Another Day

Another nail in the AGW coffin!

Also, I heard some idiot (CEO of the CSIRO no less!) on the ABC this morning, carrying on about how Climate change is "definitely real", but conveniently avoiding adding the "Man Made" prefix during the majority of the interview, despite being introduced like this;

"The head of the CSIRO, Dr Megan Clark has come out in defence of climate scientists and says there's absolutely no doubt there's a link between humans and climate change."

She went on to claim that one hundred years of measurements is enough to determine a climatic trend that is normally measured in geological terms. ie millenia. Of course she should already know this is untrue, because she is apparently a "Doctor of Philosophy in Economic Geology", whatever that is (unless of course the "philosophy" part of that title is actually a euphamisim for "doesn't know any real science")

It wasn't until she was specifically asked about the "Man Made Warming" (btw, why isn't the non gender specific term "Person Made" used by these PC idiots, hmmm?) that she was forced to dance around the issue, and come up with some totally unconvincing garbage along the lines of "well it does seem to be hotter since the Industrial Revolution began" only to then go on to accuse the sceptics of using vague anecdotes when they point out the snow storms in the USA this year.

"We know two things. We know that our CO2 has never risen so quickly. We are now starting to see CO2 and methane in the atmosphere at levels that we just haven't seen for the past 800,000 years, possibly even 20 million years. We also know that that rapid increase that we've been measuring was at the same time that we saw the industrial revolution so it is very likely that these two are connected."

Ummm, why is it "very likely to be connected" exactly? Is that a scientific conclusion based on evidence or some sort of religious faith? I would say that the actual evidence says that by the start of the Industrial Revolution it was already warmer than it had been for the previous three hundred years because the planet was still emerging from the "Little Ice Age". The warming we are facing is a continuation from that.

That was then followed by;
"But at the same time, plucking out a snow storm in the US or a flood in Queensland or a cold day somewhere and trying to use that to explain away some of these long-term trends, of course, we know is not the right way to do it."

Hello? Didn't you do just that? and besides, 100 years of measurement does not equal a "long term trend" in regards to climate. Moron.

In fact, there are some signs emerging that we may be heading towards the next little ice age, but you won't see the econazi's mentioning that one.