If there’s anything more irritating than the heat, it’s people talking about it

Okay, you probably had a ludicrously hot and uncomfortable night, too – but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be sympathetic to MY suffering.

I didn’t sleep very well! Pity me!


The Sun: did we crash into it or something?

PS The increasing regularity of record-breaking heat waves MEANS NOTHING. Don’t draw any conclusions about climate change. It was, uh, sunspot activity. Let us never speak of this again.

Advertisements

96 responses to “If there’s anything more irritating than the heat, it’s people talking about it

  1. thanks Kosky/Metro cabal for your shambolic public transport yesterday. looks like Duchess Kosky there by royal decree… no amount of abject failure can remove her from office

  2. “I walk around in the summertime saying, ‘How about this heat,’ I’m an asshole”

  3. Hot days = proof of anthropogenic global warming.
    Cold days =/ refutation of AGW.

    The streets in Searstown are all one-way….

  4. I think you have me confused with Blair, Shabs.

    Since extreme winters and extreme summers are both predicted by climate change theory, I see both as evidence in support of it. What would counter that theory would be if the weather patterns stopped breaking records for a while. I wish that would happen, too.

  5. And since it’s always extreme somewhere in the world, there’s always a headline for you to panic about …

  6. Um, it’s fairly uncontroversial that summers and winters are breaking records. Even a right-wing polemicist like Blair is happy to publicise extremes – it’s just he leaves out the hot ones.

  7. Last year the Met Office said that Britain was going to have a warm winter. In previous years it had advised that British children would rarely see snow. And meanwhile, because November was warm the British Met Office is prepared to declare this (northern) winter a warm one!

    This is only one set of examples, and I’m not even troubling you with East Anglia.

    What model predicted what we’re currently seeing? And why should we take their word for the next fifty years plus?

  8. Actually, the main prediction of climate change theory is that as the Earth warms, weather patterns will get more bizarre as atmospheric and ocean currents shift.

    The point is that any significant changes are a cause for concern. Extremes in particular.

  9. So it’s snowing in England and hot in Australia. Well, blow me down!

  10. Dude, it’s not just snowing in England, it’s snowing across the whole of Europe.

    And I don’t know what Met office you’re talking about, but the Met Office in the UK thinks you’re wrong, Shabadoo:

    “The mean UK temperature for December was 2.1 °C, making it the coldest for 14 years and colder than the long-term average for December of 4.2 °C”

    From this page, explaining what the unseasonably cold winter and unseasonably heavy snowfall is caused by.

    Where are you getting your information that this winter is warmer, Shabadoo? Because it doesn’t look like it’s tallying up with what the Met is actually saying. Or will say, given that the only month of winter they’ve got complete data for is December, and that was COLDER, not hotter.

  11. Heads you win, tails I lose.

  12. Now you’re not making any sense, Shabadoo. You said a few comments ago that this winter was about to declared a warmer winter by the Met (which it isn’t) and then link to an article that disputes Global Warming on the basis that this winter is colder.

    Which is it?

  13. In the world of rightwing trollumnists:

    Cold extremes = climate
    Hot extremes = weather

    Just so everyone’s on the same page LOL.

  14. http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/91478/

    “In fact, the Met still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.””

  15. Since extreme winters and extreme summers are both predicted by climate change theory

    LOL do you really believe that shit?! as I recall, the climate change fanatics have been preaching about how mild British winter will become.

    Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

    Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

    Jeremy you have obviously been learning from the scientists caught up in climategate.

  16. So a staffer says that something will be said, even though it isn’t, and this is recorded as being absurd, so when they DON’T say it, you’re still repeating it without checking whether they’re actually saying it?

  17. I think fanatics is the pertinent word there, Bill.

  18. I think fanatics is the pertinent word there, Bill.

    And it is fanatics that make comments like this:

    Since extreme winters and extreme summers are both predicted by climate change theory

    I mean really! Are we suppose to believe now that “Global Warming” means more extreme cold weather events?

    What next? Climate Change means more Santa Clause sightings?!

  19. “I mean really! Are we suppose to believe now that “Global Warming” means more extreme cold weather events?”

    People have been saying that for quite a while, Bill. It’s not new.

  20. People have been saying that for quite a while, Bill. It’s not new.

    Oh yes, just like the IPCC report which predicted this years deep freeze across most of the northern hemisphere.

    Oh that’s right? They didn’t predict it.

    So next you be saying that “all weather events, hot, cold mild etc is predicted by global warming.

  21. I won’t be saying anything of the sort. I don’t make predictions, or claim to know either way what the hell is going on with the weather, the climate or anything else. All I know is that I think anyone who makes those claims who doesn’t have a swag of degrees and a career in having those claims peer-reviewed is to be viewed with deep, deep suspicion.

    We don’t know what’s going on. We can’t possibly know. And the Blair’s and the Bolts who think they do are as arrogant in their presumption in those who push AGW down our throats.

    All I ask for is consistency. And Bolt and Blair and the rest of the winged monkey parade bleeting about cold weather disproving Global Warming without pointing out the hot days with the same fervor are not. Nor are those who point only to the hot days.

  22. Seems like Monckton’s heart is in the right place. Pachauri’s is firmly in his pocket.

  23. Funny, the same people attacking Pachauri for “conflict of interest” have no issue with a corporate culture in which almost all members of large company boards are simultaneously on a whole lot of other boards.

    If they’d be just as critical of this fundamental problem with the corporate world when it isn’t just a means of attacking an ideological opponent, then it would be much more credible.

    And what makes you say that Monckton’s heart is “in the right place”?

  24. Given the discovery of Climategate, the disaster that was copenhagen and now the deep freeze of the northern hemisphere, it surprises me that you still follow the climate change religion. The fraud that is the climate change religion has been exposed for the world to see and finally the public is turning on the evangalists. Rudd and Wong have a lot to worry about in 2010.

  25. You get that stupidly repeating the word “religion” over and over doesn’t make it so, right?

  26. Seems like Monckton’s heart is in the right place.

    Maybe. But if he lies about his CV what else is he playing loose with the truth over?

  27. You get that an unseasonably cold winter is a change in weather, not climate, don’t you Karen?

  28. You get that stupidly repeating the word “religion” over and over doesn’t make it so, right?

    claiming stupidly that:
    Since extreme winters and extreme summers are both predicted by climate change theory

    doesn’t make it right either.

    I must say Jeremy, you did give me a good laugh when I read that.

    I love the idea that you stupidly believe that extreme cold weather is evidence of global warming.

  29. Keri,

    I’d have to say that very cold weather in winter in Europe isn’t all that “unseasonal”.

  30. “I love the idea that you stupidly believe that extreme cold weather is evidence of global warming.”

    Um, what? Why is that “stupid”?

    You’re not one of these idiots who thinks that global warming means it’s uniformly hotter at all times in all places, do you?

  31. “I’d have to say that very cold weather in winter in Europe isn’t all that “unseasonal”.”

    From a few comments ago:

    ““The mean UK temperature for December was 2.1 °C, making it the coldest for 14 years and colder than the long-term average for December of 4.2 °C””

    A 14 year low of temperatures isn’t unseasonal?

    Further on the subject here

  32. Only meant that it is winter, the cold season.

    Over the last few decades, record high winter temps have been twice as common as record winter lows. Gives some interesting perspective to the 14 year record.

  33. See, this is where I’m getting confused. I bring up that this winter is unseasonably cold, and people refute by saying there’s been record high winter temps in the last decade.

    Which is weird, because half the time it’s coming from people trying to tell us that the world isn’t getting warmer.

  34. I was just amused by the word “unseasonably” in relation to cold in winter.

    The up shot of the observed trend is that in any statement that ‘this is the coldest temp for X years’, X will likely be an increasingly large number.

  35. “The up shot of the observed trend is that in any statement that ‘this is the coldest temp for X years’, X will likely be an increasingly large number.”

    Given when observations started, of course. Until we reach a point where the amount of years we’ve been recording and observing reaches a statistically significant number, I don’t disagree.

    The fact that this cold weather is being caused by a weather anomaly we don’t usually see – Winds from a different direction – well, that’s something else.

  36. And there’s the possibility of a scenario where AGW leads to a definitely colder Europe due to a decrease in the Gulf Stream.

    It’s fun to tell this to denialists and watch their heads explode.

  37. And there’s the possibility of a scenario where AGW leads to a definitely colder Europe due to a decrease in the Gulf Stream

    LOL

    The problem for climate change fantics like yourself who believe this is that none of the computer modeling for predicted a colder Europe resulting from AGW.

    This would mean that their computer modeling and hence their predictions are WRONG.

    Like a house of cards, the theory of AGW and the predicted effects all collapses.

  38. Oh, “fantics”. Is there anything they won’t believe?

  39. “LOL
    The problem for climate change fantics like yourself ….

    ROTFLMAO

    See, it’s worked already!!

  40. BTW – if you are willing to re-invent the predicted effects of AGW, like:

    And there’s the possibility of a scenario where AGW leads to a definitely colder Europe due to a decrease in the Gulf Stream

    why don’t you be more creative ans say something like….. And there’s the possibility of a scenario where AGW leads to an increase in the number of tooth fairys and santa clauses breading out of control across Europe….

    You can’t claim on one hand that the IPCC report is gospel and that there is a consences on AGW while on the other hand claiming that AGW could lead to a colder Europe.

  41. Bill,

    It’s not really that hard to understand if you are genuine.

    AGW is, clearly, global. There is an increasing heat content of the planet in it’s entirety.

    This does not translate in uniform warming, or even that everywhere becomes warmer. The effects will vary over time and place. It’s is quite possible that some places may experience cooler climate as a result of AGW.

    Claiming that this is inconsistent with AGW just demonstrates a poor understanding of what AGW actually is. It’s on a par with those who claim a failure of every year to be warmer than the preceding year, also refutes AGW.

  42. The Monckton revelations continue. How does this man sleep at night?

    Christopher Monckton will trouser $20,000 for an Australian Tour with Ian Plimer on backing vocals. To celebrate both The Australian and The Daily Telegraph printed extracts from Monckton’s letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd generously offering to brief Rudd about climate science.

    As Tim Lambert also notes Monckton’s letter to News Ltd referred to the PM incorrectly as “His Excellency Mr Kevin Rudd”. As is becomming commonplace with the Daily Telegraph, it printed the letter with the incorrect, mocked up title (helllooooo “Godwin Grant” anyone??). But who really cares, it’s the vibe of the thing, right? And just as Monckton seemingly tarts up his CV with untruths, so too does he look away whilst typing when it comes to science facts.

    Oh dear.

  43. Climategate just keeps getting worse:

    THE peak UN body on climate change has been dealt another humiliating blow to its credibility after it was revealed a central claim of one of its benchmark reports – that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 because of global warming – was based on a “speculative” claim by an obscure Indian scientist.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-blunder-on-glaciers-exposed/story-e6frg6n6-1225820614171

  44. LOL Bill add to that the bbc’s threat to drop the Met office because of their fraudulent activities of doggy science

    BUFFETED by complaints about its inaccurate weather forecasts, the Met Office now faces being dumped by the BBC after almost 90 years.

    http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6991064.ece

  45. The house of cards that is AGW is collapsing down faster than you can say Al Gore.

  46. I hear you pal.

    you got to fell sorry for Gore though. All his credibility is tied up in climate change and that is all falling appart.

    On second thoughts, he deserves what he gets.

  47. “The house of cards that is AGW is collapsing down faster than you can say Al Gore.”

    Hilarious. You guys think that a couple of vague predictions not coming through somehow contradicts the fact that the planet is warming and that consequences will flow from that?

  48. Hilarious. You guys think that a couple of vague predictions not coming through somehow contradicts the fact that the planet is warming and that consequences will flow from that?

    Guess you is in DENIAL!

  49. Jeremy the great denialist

  50. LOL. How the tables have turned

  51. It’s like the morons who think they can disprove evolution by countering a particular example believed to support it.

  52. It’s like the morons who think they can disprove evolution by countering a particular example believed to support it

    Only a moron would attempt to compare climate change to evolution.

    What’s wrong Jeremy? Are you at risk of losing your religion

  53. Uh, no – it would be wonderful if there were no climate change.

    I’m just not naive enough to think that optimistic denial makes something less likely.

  54. Mate, they will hold on desperately to their belief in human induced climate change even though the doggy science it is based on is turning sour and being exposed to the world. They are the equivalent of a catholic that sees Jesus in a mouldy piece of toast and prays to it.

  55. Uh, no – it would be wonderful if there were no climate change

    Of course there is climate change, the climate has been changing naturally for millions of years.

    The problem for you Jeremy is that you have placed your faith in the climategate science that believes in AGW.

  56. They are the equivalent of a catholic that sees Jesus in a mouldy piece of toast and prays to it.

    LOL Or is that an image of Al Gore in a piece of toast. Jeremy, would you pray to an image of Al Gore?

  57. I do love the religious dogma that maintains that we can do whatever we like to the planet without any consequence. The Earth is some kind of magically infinite resource, eh Bill?

    And you’ve got to admire the abject stupidity that thinks attacking the bearers of bad news somehow saves us from the bad news itself.

  58. And you’ve got to admire the abject stupidity that thinks attacking the bearers of bad news somehow saves us from the bad news itself

    You are a denialist of climategate.

    The problem for you Jeremy is that you have placed your belief in scientists that have been exposed and discredited by their own fraud.

    Hence Climategate emails, the fraud around their theory about the melting of the Himalayan glaciers.

    These are not bears of just bad news, they are snake oil salesman that are preaching the end of the world. They are no better than the religious freaks of years gone by who preached “The end of the world is near”.

  59. “The problem for you Jeremy is that you have placed your belief in scientists that have been exposed and discredited by their own fraud.”

    No, I haven’t.

    You appear to be projecting.

  60. You appear to be projecting

    and you are in denial about climategate. but if you close your eyes and rock back and forth in the foetal position, the corruption that is AGW might just all go away.

    Who knows, maybe copenhagen summit will suddenly not be the total joke that it was.

  61. What dogma is that, Jeremy? Christians teach care and respect for the environment. Oh sorry – you were just lying to make a point. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, I just forgot I was on a lefty blog for a moment.

  62. Who the hell mentioned Christianity? I meant the dogma that is the bizarre belief that the Earth will magically absorb anything that we throw at it.

    Bill – I’m not in “denial” about “climategate”. It’s a confected outrage that contradicts the established science not a jot.

    It’s undoubtedly a public relations problem for those who are trying to get governments to commit to minimising their impact; it’s not in any way a scientific one.

    Tell me, do you have the faintest idea what “hide the decline” meant? I’m guessing you’re stupid enough to think it was some diabolical scientist trying to “hide” a “decline” in world temperatures or something.

  63. Bill – I’m not in “denial” about “climategate”. It’s a confected outrage that contradicts the established science not a jot

    It’s a shame for you that the IPCC is now implicated in the climategate style fraud. so much for those disappearing glaciers, and the attempt to cover up the medi-evil warming period.

    not only are you a denialst but you are an apologist for these frauds.

  64. Geez SB.

    I mean, Bill was really shovelling it uphill when making the idiotic claim that Lefty ‘denies’ climategate (even a child can pull that one apart), but now you’re calling him a liar over something he never said.

    Methinks you owe Lefty an apology.

  65. So much for that consensus and The debate is over.

    What climategate proves is that the debate is far from over, the science is not settled and there is no consensus.

    In fact, there are some scientists that are deliberately being deceptive to manipulate the science to benefit their own political ideology. The IPCC being the biggest offender.

  66. Climategate proves nothing at all. It raises some questions, but by no possible interpretation can it be considered proof of anything.

    That you and Bill continue to make such a transparently false claim says far more about your own dishonesty than it does anything else.

    The Himalayan glacier issue, on the other hand, is extremely relevant and potentially very damaging to the credibility of the IPCC. If shown to be correct then it casts enormous doubt on the scientific basis of all claims made by that body.

  67. The debate as to the details might not be over, but the debate as to whether there’s a serious risk of anthropogenic climate change if we don’t reduce emissions etc is pretty well settled.

  68. Lefty – Haloscan has a comment of mine in moderation for some reason. Can you pls release?

  69. Jeremy, you said the dogma was religious. I know of no religion which has such a dogma.

  70. Jeremy, you said the dogma was religious. I know of no religion which has such a dogma.

    So why did you (incorrectly) assume he was referring to Christianity?

  71. “Jeremy, you said the dogma was religious. I know of no religion which has such a dogma.”

    Religion, n. “something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. “

  72. Christianity is in fact a religion. It has a dogma to the opposite effect of the one described. No religion believes or teaches that “we can do whatever we like to the planet without any consequence” .

    Jeremy was just making shit up. He was attributing a manifestly false belief to religious dogma. I demonstrated that in the case of Christianity the opposite is in fact the true position.

  73. “He was attributing a manifestly false belief to religious dogma. I demonstrated that in the case of Christianity the opposite is in fact the true position.”

    SB’s faulty syllogism:
    1. D is an R
    2. C is an R
    3. Therefore C is D

  74. He was attributing a manifestly false belief to religious dogma.

    I see.

    So whenever you, or anyone else, refers to belief in AGW theory as being religious in nature they are “making shit up” and deserve to be called a liar by your standards.

    Nice one SB – great own goal.

  75. Jeremy, I’ve searched in vain for a religion which teaches the dogma that “we can do whatever we like to the planet without any consequence”.

    You have been unable to point such a religion because none exists.

    My proposition is that your assertion is false. there is no such religious dogma.

    Mondo Gaia worship is common among AGW types, having been promoted by James Lovelock as an alternative religion.

  76. Bill wears the badge of militant idiocy with pride.

  77. “You have been unable to point such a religion because none exists.”

    It’s called Denialism. Bill and Raptor are fervent followers of this religion; Blair and Bolt are high priests.

  78. Mondo Gaia worship is common among AGW types, having been promoted by James Lovelock as an alternative religion.

    So it’s OK for you to characterise an evidence-based belief in the science underpinning AGW theory as religious, but a contemptible lie for someone to similarly characterise a refusal to accept that science?

    What a monumental (and thoroughly unintelligent) double-standard. Your bullshit is stinkier than usual on this one.

  79. Mondo, Gaia worship is a religion. There is no equivalent among sceptics. In this debate the sceptics are the atheists. The religion is all with practitioners of the alarmist doomsday cult.

  80. Mondo, Gaia worship is a religion.

    Belief in the science of AGW theory is not founded in Gaia worship SB – ergo your argument is entirely baseless.

    Or to put it in the language of your hissy fit above – you’re a liar.

  81. FWIW using the term believe in science seems odd to me. One either accepts the principle tenets that underpin the research and scientific theories by use of reason, logic and research to generate facts, or one doesn’t. The faith based position of belief is more suited to those who do not apply logic and reason but simply accept something as fact because it accords with their own worldview. Anti scientific statements of the variety expressed by Bill and his mate are firmly in this category.

  82. Mondo, try to be a little bit logical. My point is that is that there are no religious dogma to the effect suggested by Jeremy.

    On the other hand, AGW is a dogmatic set of beliefs, extending in the case of some adherents to belief in and worship of Gaia. There is no equivalent on the sceptical side, just an absence or of belief in AGW, or in some cases denial.

    The only contradiction here is the contradiction between your casuistry and common sense.

  83. On the other hand, AGW is a dogmatic set of beliefs

    What unmitigated rubbish.

    AGW is a scientific theory – not a ‘dogma’. You are quite obviously wrong to describe it otherwise and your efforts in this regard reek of dishonest desperation.

    That some people’s belief in Gaia makes them more likely to accept AGW theory is irrelevant to the nature of the theory itself, which (again) is quite clearly science-based.

    For example I think Gaia worship is utterly ridiculous, yet I believe in AGW theory based on the consensus of scientific evidence behind it. If that weight of evidence changes then so will my view.

    To describe this position as a ‘dogmatic set of beliefs’ is simply idiotic in the extreme.

    Any I don’t know what ‘casuistry’ means.

  84. One either accepts the principle tenets that underpin the research and scientific theories by use of reason, logic and research to generate facts, or one doesn’t.

    SB only accepts those tenets if they result in a theory that is palatable to his predetermined beliefs.

    If they do not then he dismisses the resulting science as corrupt and unreliable. It’s a clear double-standard built around re-enforcing his ideological preferences

  85. Confessions:

    using the term believe in science seems odd to me

    HPS is a really interesting field of study. Chalmers has a great introduction.

    The alleged science in the AGW is far from settled. We know too little about the factors which influence climate change to sensibly justify the dire predictions being made. To approach it other than sceptically makes no sense.

    Climate science is not an area whose conclusions can be confirmed by calculation or experiment. Nor is it a description of a well-understood system.

    At best it is a new theory based on models which don’t even come close to accommodating all relevant variables. As such, the assertion that its conclusions are 90% certain is not supported by the work that has been done to date.

  86. We know too little about the factors which influence climate change to sensibly justify the dire predictions being made.

    SB quietly shifts the goalposts . . . .

  87. We know too little about the factors which influence climate change to sensibly justify the dire predictions being made.

    Really? The Greenhouse Effect is well established SB. Are you denying it?

    At best it is a new theory based on models which don’t even come close to accommodating all relevant variables.

    This is not true. What a stupid thing to say.

  88. The science behind AGW has been developed over 150 years.

    I guess that’s ‘new’ in geological terms.

  89. Confessions, the Greenhouse effect, does not require CO2 to operate.

    Michael, it is only the climate change models and the Hockey Stick that enable the AGW proponents to do their Chicken Little act. I agree that if both of these are correct than we have a problem. My main issue is that the ‘scientists’ behind them do not want to open up and allow them to be verified.

  90. Confessions, the Greenhouse effect, does not require CO2 to operate.

    CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas along with a half dozen or so others SB.

  91. Yes, but saying the Greenhouse effect is well established does not prove AGW.

  92. I sense a massive goalpost shift. You’ve essentially gone from this:

    We know too little about the factors which influence climate change to sensibly justify the dire predictions being made.

    To this:

    Yes, but saying the Greenhouse effect is well established does not prove AGW.

    Your first statement is one of a broader understanding about the factors which underpin climate change. These are well established. Your second statement is quite different. Are you now walking back from your first statement about how much is known about climate change?

    It is up to those who don’t accept AGW to explain why chucking a whole heap of GHGEs into the atmosphere over a sustained period wouldn’t have any impact on global temperature. To date nobody has been able to do this with any intellectual honesty.

  93. My main issue is that the ’scientists’ behind them do not want to open up and allow them to be verified.” – SNM

    And as I’ve demostrated to you several times. this is complete nonsense.

    The degree of data available is amazing, code availability, methodological detail in the journals.

    Most astounding – most of it is available for free. on that interwebs things.

    In the last discussion I ecven toild you where you can find a step by step guide to accessing the code and data so you can play with yourself.

    But, as we expect from the data-whiners, they ignore all that and complain about some scientific conspiracy.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s