• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

Melting shmelting...but one can make a shit-pot of shekels schlepping sloppy science into a snow job...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/15/western_antarctic_melting_nothing_unusual/

The latest ice-core analysis from the Antarctic shows that nothing unusual in terms of melting is occurring.

In research published yesterday, a large team of scientists used a deep ice core from the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide to produce records going back some 2,000 years. Their analysis shown that recent melting in that area, which has caused a good deal of hysteria* in climate alarmist circles, is in fact normal.



“If we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would look a lot like it does today, and I think we also would find the glaciers retreating much as they are today,” comments Eric Steig, a senior earth-sciences boffin at the University of Washington and the lead author on the new research.

Ice loss in recent times from the Western Antarctic - considered to be one of the main places to worry about, if you worry about sea-level rises - may just "not be all that unusual", according to Steig.

The problem, as with many climate change issues, is that conditions in the Western Antarctic vary so much over short time scales that it's hard to work out if any long-term change is actually happening.

“The magnitude of unforced natural variability is very big in this area,” Steig comments.

Another major ice study recently came to similar conclusions regarding the likewise much-discussed Antarctic Peninsula: that recent melting there is not unprecedented, and indeed that various large bits of ice in that area - which today are still intact - probably broke off or melted at times in the pre-industrial past.
 
Lectro said:
WASHINGTON (AP) In what many experts are calling one of the most serious cases of mass hysteria in modern times, the U.S. government today released its National Climate Assessment, a sobering 840 page summary of a wide variety of normal climate occurrences which are leading to physical symptoms such as adolescent psychiatric problems, great wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

The report is gripping the nation like a global warming polar vortex trapped in place by the swirling toxic vapors emitted by a swarm of possessed SUVs.

The report contains claims of U.S. floods, droughts, severe weather, and heat waves, all of which are not unprecedented compared to centuries past, but are nevertheless known to be the fault of humans.

Ronald Wobbles, the report’s lead author, was quoted as saying (I am not making this up), “We’re already seeing extreme weather and it’s happening now”. This finding stands in stark contrast to 100 years ago, when ‘we saw extreme weather that was happening then’.

Climate deniers, known to be the same paid shills who once worked for the tobacco industry, were quick to pounce on the report’s findings, claiming that there is no evidence supporting either the view that U.S. climate has gotten worse, or that Elvis Presley had finally returned to Earth with a great new diet plan.
Click to expand...

What a great name.
 
I'm pretty sure Lectro realizes that article is "satire," but there is a precedent that strongly suggests otherwise. Wobble Wobble.
 
just for reference guys, here's a pair of post hole diggers:

shopping
shopping


I'm not sure Lectro knows what a human looks like.
 
"Webbles wobble, but they don't fall down"
 
http://m.nationalreview.com/article/378653/hard-sell-climate-change-john-fund

Despite the lads and ladies who protest too much only 30 percent of the populace feel the issue is of much importance. Common sense and static temps since 2005 may well rescue us all from the wild eyed Marxist visions of Armageddon.

Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN, was very forthright about his media priorities at a Society of Professional Journalists dinner in New York City on Monday.

He told Bill Carter of the New York Times: “Climate change is one of those stories that deserves more attention, that we all talk about. But we haven’t figured out how to engage the audience in that story in a meaningful way. When we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience’s part.”

Americans hold views on climate change that at first are encouraging to environmentalists: In a Pew poll last year, 69 percent believed the earth was warming. But only 33 percent said it was a “very” serious problem, and when Pew asked respondents what issues should be a “top priority” for the federal government, dealing with global warming came in dead last, with only 28 percent holding that view. There is a real basis for such a stance: Global temperatures haven’t risen appreciably in about 15 years.
More and more people in the middle of America — both geographically and culturally — have come to believe either that global warming is manageable or that extraordinary efforts to slow the economy to combat it aren’t worth the cost. But that “doesn’t faze the bicoastal urban media elite,” says Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. These elites, he adds, “have become more hysterical in their treatment of the issue, blaming everything from drought to wildfires to hurricanes on climate change.” It doesn’t matter that there is clear evidence such phenomena are cyclical, and that — for instance — while California is experiencing a severe drought, Florida residents have recently experienced some of the quietest hurricane seasons in decades.
 
Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”

His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.

The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”
 
Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”

His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.

The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”
 
Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”

His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.

The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”

Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”

His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.

The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”

Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”

His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.

The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”

Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”

His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.

The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”

Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”

His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.

The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”

Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”

His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.

The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”

His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.

The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”

Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”

His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.

The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”

Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”

His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.

The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”

Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”

His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.

The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”

Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”

His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.

The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top