More Sadz!!! This Time From A Climate Nutter!!!



Why did the 400ppm carbon milestone cause barely a ripple?

Newspapers, for whom marking round numbers is the easiest excuse to report an issue, were mostly disinterested

It’s funny the author discusses the irrational fixation on nice even round numbers, but laments that the fact that no one cared about the magical number 400.  Sad smile

What priority did Britain’s national newspapers give this the following day, how did they rank it alongside other important events? The front pages, an obvious test, made interesting reading.

The Mirror, with glorious abandon, ran with an offer for a free trip into space, and something about the long-running Savile scandal. The Sun, more earthbound, led with a free trip to Legoland and something about retiring football manager Alex Ferguson. The Express had something about pensions and the Daily Mail warned about “deadly drugs for sale on Amazon”. The Times ran with something about the Metropolitan police, and the Telegraph with a story about a No 10 adviser. The Financial Times stayed in its comfort zone with another tale of corrupt banking. Even the Guardian, which did cover the story inside its paper and online, gave front page priority to a report on how horsemeat was still galloping out of control through our food chain. Only the humble Independent splashed the story on its front page.

On a side note, the author seems confused about the imaginary “consensus” and then let’s their advocacy out of the bag. 

This lack of consensus on media and political priorities contrasts with the scientific consensus, with various studies of peer-reviewed literature demonstrating vanishingly little disagreement over the reality and critical importance of addressing human-driven global warming.

Uhmm, …… the imaginary consensus has always been put at around 97%.  There’s nothing vanishing about that.  Odd that the authors don’t recognize the fact that a few scientists have came forward to state that the paper mischaracterized their views. 

But, here’s the tell…….

Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley recently co-ordinated a “consensus statement”, signed by over 500 scientists from around the world, that concluded our current economic path is rapidly taking us to a tipping point, and that the result will be substantial degradation of human quality of life.

It was never about the environment for these nutters.  It was, and has always been about economic ideology. 

But, more to the point, the newspapers didn’t make much of a fuss about the 400 ppm because people are tired of the constant pronouncements of doom which never materialize.  Attention whores only get attention for so long and then people ignore them. 


This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to More Sadz!!! This Time From A Climate Nutter!!!

    • suyts says:

      I’m waiting for the actual sentencing.

      Richardson is the third person in the county to be convicted of illegal voting this year, and three others have cases pending.

      and those were just the ones so stupid they got caught.

  1. Bruce says:

    the author seems confused

    Guardianistas are always entertaining. From Tim Blair:

    The Guardian – recent losses: £44.2 million – has opened a coffee shop

    Perhaps there is a reason why the Guardian is opening a coffee shop. Is it that hysterically shouty stories on silly climate stuff don’t attract eyeballs or advertising, even when offered free?

    Much fun is being had on Twitter.

  2. PhilJourdan says:

    Another reason they did not make the fuss is that there is controversy on whether it was reached. At first it was thought to have, but then the number was revised downwards.

    As far as the nutter, what he wants is for our economic health to mirror that of a 3rd world nation. It is the cheap energy that has increased our lifestyles. Removing it will relegate us to the 19th century. But the nutters never think of that.

    • it’s revised; because is incorrect to say 400ppm, or any number ppm. Because if you monitor on different places, will show different parts per million. B] if you monitor on a SAME place, before sunlight AND at midday; would show completely different result. CO2 during the day is all lifted in upper atmosphere= if you monitor after lunch; most of CO2 has disappeared / gone up – then it falls after 8PM; reason the trees / crops are most active after dark, are collecting the essential food, the CO2

    • cdquarles says:

      They certainly won’t say it, even if the thought crossed their minds. These folk have no idea what life was like in the 19th Century. Vitamin deficiency diseases, microbial water and food poisoning, general microbial epidemics, macro-parasitic diseases (tape/round worms), etc. Nasty, brutish and short (life expectancy); even though the life span then is the life span now = 120 years. Being old and fat was considered a blessing and those getting there were consulted for life wisdom.

      • philjourdan says:

        They get their idea of life from movies like “The Virgin Queen” and Nicholas Nickleby. The very rich did have it fairly well, but the vast majority was exposed to things they had no control over and no idea about (like bacteria).

  3. tckev says:

    Just to add more woe to their lives, an interesting paper from Canada puts the cause of the majority of recent warming down to CFCs releases.

    Click to access 1210.6844.pdf

    • suyts says:

      I saw that….. I’ll withhold judgement for now.

      • tckev says:

        I keep finding items I would like to put in your “Open threads Tips and Whatnot” page but it is so big and resource hungry (lots of videos, etc.,) that it either takes for ever to load or crashes the browser. Any chance of starting a chapter 2 of this page to reduce this long wait?

      • suyts says:

        Yeh, It’s on my list of things to do. In the mean time, you can just post them anywhere. When it’s slow I read all the comments.

      • Bruce says:

        Doesn’t make sense. See the temperature rise 1970-2000 due mostly to the ~60 year cycle is essentially the same as the temperature rise 1910-1940.

        But no CFC’s in 1910…

        Link to blog post. The graph is Figure 10B of Scafetta 2010.

        • tckev says:

          I’ve only had a quick scan of it but noted the obvious bias to just 1970-1990 warming. As you say this is trying to run against the natural cyclic climate variations.

        • tckev says: ”I’ve only had a quick scan of it but noted the obvious bias to just 1970-1990 warming”

          .It’s not ”the natural cyclic climate variations”

          the problem is much more sick than that: in the 70’s they were massaging the numbers; because; they were promoting: ”because of CO2 dimming effect; by year 2000 will be an Nuclear Winter effect = CO2 will block the sunlight in the upper atmosphere imitating nuclear explosion dust = will be GLOBAL cooling by the year 2000 (that’s what the elite at that time promoted, to bag CO2, including Prof Hubert Lamb) Now the building in East Anglia university; where the top warmist are is got the light Hubert’s name ” Hubert Lamb Building”… THE ENGLISH BUILDING OF SHAME.

          Then in the 80′ /90’s; they went 180degrees in opposite direction; started massaging the numbers to suggest GLOBAL warming.

          The truth: in the 70’s wasn’t overall temp getting colder / in the 90’s wasn’t getting warmer; it’s was and it is the same Warmist ”ebra-cadebra” different lyric.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s