4 thoughts on “Nature study acknowledges pause, writes it off as anecdotal”

  1. Their first graph from the website shows they are using the mal-‘adjusted’ data set – the unusually warm late 30’s-early 40’s look just a warm as the unusually cold 70’s. Garbage in – garbage out. Is there no way to effectively call them out on this and get them to admit the dishonesty in this and restore our faith in science. I have no problem with adjusting to a low-carbon lifestyle if, IF, there really was a problem, but all the pure data (raw or only properly processed) and anecdotal records indicate things were warmer in the past, a much lower CO2 past, then now, and further I can’t see how 1 or 2, heck even 5 degrees C increase over a century could be a problem, averaged out over the whole world. From the increased growing season and reduced costs of living in the Northern winter we’d have more than enough surplus to pay to mitigate droughts, higher sea levels and so on.

    Someone please stop the insanity!

  2. Oops, should be “than now …” I’m an IT guy/nuclear engineer not a writer! (DeForest Kelly, rest in peace)

  3. This is just a repeat of the old epicycles trick of the pre-Copernican astronomers. Just add another epicycle and that will explain the planetary motion. If we look at the big picture and the data that Had-CRU has used for so long and on which the alarmism was founded in the first place, you will find rising temperatures (very slight, less than a tenth of a degree C per decade) but you will find no acceleration! The last 50 years looks almost exactly like the previous 50. So the first fifty was caused by a combination of natural or unknown causes and the second was caused by CO2. That is laughable. Why are people, many of them “scientists”, so stupid or bull-headed to believe this crap. The evidence is there in plain sight: there is no detectible human footprint in this data, none whatsoever, and that is even without looking at the satellite data, which just as clearly shows no footprint.
    When the simplest statistics disprove the claims, they reach for fancier and fancier data manipulations and statistical models of epicycle complexity.

  4. How many ways are there to spell MISANTHROPY? In my view – human-hating is the core value that drives so much our modern debate – AGW; Anti-GMO; anti-fossil fuels; breach PNW river dams; etc.

Comments are closed.