Apocalypse - Apocaholism.

Pending apocalypse is the endless scream we hear from the hysterics, world round. In order to make ludicrous as well as childish, unfounded claims, just like those religious freaks once did on a constant basis, has now been taken over by the left wing menagerie of lunatics who have actually made the claim that lying or exaggerating the facts, is a normal and accepted practise those misanthropes indulge in.

They "feel" justified, as they do whenever they scream that "the globe is warming and we're all gonna fry and die" hysterics that continuously surfaces from said plotters like Hansen, Gore, Jones, Trenberth et al as well as other apocalyptic screamers of doom and gloom.

Meanwhile we sit back and see exactly how correct they are or were or claimed to be. Let's see, the sun is still shining - check, the grass is still growing - check, the sun still gets up every morning - check. So where, may one ask is all this apocalyptal carnage and destruction those soothsayers keep stating will one day happen, when will it actually take place or are they just hoping or putting it out there just to see who falls for their Apocaholism ?

ADDICTED TO DOOM

Tim Blair – Wednesday, August 22, 2012 (3:03pm)

Matt Ridley on apocaholism:

Over the five decades since the success of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 and the four decades since the success of the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth in 1972, prophecies of doom on a colossal scale have become routine. Indeed, we seem to crave ever-more-frightening predictions—we are now, in writer Gary Alexander’s word, apocaholic. The past half century has brought us warnings of population explosions, global famines, plagues, water wars, oil exhaustion, mineral shortages, falling sperm counts, thinning ozone, acidifying rain, nuclear winters, Y2K bugs, mad cow epidemics, killer bees, sex-change fish, cell-phone-induced brain-cancer epidemics, and climate catastrophes.
So far all of these specters have turned out to be exaggerated. True, we have encountered obstacles, public-health emergencies, and even mass tragedies. But the promised Armageddons—the thresholds that cannot be uncrossed, the tipping points that cannot be untipped, the existential threats to Life as We Know It—have consistently failed to materialize. To see the full depth of our apocaholism, and to understand why we keep getting it so wrong, we need to consult the past 50 years of history.

(Via the GWPF)

When Will Jones et al, Tell the Truth on Global Warming?

Waaaah, Waaaaah, We are ALL going to FRY, Whaaaaa!!!! Give me a break children..

Why is Phil Jones exaggerating or hiding facts about the data used to generate items like the "hockey stick" or the "Hide the Decline" statement. Why is he hiding the data to one lot of scientists and freely supplying them to others. Why are we getting all those excuses and blatant un-truths, if Jones has nothing to hide ?

It has always been the case that the main instigators of the CAGW hysteria should supply their data in order for it to be checked and verified. That is and should be standard scientific proceedure. Their is nothing odious or hidious about a request for data in order to test someone's theory unless one has something to hide ofcourse. Jones appears to be that someone as Patrick J Micheals explains..

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

And also this -

 It’s worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).

Be aware also that Patrick Michaels ain't no amateur either..

– Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know

But ofcourse the fun continues as both Mann and Jones have some major questions to answer and it's not about their studies but more about their ethics and integrity. Jones has now stepped down from his position at UEA and will ofcourse move into some other US left wing university where both ethics and integrity are used to wash the bathroom floor.

 Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.

.

Weatherspark: New Weather Program, BBQ data Free..

Weatherspark is a new weather assessment program that shows temps from around the world, from four different weather information gathering service. The fascinating operation of this enhanced and comprehensive program is the fact that you can check weather back to 1950s as the start date. It means that if the information is available, you can check the same day back to 1950,1960,1970, 1980 to the present day. Which is ideal if you are suffering from global warming hysterics. This program gives you comparisons to the four different weather forecasters and also an analysis between the forecasters and their accuracy as compared to actual daily temperatures.

There is a plethora of information available and will take hours to go through. Covering every area of weather from every part of the globe. Check out your own position and see what the weather was like in the 50s compared to today.

Weatherspark

Cool Things You Can Do With WeatherSpark

Get the weather presented in graphs.
Get long range historical and current radar. US only.
Compare the weather in San Francisco to New York. Great for vacation planning!
View past forecasts to see how well they match what actually happened.
See if global warming is happening.
Check out the monsoon in Mumbai. The rainclouds are so strong that the temperature actually dips in the summer.

Lord Leach and Nature "Denier" Name Calling Gaffe..

Baghdad Bob even agrees, "the argument is settled".

I have always wondered why the AGW hysterical crowd always wallowed in name calling rather than stating actual facts, specific to the argument. One wonders why anyone would call someone a denier, denier, when in actual fact they had nothing else to offer in relation to the argument at hand. It demonstrates a childish and immature response, where one would scream "liar,liar,liar" when someone told the truth and one wanted to at least challenge that truth with something besides a shame faced response or a stance of guilty, like looking at the floor while trying to hide one's obvious guilt.
Shameless editors of magazines and warmist scientists alike, suffer from this same reactive response. Instead of proffering a verifiable response or arguing their stance, they resort to name calling, Mann and others of his ilk are masters of it. They have inturn bought science into ill repute, destroyed it's once great reputation and dosed it with kerosene and applied a match. For the sheer purpose of pushing their own religious doctrine while making a considerable amount of money in the process. Lying about AGW is very profitable as they can clearly demonstrate.

But they continue on their childish path and would do endlessly if there were not some people who wander on a higher moral ground, who rise above the name calling and finally call them to account. About time they did as well.

An introduction here by Anthony Watts, wondering the same thing as I - (follow the link for more of the article).

Lord Leach of Fairford weighs in on Nature’s ‘denier’ gaffe

Posted on June 20, 2012 by Anthony Watts

I’ve still not received any reply from Nature Climate Change editor Rory Howlett to my query about why he allowed the term “deniers” in scientific literature (Bain et al), and neither has Bishop Hill to my knowledge. Lord Leach however, has weighed in, and has sent me his letter for publication here with permission. – Anthony
=========================================================

Dear Dr Howlett,
The use of the term “denier” does your journal a disservice, both for its vagueness and for its insulting overtone.  
What does a “denier” deny? Certainly not Climate Change: nor global warming since records began in the late 19th century: nor the likelihood of human influence on temperatures. What, then?
A “denier” denies certainty on a complex and still young scientific subject. A “denier” questions assumptions about the near irrelevance of solar, oceanic and other non-anthropogenic influences on temperature. A “denier” prefers evidence to model projections. A “denier” tests alarming predictions against actual observations. In short, a “denier” exhibits the symptoms of a genuine seeker after scientific truth.
I wish the same could be said of “consensus” writers – or that they showed the same restraint and courtesy towards different opinions shown by sceptics such as Watts Up With That
Yours sincerely
Rodney Leach
Lord Leach of Fairford