Saturday
Oct112014
by 
Josh
Josh The Pause changes everything - Josh 296
Oct 11, 2014 Josh 
One of the phrases alarmists like to use is to "just look out of the window" to see Global Warming aka 'Climate Change' happening right now. Presumably when they have looked out of the window these past 18 years they have seen the pause in temperatures - which should 'change everything' but I am guessing this might just be a pipe dream. Oh well, here's hoping.
Reader Comments (54)
When people attribute events to climate change, I look at them and enquire, "What climate change is that?"
I then explain that even though the climate is always changing, the last couple of decades have been very stable with no significant changes taking place. The alarmists have used relentless propaganda to brainwash the public into thinking that global warming is out of control with extreme weather threatening our future survival. It comes as a surprise when they stop and think about the lack of evidence for that.
The French have it:
'Plus sa change, plus c'est le meme chose...'
(Oh, come on - 'O' Level French: 'The more it changes, the more it is the same thing..')
The typical warmist Green believer knows little about Climate Change Theory. They do not know that contrary to Climate Change Theory Global Temperature have been flat for 18+ years despite the rise in CO2. They know nothing about the Medieval Warming Period that was warmer than today or the fact wind/solar power are not green or carbon free and depends on Fossil Fuel Power from cradle to grave. Despite their ignorance of Climate Change Theory and so called green energy they present themselves as perfect know-it-alls calling people "Deniers" who dare point out reality:
--- Severe Weather Has No Link To Alarmist Climate Change Scare Mongering Per NASA http://onforb.es/1CXPvjn
--- Despite Rise in Global Temperatures Have Not Risen which is the opposite of what the Climate Models Predicted http://on.wsj.com/1vWSZQQ
--- Dooming Poor To ☠ By Fuel Poverty http://tinyurl.com/lktcpn8 To Stop Make-Believe Warming http://wp.me/pPrQ9-uwk Is Evil
Someone somewhere once pointed out that there was good evidence that the fall of great civilisations through history could be tied in to climate change...BUT...climate changes where temperatures got colder.
Additionally, it is possible that the flourishing of all the great civilisations through history coincided with increases of temperatures where those periods in time were marked by the stability of the climate.
Take that for what it's worth but it seemed pretty accurate to me
Mailman
It's her meno - pause she can see.
Recent comments I have gotten from people when I try to show them the evidence:
'I live in tornado country, I *know* things are getting worse!'
'Have you seen all the hurricanes lately?'
'The Earth's average temperature has gone up 2C since 2000!'
'Winds blowing from the Himalaya Mountains caused the Sahara Desert!.
We are SO screwed.
So "looking out the window" means "look at cartoon map" now. ;)
Andrew
"A pipe dream"? But, Josh .... smoking is an evil, polluting habit. Surely you don't?
As ,"The Pause" has come of age, surely we should give it an adult name. "Cessation", sounds about right.
Get your stinking pause off me!
Briggsy had a word to say about
those pawsthat pause/hiatus.Ever since she graduated from university, I have never been able to figure out why Naomi Klein has been able to garner so much attention. It's not like she is knowledgeable, clever or correct in her prognostications.
Jeff Norman:
The answer IMO is that she is attractive, articulate, witty, writes and debates well and holds the right bien pensent opinions. Geoff Chambers (LINK - see the last comment) describes her current problem well:
I prefer to think that we have passed "peak warming".
From an era before the manufacturers teamed up with WWF to warn against Arctic melting, a timely message for Naomi and overheated warmists everywhere...
"The drink everybody knows... so cool... so cooling... wherever you are."
Climate change's greatest achievement - the pause!
Environmental organisations are exposed for their reliance on fossil fuel funding and Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have their fossil fuel investments brought out into the cold light of day. The hijacking of the environmental agenda by big business is vividly exposed along with the wishful thinking that climate change can be addressed without significant rearrangement of the terms of engagement of oil companies, and airlines
Geoff Chambers
Understanding global warming without mentioning carbon trading is like describing the English Premier League but forgetting to mention SKY
http://www.scrapthetrade.com/intro
On Monday, activists staged a protest against the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), during their Annual General Meeting in the Copenhagen city center. For its massive and climate-unfriendly lobbying, IETA has been nominated for the ‘Angry Mermaid Award’. The winner of the award will be revealed today by Naomi Klein at the Bella Center, where the negotiations take place.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/12/15/18632658.php
Robin @ 6.13pm. As Geoff points out (as does Smiffy @ 7.15), the CAGW narrative is driven by precisely by the very corporations that are Naomi's prime targets. Geoff also perceives that the "left" are beginning to perceive that the major environmental organisations (Greenpiss, WWF, FOTE) are morally, intellectually and behaviourally no different from Shell, Goldman Sachs, Munich Re or, for that matter, the collectivist elites of China, Russia and the EU. To support the "climate cause" means aligning to their agenda. One could almost pity them except that the should have known.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man and from man to pig but already it was impossible to say which was which".
If I may, I sent the followng email letter to the Daily Telegraph - though not published to-date):
diogenese2
Very well put.
To take the Orwell reference further What this supposed great intellectual is doing is DOUBLETHINK. She accepts that the greens are funded by the fossil fuel industry but can't bring herself to say they are on the same side. Two contradictory beliefs in the same head.
To be fair to Naomi Klein, I think she has been quite critical of Big Green and has made similar comments to that seen here.
esmiff (Oct 11, 2014 at 7:15 PM)
diogenese2 (Oct 11, 2014 at 8:30 PM)
Robin Guenier was quoting a comment I made to the article. The bit esmiff quotes is from the article itself, and nothing to do with me.
The article Robin links to is in the Conversation, and has had a surprisingly feeble response, as has a webchat with Klein organised by the Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/books/live/2014/oct/07/naomi-klein-webchat-this-changes-everything
Andy Scrase @ 8.59; From Berners-Lees's review; "In fact she is unapologetic that what sparked her interest in climate change was the focus it brought to capitalism's shortcomings". In other word - the climate catastrophe is just another means to an end and is in itself subordinate to her idealism. The social and economic consequences of both the catastrophe or its mitigation are of no matter as long as her "number one enemy" is destroyed.
Am I being fair?
Geoff @ 9.49: "feeble response" - I noticed that too - 12 respondents in 12 days - you and Robin carried 50% of the load. Time to wind up the thread .
"tomorrow to fresh woods and postures new" (almost) Milton
Still fooling yourselves that there is a pause and that it means anything for the long term trend?
The triumph of denier belief over evidence.
Entropic, are you having a bet both ways?
Are you saying it doesn't exist (we are fooling ourselves), or that it doesn't mean anything (assuming it exists) ?
It's quite good, Josh. Thanks.
I read Shock Doctrine which was actually very good. However she majorly pulls her punches on the Democrats. She is not an anti capitalist, she is a half hearted capitalist.
Must have been a crack-pipe dream!
no doubt Naomi is a personable, charming and amusing in a social context - not having read her output I can only judge from the portayal proffered by her chums and acolytes at GMG... who I must assume seek to paint the lady in a favorable light.
What I see is actually not that good - a shrill ignorant harridan projecting her personal problems and spouting half baked ideological tinpot demagoguery. Best ignored - but bonkers has its own dynamics - as the Guardian repeatedly demonstrates.
IIRC the Guardian seemed to suggest that Ms Klein's recent distressing ectopic pregnancy was a consequence of climate change - and an allusion to Naomi's possible martyr status in my view.
Greg Cavanagh
As a short term fluctuation in rate an argument can be made for the existence of the current pauae.nIn the long term I see no reason why it should have any more effect on the long term trend than any other short term fluctuation. The longest in the continuous globa record lasted from 1940 to 1970, was statistically significant, and yet produced no long term effect. This one has not even drifted outside the confidence limits for the post-1970 trend.
Anyone saying that the current period is evidence that long term warming has ended is fooling themselves if they believe it, and fooling the public if they do not.
One of the delightful things about being retired is no longer having to be polite to people such as EM during morning tea or at lunch in the staff common room.
Does Naomi Klein really have only three fingers per hand? How does she get to count past eight?
She's never needed to.
Anyone saying that the current period is evidence that long term warming has ended is fooling themselves if they believe it, and fooling the public if they do not.
Oct 12, 2014 at 8:48 AM | Entropic man
An utterly meaningless statement. If you take the 19th century trough as your starting point, the 'long term trend' will remain positive until temperatures fall to those levels again.
The temperatue plateau of the last 18 years is a fact in itself. But of itself the only thing it proves is that anyone who claims certainty as to what temperatures will be 2, 3, 4 or more decades time is fooling himself.
what is this cartoon referring to ?
links go to Barbara Boxter, or a webchat in the Guardian or something else ..
Has Naomi said something about the Pause(= the maxing out of global temperatures, the Plateau-ing) ??
anyone who claims certainty as to what temperatures will be 2, 3, 4 or more decades time is fooling himself.
Oct 12, 2014 at 12:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveS
Exactly. Why are you all so sure that the warming trend has stopped?
EM
why are you so sure it ever started to warm?
It might have been some recovered heat coming out, from the oceans..
I find it difficult to accept a pause when all the main global datasets show warming trends since 1996, eighteen years ago.
Don't let these charlatans distract you, make them prove climate change is man made rather than arguing about the weather.
The 'pause' is as irrelevant as the warming that preceded it - if it's natural.
Referring to it as "the pause" is allowing the warmists to frame the debate.
Pause means a temporary stop. It carries with it the assumption that whatever has paused is normally in motion and that its motion will, sooner or later, resume.
Let's find some other word or phrase to describe this phenomenon, please, that doesn't allow them to dictate the terms of the argument.
EM, even if you are completely correct, do you not accept that for the rate of warming to reach the scary levels predicted 10 to 20 years ago, then over the next 20 years the rate has to greatly exceed the rate seen in the 80's and 90's when the scary levels were predicted?
Or do you accept that if the rate of warming from the 80's and 90's was to recommence in the next few years, then the long-term rate can only be at most about 50% of the scary rate predicted by Hanson and others?
Do you not accept that the approx. level temps for 17 years necessarily means that the previous projections up to 2050 and 2100 are logically way too pessimistic?
Steveta.UK
Yes
No
No
Jaffa
As you should know, science does not do proof.
EM,
The only denial taking place on this thread is your denial that there is a pause and that 18 years of pause is not significant.
Your denial of this demonstrates an innumeracy that should be worrisome if you were to be at a level of responsibility that involves balancing a checkbook register.
Do you deny that the Arctic failed to melt as predicted?
do you also deny that Antarctic ice is up, not as predicted?
How strange to see a post from some self-declared enlightned one like yourself showing up at a discussion of ideas without any.
To be fair to Naomi Klein, I think she has been quite critical of Big Green and has made similar comments to that seen here.
Oct 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndy Scrase
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, come on! Along with the other two Naomi's (Wolfe and Oreskes) Klein could easily play a role in the Three Stooges - or Macbeth.
(In fact, Josh doesn't really capture that bien pensant cum ditz quality that Klein exudes. The picture makes her look much too reasonable.)
I don't buy into Ms Klein's brand of hippy communism, and her use of climate change alarmism to further her political agenda is pretty transparent
For example, this quote was taken from a Joe Romm interview
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/12/2611281/naomi-klein-capitalism-climate/
Andy Scrase
Naomi is exactly right, it's a great big banking / fossil fuel scam.
Hunter
I brought this graph to the discussion, courtesy of Wood for trees. It shows trend lines for the main datasets for the last eighteen years. All show warming trends.
You describe me as innumerate despite presenting clear data. As a person who insists on an 18 year pause in the face of clear evidence for warming I can only call you a denier. denier.
EM
why are you so sure it ever started to warm?
It might have been some recovered heat coming out, from the oceans..
Oct 12, 2014 at 9:49 PM | Unregistered Commenterptw
Probably not. If the long term warming tend were driven by heat from the ocean ,as you and Bob Tisdale suggest, the ocean heat content would be decreasing. This would show as a reduction in subsurface temperatures and reducing sea levels.
Observations show increasing subsurface temperature down to 2000M and rising sea level!a, indicators of energy uptake by the oceans.