Climate train wreck

There are now two kinds of people with some understanding of climate science, sceptics and liars. The climate change scam is turning into a train wreck and everyone keeping the score knows it.

The most delightful thing about the climate train wreck is that it is happening so slowly. Global temperatures have not risen for about fifteen years which is not quite as predicted. Even worse, people are losing interest as the wild-eyed threats lose their potency.

Even George Osborne has decided to back shale gas in spite of some loud and predictable squealing from fellow travellers still inside the wreckage, still hoping their tickets are valid. Tickets paid for by us incidentally.

One by one, Mother Nature hoists the liars by their own petard, but she isn’t rushing at it like an amateur. Oh no – this is a finely honed professional job. Her knives are sharp and the day is long.

She is taking her time, season by season, year by year. Clearly in no hurry, one might almost think she is enjoying herself. I certainly am.

Her cruelty is the stuff of legend – red in tooth and claw and all that, but I never thought she would sink her mighty talons into the plump, quivering flesh of climate alarmists – not in such a deliciously heartless way.

Her subtle, dispassionate screwing of their silly predictions would be much less fun if she screwed them quickly. Reaming them slowly by increasing the pressure over fifteen years has a certain natural justice to it.

It’s positively artistic.

Of course train wreck spectators must temper their enthusiasm with a touch of caution in case Mother Nature turns her icy stare in our direction.

So applaud her softly and enjoy the show. We’ve earned it.

34 comments for “Climate train wreck

  1. March 21, 2013 at 7:31 am

    And the damage – the damage that has been done over it. That will go down in history … if there is to be a history.

  2. Greg Tingey
    March 21, 2013 at 8:25 am

    Adn what WILL it take to convince you?
    The melting of the Greenland ice-cap & a sea-level rise?

    By which time it will be too late, of course ……

    • SteveW
      March 21, 2013 at 10:45 am

      What would begin to convince me that anything about this farrago was scientific would be the putting forward of a falsifiable hypothesis. Either that or maybe some empirical evidence that the null hypothesis (natural variation) has somehow been falsified.

      It’s what we used to call the scientific method.

      • Greg Tingey
        March 22, 2013 at 9:28 am

        SO, you are of the un-expert opinion that The Royal Society is wrong?

        • Dave_G
          March 22, 2013 at 5:12 pm

          Not wrong – just ‘mis-informed’ and economic with the truth, disingenuous if you will

    • Andrew Duffin
      March 21, 2013 at 11:11 am

      Greg, I would be convinced (or at least, concerned), if one – even one – of their predictions came true.

      It’s not much to ask, is it?

      Time to channel Feynman yet again: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is or how important you are: if it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

      • March 22, 2013 at 11:05 am

        Exactly – global temperature should be rising with CO2 so the theory is wrong.

    • March 21, 2013 at 12:46 pm

      There is little argument that the world’s temperature rose slightly during the 20th century – but so what?
      As you mention Greenland I’ll stick with it – What will it take to convince you that bones and artifacts found in Greenland underneath what is now permanent ice demonstrate without any doubt that within the past 2000 years it was temperate enough there to support agricultural communities?
      Does that not demonstrate that temperature change and ice melt are not unusual over time and have nothing to do with modern CO2 levels? Can you even prove to me that today’s temperatures are possibly fluctuating at a level that is below normal for the planet?

      • Ed P
        March 21, 2013 at 4:00 pm

        Also, the clue’s in the name – it was called Greenland because it was temperate and supported agriculture.
        Wake up Greg! 😆

        • Greg Tingey
          March 22, 2013 at 9:29 am

          It was called “Greenland” as a deliberate con to get people to go there – a 10th C property scam, actually.

          • Dave_G
            March 22, 2013 at 5:15 pm

            …and the artifacts found there that prove the existence of agriculture/crop growing are, in fact, decoys used by the estate agents to promote their case?

    • Peter Whale
      March 21, 2013 at 6:04 pm

      Its melted before remember Greenland and the Vikings growing Wheat there.The sea level has had a steady rise since the Little Ice Age. Nothing spectacular in the last 100 years. Co2 lags temperature by 800 years so the rise in co2 at the moment is a symptom not a cause. Carry on with your sky fairy religion nobody who looks at the empirical evidence will be taken in by your alarmism.

  3. Derek
    March 21, 2013 at 9:15 am

    Now that the politicians have grabbed control of the press in this country, do you think that anyone will be allowed to publish the truth about the climate con.

  4. Johnnydub
    March 21, 2013 at 9:26 am

    Greg, The ice-caps are fine – they’re getting bigger not smaller..

    Your “sky is falling” bollocks just won’t wash anymore – all you lefties that wanted to use CAGW to smash capitalism will just have to go find a new lie to peddle…

  5. Edward.
    March 21, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Even if the Greenland icecap did melt, mankind will not be around to notice it.

    Using preposterous supposition, to somehow uphold a man made myth is desperate, delusional fear mongering. Get real, get a life – it’s the cold that dwellers in the Northern Hemisphere should be fixated about because we are entering a new and prolonged cooling phase and the polar bears and the Greenland icecap, Arctic basin sea ice though it will still fluctuate – ain’t going anywhere in the next few hundred thousand years.

    Remember, cold kills people.

    • Derek
      March 21, 2013 at 11:59 am

      Actually, there are records of The Vikings sailing an ice free Arctic Ocean. This is supported by records of Chinese sailors doing the same thing at about the same time. The Acrtic Ocean would appear to have been ice free in Summer, during the Medievel Warm period.

  6. mr viivid
    March 21, 2013 at 11:57 am

    polar bear will eat you.

  7. March 21, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    Have you ever noticed that when the weather is exceptionally warm it is caused by / related to AGW and when it is exceptionally cold, it’s just weather.

    If there was anything left of the AGW argument in the general populace this winter without end has probably put a good screw into it.

    From my own perspective a few more years of bitterly cold winters, lasting well into March will do more damage to the public perception of Warble Gloaming than a thousand finely tuned arguments by AGW alarmists.

    Remember it’s not just the UK, I was watching ABC News last night and the same conditions are prevailing over there.

    Give us 5 more years of this sort of thing and I think we will be done.

    Warble Gloaming = Bullsh*t

  8. microdave
    March 21, 2013 at 3:26 pm
  9. Chilly Willy
    March 21, 2013 at 3:46 pm

    I am old enough to remember the great scientific predictions of the last half of the 20th Century, among which was that we would all by the year 2000 have personal helicopters and that robots would clean our houses. I am not sure about you lot but my helicopter hangar remains resolutely empty and the only robot who pushes the vacuum around is me.

    I also recall that in the seventies there was great fear of a new ice age. That was what the experts told us, and all that consensus couldn’t be wrong, could it? Well, I have to admit it is getting a bit colder…

    I personally would take the AGW ‘we’re-all-going-to-fry-and die’ panic a little more seriously if they would actually come up with evidence rather than issuing statements like we have only five years to save the planet. Oh wait, that was six years ago… I wonder what happened?

    The climate change frothers use ‘could be’ and ‘might’ and ‘danger of’ and ‘expected to’ a tad too much. It isn’t science to say something could happen, however many inefficient computer models you use.

    Still, you can always rely on readings from meteorological stations. Unless they are the ones that doctor their figures. Or you can do what an AGW team did and set off for the north pole and went swimming in the Arctic Sea to prove their point how warm it was. They were flown home with frostbite and left one of their apologists to say that climate change is just so unpredictable.

    How true that is.

    But as has been said before, warmth gives life and cold kills. I know which I would prefer.

    • Voice of Reason
      March 22, 2013 at 12:09 am

      The ‘ice age’ warning in the 1970’s was a piece in Newsweek, as I recall, not the scientists. I recently re-watches ‘Cosmos’ from 1979, where Sagan discussed the greenhouse effect.

      • March 22, 2013 at 12:09 pm

        No need to rely on recollection – a little research shows that it was somewhat more than ‘a piece in Newsweek’ and that the alarmism was certainly encouraged by climatologists:

        • Voice of Reason
          March 22, 2013 at 3:56 pm

          Interesting. The only article there which is scientific is by Walter Roberts of NCAR. His 1990 obit suggests that he didn’t exactly believe in global cooling:

          “Walter Orr Roberts; Founded National Center for Atmospheric Research
          March 17, 1990
          Walter Orr Roberts, 74, founder of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and one of the first scientists to warn of changes in the earth’s climate as a result of man’s increased technology. In 1960, Roberts formed a staff at the center in Boulder, Colo., to study climate as it affects life on this planet. Two years ago he and former astronaut Russell Schweickart started an international computer dialogue between American and Soviet scientists on global warming. At the atmospheric research center he raised concerns not only of global warming but of population increases, nuclear winter and famine. In Boulder on Monday of cancer.

  10. Stonyground
    March 21, 2013 at 8:39 pm

    “Adn what WILL it take to convince you?
    The melting of the Greenland ice-cap & a sea-level rise?”

    What a very odd thing to say. Non of the alarmists predictions are happening, so some people are, quite understandably, sceptical of their chicken little, doomsday outlook. Your position seems to be that we are stubbornly refusing to believe, basically because we have no reason to do so. So what would it take to change our minds? some actual evidence that we are wrong? Well yes, actually. If the Greenland ice-cap melted and there was a significant sea level rise as a result, then I would indeed reconsider my position. Until that actually happens I will remain sceptical.

  11. Monty
    March 21, 2013 at 9:51 pm

    The Warble Gloaming alarmists have had their own way and it has cost us billions. And we have spent all these years listening to their attacks on sceptics, and their nasty assertions that people asking for more evidence were deniers, and flat earthers. Well now the landscape is gradually changing, and the public are more and more sceptical with every passing year. And now, Hockey Team, we get to call you out for the confidence tricksters and snake-oil salesmen you really are.

    At the same time, we are seeing the utter ruin and disaster being wreaked upon the southern Europeans by the Euro. And when we were defending Sterling, and voicing our doubts about the wisdom of joining the Euro Zone, the shock troops of the Brussels Brigade were calling us Little Englanders, Xenophobes, parochial, narrow minded, and ignorant of the rudiments of economics. In all honesty I never imagined, in my worst nightmare scenarios, anything quite so dire as what is happening to the Cypriots.

  12. Voice of Reason
    March 22, 2013 at 12:11 am

    AK – depending on your definition of skeptic, your first sentence is either wrong, or redundant. If you mean skeptical as all good scientists should be, then it’s the latter. If not, then it’s just plain hot air. I am not a liar, and I know something about the science involved.

    • March 22, 2013 at 10:59 am

      “If you mean skeptical as all good scientists should be”

      All truth-seekers should be sceptical, not just good scientists.

      • Voice of Reason
        March 22, 2013 at 3:56 pm


  13. Furor Teutonicus
    March 22, 2013 at 4:32 pm

    Since Jaanuary, we have had nothing here but snow, a bit of a thaw and more snow. This weekend we are due for minus 15°c, with MORE snow. We already have 15cm laying.

    Now you fucking green slime, tell us the one about “global warming” again…!

    THEN give us our fucking light bulbs back, you shower of wankers!

  14. Stonyground
    March 22, 2013 at 7:37 pm

    @Furor Teutonicus
    Although we predicted hot dry weather and what you actually got was cold wet weather, we are still right because what we actually predicted was extreme weather. And whatever happens to the climate is defenitely going to be bad and is defenitely being caused by CO2. If you can’t understand that then you are just an evil denier.

    • John Tee
      March 23, 2013 at 8:58 am

      Although we predicted hot dry weather and what you actually got was cold wet weather, we are still right


Comments are closed.