The other 96% came from natural events.
I think it was a Simpsons episode where they said that dumb people use big words to make themselves look smart. Hmm. Internal variability? Sounds like a theorem in calculus. I’m sure one of these global warming con artists was looking for a new term and came up with internal variability and saying, “yeah, there’s our new global warming definition.” The low information idiot intelligensia lefties hear the term and say that is so “nuanced” and open up their checkbooks and Al Gore and Greenpeace tout it and go laughing all the way to the bank with these idiots’ money.
Is that what your models tell you? ROTFLMAO
Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]Dear Administrator Jackson:
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."
It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
(excerpted from Professor Hayden's letter to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency. More at link.)
The army of paid scientists/government flacks will keep milking the public, by hook or by crook, one way or another, until the Gravy Train runs dry.
You can spot that “internal variability” by sticking your head up your a$$.
In other words, if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, the evidence must be wrong?
Well never let being wrong 100% of the time get in the way of more “the sky is falling” media events. I’m still waiting for Fat Al’s predictions of the ocean level rising 20 feet, kids in the US growing up never seeing snow, people staying indoors in the winter because of the excessive heat, etc.
Re the Siberian craters articles. A leading Russian scientist said that she hadn’t been out to see them in person (is planning to), and that only one has been studies, but they thing they are do to global warming.
It only takes a plane with some gas chronometers to collect air simples from each crater and see if they are leaking significant amounts of methane, a poisonous gas due to the decomposition of organic matter (as in pre-glacier meadows and grasslands that were the norm in Siberia over 10,000 years ago (remember that the Wooly Mammoths and Musk Oxen were found frozen with Buttercups and other meadow flora in their stomachs (a temperature inversion that froze them in place and then snowed under?).
You can have all the models/modeling you want, but if only one variable if off, so is all your work. That’s science, that’s factual.
With many of these climate scientists we are not only dealing with a fake hockey stick graph, but we are also dealing with human hockey pucks.
“...and subtracted the volcanoes and the sun.”
This sounds a lot like a religious cult whose “end times” didn’t happen on schedule, so they reschedule it to keep their followers fired up.
Eventually we expect temperatures to ‘catch up,’ but it may take longer than five years for that to happen...
Okay, so let's hold off on doing anything radical for five years, and re-evaluate then.
Science is looking for the missing heat, and coming up empty handed. Maybe there isn’t any missing heat, and the heat myth is making science look foolish. Meanwhile, the sun isn’t cooperating, and science doesn’t know how to deal with an ice age. ...Hint, science won’t have to look for the cold. It won’t be hiding.
Even when it’s good news it’s not good news.
Yep, Mann and his corrupt gang will keep running computer models until they die, and keep changing the data and then decrying why the planet isn’t doing what their models says it should do. Keep going with Joe Bastardi and his looking at the history of what has actually happened in the past in figuring out the chances for future weather.
“Despite the continued increase of greenhouse gas emissions from us, rise of global surface temperatures has been easing since 1998.”
So they have been lying about it getting warmer for the
past 18 years.
“suggest that it may persist for years even in our notably warming world.”
How can there be a “notably warming world” when “global surface temperatures has been easing since 1998”?
Externally Induced Climate Variability: It refers to the impact of some external factor that leads to variability, such as the impact of
Variations in solar radiation
Solar and lunar tides
Internally Induced Climate Variability: It refers to internal interactions between components of the climate system, such as the interaction between
Ocean and atmosphere
Atmosphere and biosphere
http://know.climateofconcern.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=article&id=128
————Variations in solar radiation-————
what ever happened to the hole in the ozone ?
Thank you. I'll watch out of that 1% internal variability after subtracting the volcanoes and the sun.
This is like convincing a kid that a dog doo doo on the ground is a snickers bar and that he should eat it. And yet, most American's seem to be picking this up and eating it. It's remarkable.
The real problem the warmists have is that they put all their eggs in the CO2 basket, when in fact they have no idea what and how many different variables affect long range temperatures, let alone how these variables act and how they interact with each other. We are now undergoing one of the longest periods of reduced sunspot activity on record - such a reduction might be expected to reduce our temperatures somewhat, in spite of what the CO2 measurements are - but its occurrence and duration are unpredictable and to think it possible to determine all such occurrences of this and other possible variables over the next fifty years to predict more than approximately what the climate will be is a fools erand.....
the SUN and the oceans and currents drive the weather / climate. this “study” is by people who ahve fudged the numbers in the past and got caught... IF YOUR THEORY CANT PREDICT THE OUTCOME.... YOUR THEORY IS NO GOOD... end of report..
CLIMATE CHANGE IS A NATURAL EVENT.....ITS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE BIG BANG (if you believe in that) At that time the universe was 10 million degrees and been COOLING ever since...
AND THE GENIUSES CANT ACCOUNT FOR THE “INFLATION” FACTOR of he BIG BANG theory.....
LOTS OF THEORIES....... AS SGT FRIDAY SAID “JUST THE FACTS MAM...JUST THE FACTS”...
When I was a kid all of the science books were saying the earth was going to have another ice age..... we were all gonna die. Now its global warming and we’re all gonna die. We’re all gonna die someday... that’s the only part they have right. When it comes to global weather patterns... they’re clueless.
Bad things are going to happen soon, and it’s your fault. Really soon, or maybe later. But I promise you, bad things are coming. It could be warmer, it could get colder and then warmer, or it might just get really cold, but it’s going to be bad, and it’s your fault.