26 Responses to The Chill Wind Of Change

  1. Henry Wood says:
    July 14, 2014 at 4:24 am

    Record cold is a sign of global warming as any fule kno.
    You just have to buy better hockey sticks and things.

       46 likes

  2. johnnythefish says:
    July 14, 2014 at 8:42 am

    To quote the BBC following the Lawson ‘debacle’:

    “Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence of computer models“.

    There. What more proof do you need of global warming?

    What more proof do you need that the BBC is run by pigshit thick morons?

    More excellent stuff from Christopher Booker on the BBC and this quack science:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10962798/Its-thanks-to-the-EU-weve-got-HMS-White-Elephant.html

       42 likes

    • George R says:
      July 14, 2014 at 2:00 pm

      Supplementary-

      ‘Telegraph’ (£)-

      “Climate change sceptics ‘must be heard on the BBC.’
      BBC shouldn’t ‘squeeze out’ climate change sceptics just because scientists say they’re wrong, says editor of Today programme.”

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10965729/Climate-change-sceptics-must-be-heard-on-the-BBC.html

         16 likes

      • johnnythefish says:
        July 14, 2014 at 4:59 pm

        Same old same old dressed up slightly differently i.e. sceptics aren’t scientists and they are just a tiny minority anyway. They’ll be spouting their shite even as the Thames freezes over.

           16 likes

      • Richard Pinder says:
        July 15, 2014 at 5:46 pm

        At the BBC, the word ‘scientist’ means environmental activist, with about 89 percent of them having no scientific qualifications whatsoever.

        The best ‘sceptics’ are all scientists, whose very existence is censored by the BBC.
        But the latest problem for the morons at the BBC, is that sceptics without scientific qualifications like Lord Lawson, can take advice from scientists such as those at the GWPF, and have therefore, also now to be censored by the BBC.

        This is to keep secrets from the middle-class arts and humanities morons who read the Guardian and the Independent, and who are not very curious about or like science very much.

        But they do worship science as though it was a religion, but only on their terms.

        If its not on their terms, then they want Censorship.

        It must be how the moronic term ‘evidence from computer models’ came about.

        The moron who heads the BBC’s complaints department, Fraser Steel, must have taken his science from one of those environmental activists.

           9 likes

        • Ken says:
          July 16, 2014 at 9:35 am

          They all desperately need to go on a beginners science 101 course and learn what “The Scientific Method” is.

          Then they need to look at what the climate models are, and perhaps then they would realise that actually those models are NOT tests or experiments to validate a hypothesis, but are merely a representation in model form, of the hypothesis itself. They explain in graphical form what the hypothesis predicts. That is in no way whatsoever a test of the hypothesis.

          The only way to test the CAGW hypothesis is through observation and measurement to gather real data to compare to what the models predict.

          When we do that, we always find that the CAGW hypothesis fails.

          It really is that simple. The only people who would refute that are those who have a political or financial interest in maintaining false and needless alarm.

             11 likes

  3. Guest Who says:
    July 14, 2014 at 8:52 am

    “evidence of computer models”
    —
    I had trouble believing that was a direct quote, but forgot this was the BBC being discussed.

       32 likes

    • Disgusted of Essex says:
      July 14, 2014 at 8:49 pm

      35 years ago I remember seeing a computer model that showed we’d be fighting for our lives against marauding space invaders with only 3 tank like weapons and 4 rather badly made shelters behind which we could hide.
      I still think that this was a more realistic model than the piece of bug-ridden code these scientists are pinning their reputations on.

         18 likes

    • Ken says:
      July 16, 2014 at 9:51 am

      What about “evidence of reality as empirically measured”?

      Sorry, I was forgetting. There is no empirically measured evidence for CAGW.

         3 likes

  4. A Scientist says:
    July 14, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    “If record heat is a sign of global warming…what is record cold a sign of?”
    That you still don’t understand climate science?

       7 likes

    • Arthur Penney says:
      July 14, 2014 at 3:03 pm

      Actually this is just a sarcastic comment about the way the Climate Change Idiots use any possible means and methods to put forward their case.

      And thus the same methods can be used to tear their theories conjectures apart.

      In other words: “No matter how good and elegant your theory, if it does not fit the observed results then it is WRONG!”

         26 likes

    • Henry Wood says:
      July 14, 2014 at 3:25 pm

      Oh look, here is a mann who sez he is a scientifik wot works using model computers chizz. Our science master sez these warm up loonies shud use real computers and feed real facts into em when they might get their cloth ears opened if they wash them in warm water first if they can find any in the freezing climates. But then they would all be out of a job cos they dont know nothing about the freezin cold like wot them poor pengwin emperors with chilblayns do.
      Not too worry though cos our latin master sez it will all end well that end swell or as we say in our lat. class:
      “Caesar adsum jam forte”

         13 likes

    • Span Ows says:
      July 14, 2014 at 3:41 pm

      “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

      No shit Sherlock, you’d think they’d have realised seeing as he’s their biggest seller right now…

         13 likes

    • johnnythefish says:
      July 14, 2014 at 5:03 pm

      ‘A Scientist’ – too young to remember when climate ‘scientists’ were running round like headless chickens telling us the post-war cooling was the harbinger of the next ice age, too thick to realise that nobody, but nobody, understands how the climate works.

         23 likes

    • Disgusted of Essex says:
      July 14, 2014 at 8:55 pm

      Didn’t a real scientist – Stephen Hawking in fact – once say that as a scientist you can spend your entire career trying to prove a theory, but it only takes one solid fact to disprove your life’s work (see Hawking’s Brief History Of Time for reference). The problem is, when proof is offered, we’ll never get to hear about it because it won’t fit the ‘computer model’.

         22 likes

      • starfish says:
        July 15, 2014 at 3:29 pm

        I think that was Einstein

        But he is right – except in Climate Change politics where the absence of solid fact is a definite advantage as long as you have a computer model

           7 likes

      • Richard Pinder says:
        July 15, 2014 at 6:19 pm

        For the morons, the facts do fit 25 percent of the time, as they did from 1975 to 1997, but wishful thinking means that they ignore 75 percent of the data, while the Svensmark theory fits 100 percent of all past correlations in the records of data for the Earths climate changes.

           2 likes

    • Richard Pinder says:
      July 15, 2014 at 6:09 pm

      I think for the morons, If record heat is a sign of global warming, then record cold is a sign of climate change.

      But if record heat is a sign of climate change, then record cold is not a sign of global cooling, as climate change can only be caused by global warming.

      This is because at the BBC, climate change is a religion, not an alternation between global warming and global cooling, as shown in science based correlations.

         6 likes

  5. Antithesis says:
    July 14, 2014 at 3:54 pm

    Everything is evidence of global warming. Hot, cold, rain, not rain, windy, not windy, snow, not snow, less penguins, more penguins, fewer polar bears, more polar bears, less ice, more ice. Everything.
    And anything that doesn’t fit the pattern is either “just Weather NOT climate you fool” or does not in fact exist.
    Repeat ad nauseam until you get the answer right – you fool 😛

       26 likes

  6. In the real world says:
    July 15, 2014 at 10:57 am

    Read somewhere recently that some of the scientists employed to try to find evidence of global warming have been asking if the IPCC can draft some laws to prevent the scientists being sued or prosecuted for fraud if it could be proven that their lies have led to unfortunate consequences for people as a whole .
    So it does seem, that as more actual facts keep appearing to prove that AGM is a scam , then the rats are thinking about leaving the sinking ship , & trying to cover up for their lying .

       10 likes

  7. lojolondon says:
    July 15, 2014 at 7:28 pm

    If the weather gets hotter, that is global warming. If it gets colder, that is because of global warming. If the weather stays the same, that is global warming. That is the beauty of being the B-BBC, and making all the rules, with no negative side-effects, ie. customers who can stop paying.

       7 likes

  8. Philip says:
    July 16, 2014 at 10:53 pm

    The entire global catastrophe exercise – in part – is the BBC exercising its UN agenda 21 obligations (under EU sponsorship). Only by global catastrophe predictions can a EU socialist utopia emerge to challenge democracy and crush national patriotism (the BBC is encased in state UK secrecy). There is no future for the BBC in a true democracy it has to appeal to the ignorant, the stupid, the politically correct Labour MP, the foreign power with money to ‘influence’ Westminster. Once out-of-Europe the BBC can be easily dismantled as it should have been ten years ago. The end note is effectively a western ‘World Socialism’ to save the world from ‘global warming’ is thus ensured and all critics are termed ‘subversives’ for a reason. The power of the BBC to defend the lie is a breathtaking and dangerous game of brinkmanship. The BBC cannot be trusted to tell the truth or even apologise for any errors or omissions.
    http://www.endagenda21.com/
    or:
    http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

       6 likes

  9. DICK R says:
    July 18, 2014 at 7:54 am

    Are they using computer models or model computers?

       0 likes