and has to admit that sea ice at the South Pole has grown and that he has no real explanation.

Peter Lemke has been on several expeditions to Antarctica: in 1989, 1992, 2006, and now 2013. And each time they collected data. Today, after comparing the preliminary results of the 2013 to those of 1992, here’s what Lemke says:

“…from our early results, it looks like that the sea ice mass around Antarctica has increased slightly. Our measurements showed that the sea ice was more extensive, thicker and more densely packed as compared to our 1992 expedition, which was on the same track during the same season.”

Increased slightly? In the following chart I’ve highlighted the winter of the years 1992 and 2013 to show what Lemke means by “increased slightly“:
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2...992/#sthash.F9CC77oM.dpuf


Chart source: arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/jpg

It’s obvious that Lemke is attempting to seriously downplay the Antarctic sea ice growth that has occurred since 1992. Indeed the above chart shows that sea ice has grown by more than 1.5 million square kilometers. That’s not increasing “slightly”. We suppose that if the trend had been the other way around, we’d be hearing terms like considerable reduction or even possibly dramatic reduction.

What’s more, Lemke also confirms that this extra 1.5 million square kilometers is “thicker” and “more compact”, meaning there’s much more ice mass.

So why is the ice growing? This goes against all the claims of global warming. Here, typical of warmist scientists who are confronted with inconvenient data, Lemke acts like he has the answer…before admitting he really has no clue (my emphasis):

One explanation is that in the Southern Hemisphere the westerly winds are increasing, and through friction this drives the ice towards lower latitudes and the extent is getting a bit bigger. When the ice expands there is open water between ice floes, and it’s still cold enough in winter that ice freezes in the open patches.

There are other physical processes that may be involved, such as the heavy snow cover that blankets the Antarctic sea ice. Sometimes the heavy snow load submerges the ice floe underwater so that the interface of ice and snow is actually below sea level, and seawater drains into the snow and freezes. That may be one process, but there are others that are not really resolved yet.

We don’t yet have the answers to these questions, because there are very few measurements and you cannot deduce snow from satellite remote sensing data, yet. To find out, you have to go there and make measurements yourself. But winter expeditions are very rare. There are very few icebreakers that can actually go into the Antarctic winter into the sea ice.”

The science is settled, except for the majority that isn’t.

Never trust a climate scientist who acts like he’s sure. It’s a dead give away that he hasn’t got a clue about what’s really going on.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2...992/#sthash.F9CC77oM.dpuf

Media Flustered at News of Antarctica Not Melting; Ice Levels At Record High




Far from disappearing, Antarctic ice levels reached a record high on Sept. 22. Climate alarmists are now being forced to reconcile this evidence with their unquestioning belief in global warming.

The Washington Post’s Jason Samenow reported the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s findings that Antarctic ice had reached record levels. The previous record was set in 2012.

In the same article, Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington climate scientist, simply could not understand how this was possible: “Why would sea ice be increasing?” Despite this, Zhang contended that “[t]he overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming.”

The rising Antarctic ice levels must have come as a shock to former Vice President Al Gore who blamed Antarctic ice melting on global warming in his 2006 book “An Inconvenient Truth.” Gore quoted scientist John Mercer: “One of the warning signs that a dangerous warming trend is underway in Antarctica will be the breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic peninsula.”

Despite this increase in Antarctic sea ice, the media continue to hype climate change and its effects on the South Pole. On Nov. 6, CBS “Evening News” ran a story highlighting rising carbon dioxide levels in Antarctica. Correspondent John Blackstone stated that Antarctic “CO2 levels have continued the steady rise that began in 1958,” asserting that “high levels of carbon dioxide can create a warming blanket around the Earth.”

But if the Antarctic is suffering from rising CO2 levels and global warming, how can it be simultaneously gaining ice?

Climate scientists tried to explain away this glaring paradox. Zhang argued that stronger Antarctic winds are to blame, although he admitted “I haven’t seen a clear explanation yet of why the winds have gotten stronger.” Other scientists have pointed to ozone depletion, but a recent study in the Journal of Climate argued that ozone depletion would reduce sea ice levels.

Of course, the obvious answer is that Antarctic temperatures aren’t actually rising. On June 10, the New York Times reported that “[t]he rise in the surface temperature of the earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.”

The broadcast networks paid no attention to this lull, instead repeatedly promoting climate change alarmism. CBS correspondent Mark Phillips acknowledged that global temperatures were not rising, but dismissed this fact as “ammunition” for climate skeptics on Sept. 26’s “Evening News,” saying that “another inconvenient truth has emerged on the way to the apocalypse.”

Media Flustered at News of Antarctica Not Melting; Ice Levels At Record High




Far from disappearing, Antarctic ice levels reached a record high on Sept. 22. Climate alarmists are now being forced to reconcile this evidence with their unquestioning belief in global warming.

The Washington Post’s Jason Samenow reported the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s findings that Antarctic ice had reached record levels. The previous record was set in 2012.

In the same article, Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington climate scientist, simply could not understand how this was possible: “Why would sea ice be increasing?” Despite this, Zhang contended that “
- Doppleganger[t]he overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming.”

The rising Antarctic ice levels must have come as a shock to former Vice President Al Gore who blamed Antarctic ice melting on global warming in his 2006 book “An Inconvenient Truth.” Gore quoted scientist John Mercer: “One of the warning signs that a dangerous warming trend is underway in Antarctica will be the breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic peninsula.”

Despite this increase in Antarctic sea ice, the media continue to hype climate change and its effects on the South Pole. On Nov. 6, CBS “Evening News” ran a story highlighting rising carbon dioxide levels in Antarctica. Correspondent John Blackstone stated that Antarctic “CO2 levels have continued the steady rise that began in 1958,” asserting that “high levels of carbon dioxide can create a warming blanket around the Earth.”

But if the Antarctic is suffering from rising CO2 levels and global warming, how can it be simultaneously gaining ice?

Climate scientists tried to explain away this glaring paradox. Zhang argued that stronger Antarctic winds are to blame, although he admitted “I haven’t seen a clear explanation yet of why the winds have gotten stronger.” Other scientists have pointed to ozone depletion, but a recent study in the Journal of Climate argued that ozone depletion would reduce sea ice levels.

Of course, the obvious answer is that Antarctic temperatures aren’t actually rising. On June 10, the New York Times reported that “[t]he rise in the surface temperature of the earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.”

The broadcast networks paid no attention to this lull, instead repeatedly promoting climate change alarmism. CBS correspondent Mark Phillips acknowledged that global temperatures were not rising, but dismissed this fact as “ammunition” for climate skeptics on Sept. 26’s “Evening News,” saying that “another inconvenient truth has emerged on the way to the apocalypse.”

who got hit in the face with more balls, rock hudson or yogi berra

The UN wants $100 billion from wealthier countries (about $2.4 billion from Australians or $100 a person). The Australian government has produced a position statement for the Warsaw UNFCCC conference. It is unusually brutal. I don’t think I remember seeing the phrase about socialism “masquerading as environmentalism” in an official statement before. (I’m sure readers will correct me). It’s good to see some recognition that the science has become less clear, and that it may become more so.
Essentially, the new Australian government ‘s message to the UN is: we are reducing CO2, but we’re not giving you a cent. Furthermore, if the science becomes muddier, we might drop it. We don’t think this UN meeting is remotely important and we have better things to do. And when it comes to wealth transfer through the UN the answer is No. Thank. You.

Read more @ http://joannenova.com.au/...ding-as-environmentalism/

what a typhoon

what a typhoon
- the_cause2000

you know what's funny? when one of these threads lights up without thinking about it i look at the forum menu to see who posted last to make sure it isn't just dopps babbling. really looked suspicious when 2 of the dopp threads lit up at the same time.

just now realized i do that. lol

you know what's funny? when one of these threads lights up without thinking about it i look at the forum menu to see who posted last to make sure it isn't just dopps babbling. really looked suspicious when 2 of the dopp threads lit up at the same time.

just now realized i do that. lol
- kicksave856

what a typhoon
- the_cause2000

Please take to the typhoons not caused by man made global warming thread.

Please take to the typhoons not caused by man made global warming thread.
- BingoLady

well then what IS caused by man made global warming?

well then what IS caused by man made global warming?
- the_cause2000

the Leafs suckage

well then what IS caused by man made global warming?
- the_cause2000

heat