Month: March 2016

Incredible! But should skeptics blame not first themself when  “Al Gore and State Attorney Generals start another climate witch hunt? “*)

                           Read the recent post (13 March 2016) – upper lines added 29 March
A need to identify „Climate Criminals“? For Skeptics: YES! 
Skeptics should wake-up soon on identifying explicit ‘climate criminals’, starting with the First Climate Criminal – Adolf Hitler (HERE1). If not they are likely to be in focus themselves soon. Only few days ago U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged
that there have been discussions within the Department of Justice about possibly pursuing civil action against so-called climate change deniers….. and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on”.
(see CNSNews/09 March 2016).
Climate skeptics should be alerted- The prospect is awful and dangerous.
The need to identify Hitler as the first climate criminal is simple says 1ocean-1climate. “Had Adolf Hitler been identified as the “First Climate Criminal “ many decades ago James Hansen would not have had a chance to testify to US Congress on 23 June 1988 that CO2-global-warming was underway, respectively he would been required to explain primarily how” (HERE2),
“After many decades of global warming the first eight weeks in 1940 turned the wheel back to the Little Ice Age. Suddenly the winter in Europe was the coldest since the early 19th Century (HERE3)”.   HERE1
Without clear evidence, that neither the extreme war winters (1940-1942) nor the global cooling (1940-1970) were in any way war related, the member of Congress would not have taken James Hansen’s claim serious (HERE2).
Unfortunately no one cared. Hansen succeeded until now. To stop him and other, it is not too late to turn the wheel around, by nominating Adolf Hitler as the first climate criminal and demonstrating, that only few months naval war were needed to ‘change climate’. That is evidence on anthropogenic impact on ‘climate change’ pure.

Credit: Booklet on Naval War changes Climate

*)  Source: WUWT (2016/03/29)

EXTRACT: Unprecedented Coalition Vows To Defend Climate Change Progress Made Under President Obama And To Push The Next President For Even More Aggressive Action; NEW YORK – Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today joined Attorneys General from across the nation to announce an unprecedented coalition of top law enforcement officials committed to aggressively protecting and building upon the recent progress the United States has made in combatting climate change.

CNSNews: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/ag-lynch-doj-has-discussed-whether-pursue-legal-action-against-climate

HERE1: http://1ocean-1climate.com/the-first-climate-criminal-adolf-hitler-still-not-named/

HERE2: http://1ocean-1climate.com/climate-skeptics-weak-on-climate-criminals/

HERE3: http://1ocean-1climate.com/a-large-scale-experiment-with-climate-the-extreme-winter-of-193940-and-climate-research/

h/t; Discussed also at: breitbart.com ; tallbloke.wordpress.com

A guest essay by Rick Wallace (R.W.) at WUWT (2016/03/10) assumes that “in real science any state of agreement is labile at best – and establishing a consensus is about the last thing on peoples’ minds”, which he base on study evolutionary biology. He thereon explains “that under these conditions, as often as not, a leading idea is a target to take aim at rather than a flag to rally ‘round.” From this perspective Rick Wallace concludes: “Obviously, this cast of mind is utterly different from what we find in the AGW arena. Which in itself is compelling evidence that the motivations are different in normal science and in (C)AGW.”

What lacks all this noble consideration is that R.W. focuses on the question of how to define what a species is, but when it comes to (C)AGW-movement a need for reasonable definitions is not raised. According R.W. it seems possible to define ‘species’, “as a reproductively isolated population, …..at least for organisms that reproduce sexually”. Unfortunately atmospheric science cannot rely on a comparable picture.
The problem in the field of “AGW controversy” is the lack of clear definitions, and the reckless mix-up of different aspects. For example: A temperature rise is not necessarily results in global warming (GW), and global warming (GW) is not necessarily related to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The existence and cause of climate change has not necessarily something to do any increase or decrease in instrumental temperature records. The entire field lacks of clear definitions, starting with “weather” (HERE). Even though Rick Wallace essay is far too brief in this respect, it is worth reading:

“What is perhaps most fascinating about modern spectacles like the AGW movement (and here I’m thinking in particular of the Moscow show trials of the 1930s) is that the truth is always right there in front of everyone – and it is always apparent to those who can see. For such people, and this is true of most (but probably not all) AGW skeptics, the fact that some sort of charade is in progress is obvious, even if one does not characterize it in those terms. …..cont//”.

__Credit: Rick Wallace (R.W.) at WUWT (2016/03/10)
__Starting with “weather” (HERE):

Modest means modest! Modest with regard to the sun means only a third place or less in CLIMATE CHANGE matters! Skeptics like to challenge main-stream science on the influence of the sun, HERE & HERE referring to “….spectral analysis […over the last ~ 9400 years] identifies a number of distinct periodicities/cycles such as 88 yr, 104 yr, 150 yr, 208 yr, 506 yr, 1000 yr, and 2200 yr…”. That is hardly to dispute, but still wrong with regard to the claim that “the sun has always had an important influence upon climate change”. The sun’s influence is ocean controlled: Variation in solar activity is reflected in cycles. But temporary temperature variations, have little to do with “climate change”, as e.g. “solar activity appears to have remained relatively stable since the 1700s”, assumes a recent investigation. On short term volcanos, on long term oceans change climate, but claiming that there are also “other natural climate drivers” is nonsense.  It’s is all physics. There is no evidence that varying sun-ray has ever caused a significant and abrupt climatic change during several hundred-thousand years. REF-1 , REF-2

Credit/image : WUWT