Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Warble Gloaming 95% Certain says IPCC

A landmark report says scientists are 95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950s.

The report by the UN’s climate panel details the physical evidence behind climate change. On the ground, in the air, in the oceans, global warming is “unequivocal”, it explained. It adds that a pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends. The panel warns that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all aspects of the climate system.

Totally unbiased reporting from the BBC

So yet again an IPCC report chooses to wrap itself in the fantasy of “scientific consensus” (whatever the fuck that is) and ignore reality in favour of another spin on the wheel. As their models disconnect from reality for a seventeenth successive year they are 95% certain that Warble Gloaming is anthropogenic in origin.

Predicted temperature increase based upon two scenario's

Predicted temperature increase based upon two scenario’s

Such an outbreak of cognitive dissonance is unknown in world affairs, but perhaps unsurprising…

Meanwhile, another cold, harsh, bleak winter is projected for Europe by those climate scientists and weathermen not in thrall to the daemons of CAGW.

General outlook prior to 30th September update is that weather will be mild in November, December with temperatures falling to unseasonably cold in January and particularly February. Financial forecasts are good for major power suppliers with chief executives expecting large bonuses come Q1 2014 for sitting on their fat, rent-seeking arses.

Meanwhile David Cameron expects to spend the majority of this winter “en vacances”, so couldn’t really give a shit about the suffering of the plebs “Don’t they have central heating? It’s spiffing!” said Tory Boy to our reporter Dave Spart (National Amalgamated Union of Sixth-Form Operatives and Allied Trades, Neasden Branch)

20 Comments

  1. Lynne says:

    How many harsh winters is it going to take for the message to sink in?

    I actually heard someone talking about why the UK will experience cold winters despite CAGW. Apparently the temperature of the thermohaline current will drop by a degree or two. So much for Trenberth’s “The ocean’s ate my heat”.

  2. NickM says:

    Lynne, that is not even the point. The point is global climate is and always has been utter bollocks. Simples as the Meerkat said.Everything else other than the amount of snow you have to to shift off your drive in February or the Summer harvest in Kenya is complete wank. There is no such thing as “global” climate.

  3. permex says:

    It is simply not possible to let a money-spinnere like this die a natural death.

  4. johnd2008 says:

    About 24000 years ago, the area where I live was under a mile thick sheet of ice. At that time the human population would only be a few million at most.We had got to the stage of lighting fires to cook our food and keep warm. Did a few wood fires end the last ice age? Do these idiots not know of the medieval warm period and the little ice age? The climate changes all the time .

  5. RAB says:

    It’s like a game of poker now isn’t it?

    The IPCC is holding Queen High but has just doubled it’s bet, hoping to bluff out all the world’s governments into giving the AGW gravy train all OUR money, lives and future happiness.

    The Global warming has flatlined for 19 years…

    Er.. just a blip, something must be masking it, the oceans have eaten it.

    Can we see the actual figures compared to your Computer Models?

    Er… no the Data Protection Act dog has eaten our homework…

    And on and on and on. Desperate stuff.

  6. Mr Ed says:

    Alchemists’ consensus: We shall turn base metals into gold.

  7. John Galt says:

    “The IPCC is holding Queen High but has just doubled it’s bet, hoping to bluff out all the world’s governments into giving the AGW gravy train all OUR money, lives and future happiness.”

    I agree that the IPCC is now playing a “shit-or-bust” strategy, but the problem is that too many of us understand that it’s a bluff, but we aren’t the ones playing, just the ones paying.

  8. John Galt says:

    Lol RAB. I’m stealing that…

    Someone in this lift is responsible for 95% of CO2 emissions

  9. Sam Duncan says:

    Warble Gloaming 95% Certain says IPCC organisation whose meal ticket depends on Warble Gloaming

    There. Fixed it for you.

    By the way, I was reminded earlier that they keep finding water on Mars, but still no evidence there’s ever been life. There was a scientific consensus that where they found water, there’d be life. It might yet turn out to be up there – it’s a big place – but, you know… just sayin’…

  10. Lynne says:

    Lynne, that is not even the point. The point is global climate is and always has been utter bollocks.

    And when, precisely, did I ever say it wasn’t? I was merely highlighting one of the more obvious fallacies ; the so called “missing heat” which can apparently cause a dip in ocean temperature and spitefully freeze our collective bollocks off. Presumably in the same way AGW causes snowy winters and the “death spiral” of expanding polar sea ice.

  11. CountingCats says:

    There was a scientific consensus that where they found water, there’d be life.

    Naah.

    Sorry Sam, but that is bo****ks. All there ever was was a hope.

    Water, or some other solvent, is felt to be a necessary precondition of life, but has never been proposed as a guarantor. At least not in anything I ever read, anywhere.

    The point about ‘consensus’ is that it has never been proposed as an argument in any other branch of science – to the best of my knowledge, anyway. It is only in climate change that it is regularly presented as an argument in support of the status quo. Try telling physicists that they should support relativity or Maxwells equations because there is a consensus in favour of them and they will think you are mad.

    If people start flinging around the concept of ‘consensus’ in other areas of science, as you just did here, it will only serve to damage science further.

    There is no area of science that argues consensus, other than Climate Science.

  12. John Galt says:

    Nicks point about consensus is spot on, it just goes to show you how much the warmists have distorted science to push what is essentially a political argument, not a scientific one. Consensus might be relevant at a trade union meeting, but it’s got bugger all to do with science.

    “There was a scientific consensus that where they found water, there’d be life.”

    In fairness to this particular theory, it relates to liquid water. Although Martian temperatures can be above freezing at times and places, at night temperatures regularly fall below far below freezing so any water would only be liquid for relatively short periods of time.

    Liquid water comparison for Venus Earth and Mars

    When scientists make the argument about the presence of water giving rise to life they are on about large bodies of water such as lakes and oceans which are stable for geological periods of time without completely freezing or drying out.

    Mars may have been like this between 4.0 and 3.5 billion years ago, but it has long since dessicated, so it is possible that life arose in the ancient seas and oceans of Mars, but died out or retreated into the deep subsurface where we will never find it.

    The search for life on Mars, already difficult enough, is being exacerbated by percolates interfering with chemical analysis undertaken by the Curiosity rover.

    Toxic Mars Chemical Throws Wrench Into Search for Red Planet Life

  13. NickM says:

    As to life elsewhere. God knows! Possibly literally. As to AGW – I have no idea but as a former scientist it has a stench about it. Look at it like this, Under Bush II climateological research was increased in funding (I vaguely recall) from something like $2,500,000 to $8billion pa. Now given the cycles of a presidency and the cycles of a researcher that is a heck of a hike. An almost meaningless one. Can you imagine the carbon-sink of PhD students that created? They were probs taking people with Desmonds if that. I was once offered a PhD in physics at York. Guess what in? Anything! Guess why? Because I’m brilliant? Nah. Because they’d lose part of their EPSRC grant if they didn’t fill the place.

    That is how deranged it is. Science is bent as a nine-bob note.

  14. RAB says:

    On consensus, there are scientists and then there are scientists…

    When Einstein’s theory of Relativity was published he was told by a reporter interviewing him, that a lot of physicists thought his theory completely wrong, and was asked how many physicists it would take to make him think his theory wrong. He replied…

    “Only the one, if he is right…”

  15. John Galt says:

    “Only the one, if he is right…”

    Bingo RAB – Absolutely spot on and exactly what I can’t stand about the whole Warble Gloaming argument, it’s got more holes than a swiss cheese (and Nick is right about the smell as well), yet it continues to sail blithely on, suspended on a sea of tax payers money and political will.

    This isn’t science any more than phrenology was, it’s pseudo science.

  16. Kevin B says:

    One question I would like to see asked of Miliband, Davey and all the other neddies who voted for the insane climate change act:

    “How much has the act changed the climate so far, how much will it change the climate by 2050 and how much has and will it cost each consumer and taxpayer? Please show your work”

    This approach worked well in Australia where it was pointed out that their carbon tax would cause considerable pain and make not the slightest measurable difference to temperatures under even the most bed-wettingly extreme scenarios that the warmmongers could dream up.

    That the Climate Cahnge Act will cost consumers a fortune and cause considerable disruption to supplies is unarguable, so what is the justification for this monstrosity?

    No, I mean what the fuck is the justification? We know it ain’t changing the climate because that ain’t gonna happen, so how do the neddies justify it to themselves?

  17. Sam Duncan says:

    Cats, that’s more or less what I meant. You can’t see how far my tongue was jammed into my cheek from this distance.

  18. John Galt says:

    “No, I mean what the fuck is the justification? We know it ain’t changing the climate because that ain’t gonna happen, so how do the neddies justify it to themselves?”

    Partly it is the money, a vast river of additional taxation that wasn’t there before, but more importantly for our self-important politico’s and state employed nannies it is a guarantee of their power and their fiefdoms in uncertain times.

    It is the power of control, of intervention.

    It is the power of nightmares.

  19. RAB says:

    Well I could have instigated an new category… Fuckwit of the Week.. . but no I decided to drop it in here, we DENIERS only have so much we can say about Warble Gloaming. We are reading from the same page after all…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436551/A-weatherman-breaks-tears-vows-NEVER-fly-grim-climate-change-report.html

Leave a Reply