“When he was arrested a spokesman for the president said he was not aware he was in the US illegally and would not intervene on his behalf.”

“Not aware”, Yeah right !

The story in WUWT only links to a opinion piece in the http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/global-warming-fanatics-take-note/

The sun spots is another cycle like the soi if you average it out it its warming, if you look at it when its high its warming, if you look at it when its inactive its still warming, I have linked to one study of many that examines this effect and shows why it does not change the facts of global warming twice today and at least five times this week
Its not science its misdirection for idiots who can not think
No where is there a link directly to the format old willie goon said this in.

as below it is not science it rubbish or spin

axenuckle Link your source Why should I have to troll though the web to check your story its any thing you like but its not real unless it can be verified by a link. I recognize your creme of the crop wingnuts many common denial names. I Know that most of your links are not even published science just opinion or letters to journals.
If I find one that bullshit will you evaporate?

Lindzen and Choi in, “On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications” (Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011) conclude “the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity”.

Fred Singer in, “Lack of Consistency Between Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends” (Energy & Environment, Volume 22, Number 4, pp. 375-406, June 2011) concludes that the models have failed in that their predictions do not accord with observed temperatures and also that this failure means that the theory of AGW is not supported by evidence.

Large and Yeager in, “On the Observed Trends and Changes in Global Sea Surface Temperature and Air-Sea Heat Fluxes” (1984-2006) (Journal of Climate, 2012) conclude that “natural variability, rather than long-term climate change, dominates the SST and heat flux changes over” the period from 1984-2006.

Kramm and Dlugi in, “Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact” (Natural Science, Volume 3, Number 12, pp. 971-998, December 2011) conclude that “atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures” (Particularly like the last two words).

Zhaoa in, “Is Global Warming Mainly Due to Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions?” (Energy Sources, Volume 33, Issue 21, pp. 1985-1992, August 2011) concludes that “we find little evidence in support of the notion that recent global warming is mainly due to CO2 emissions”.

Paterson in, “Global Warming: A Critique of the Anthropogenic Model and its Consequences” (Geoscience Canada, Volume 38, Number 1, pp. 41-48, March 2011) concludes that “contrary arguments by a growing body of scientists are generally supported by better empirical data than those that favour the ‘anthropogenic warming’ hypothesis” and “the global warming models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others have in some cases been shown to be incorrect and contrary to current temperature statistics. For these and other reasons, the CO2-driven, anthropogenic warming hypothesis is regarded by many as suspect and lacking in empirical evidence”.

Meyssignac, Salas y Melia, Becker, Llovel and Cazenave in “Tropical Pacific spatial trend patterns in observed sea level: internal variability and/or anthropogenic signature?” (Climate of the Past Discussions, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp.349-389, January 2012) conclude that “sea level trend fluctuations are dominated by the internal variability of the ocean–atmosphere coupled system” and “any influence of anthropogenic forcing is still hardly detectable”.

Huston and Dean in “Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses” (Journal of Coastal Research, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp. 788–790, July 2011) ran sea level measurements for acceleration (given acceleration is such an important part of the dangerous sea level forecasts (current sea level trends would only produce a rise of 150mm over 100 years) and obtained not accelerations but rather “small sea-level decelerations”.

Nils-Axel Mörner in “Sea Level Changes and Tsunamis, Environmental Stress and Migration Overseas. The Case of the Maldives and Sri Lanka” (Internationales Asienforum, Volume 38, Number 3-4, pp. 353–374, November 2007) found that, “The predominant view of a rapid rise in sea level seems no longer tenable, and no signs of any ongoing sea level rise were found in the Maldives”.

Callaghan and Power in “Variability and decline in the number of severe tropical cyclones making land-fall over eastern Australia since the late nineteenth century” (Climate Dynamics, Volume 37, Numbers 3-4, pp. 647-662, August 2011) found that, rather than increase, as the alarmists would have us believe, the number of tropical cyclones (TCs) on the east cost of Aust has very significantly decreased over the past 100 yrs, e.g. “The linear trend in the number of severe TCs making land-fall over eastern Australia declined from about 0.45 TCs/year in the early 1870s to about 0.17 TCs/year in recent times—a 62% decline. The extent to which global warming might be also be partially responsible for the decline in land-falls—if it is at all—is unknown”.

The governments, The countrys, the Worlds Science Organizations, Tens of Thousands of scientist and Thousands of published papers ALL SUPPORTING AGW

Only 37 of 194 nations signed the treaty that replaces the Kyoto Protocol, which expires December 31 – and several countries may withdraw their consent.

This program of denial is designed to allow oil companies to make more money by deceiving us into future eating the planet and is one of the greatest evils of our time.

A quick search of the web revealed this claim as a lie. Many large oil companies officially admit AGW.

Of course it makes no difference to them. They can play along with the hoax because the world needs their product. Our entire modern civilisation is only possible with oil. There is no shortage of customers and demand is not ending any time soon. It is good for their public image to say AGW is real and these people spend a fortune on improving their public image. There is no money and no gain for them to deny climate change, regardless of if it is real or not. They make money from OIL not denial and the world can not get enough oil.

You may claim they deny AGW to prevent more taxes on their product. FAIL ! They do what any business does and pass that cost onto the consumer, who needs the product no matter what it costs.

Griff, you make a lot of noise about your logic, but you do not demonstrate much logical ability on this issue.

The theory of AGW predicted rates of warming that simply haven’t happened.
Many other agents contribute to the climate, just because they all haven’t been identified, quantified and proven doesn’t mean AGW theory is right by default.

No amount of names or papers can make up for being wrong.
Change the hypothesis, not the evidence.

Not half a dozen personality’s that is just logic fail

Often a paper is written by three or four specialist in different branches of science who could be from any where in the world. Its is peer reviewed to judge whether it rates publishing. Once reviewed and published other scientists read and make up there own minds as to its value and whether its conclusions are valid. Often further research will find fault with conclusions or dispute one small part of the research. This process seeks to refine knowledge all the time. Nothing is scared or above challenge. Position in science is depended on the respect your previous publications are received in the community. If a scientists work was a hoax or a scam it would just get ignored. Which is what has happened to the 24 papers that try to refute man made global warming.

We have a warming globe.
At least six separate compilations of the temperature record.
Melting ice all round the globe.
Rising sea level.
Ocean acidification.
Changing seasons.
Growing impact of weather disruption.
Changing species distribution.
Permafrost melting.

All happening as the theory of AGW predicted.
No evidence exists for any other agent to account for this warming except mans emissions.

And you guys ignore the body of physical evidence, the universitys, The governments, The countrys, the Worlds Science Organizations, Tens of Thousands of scientist and Thousands of published papers ALL SUPPORTING AGW

Who is not looking at the evidence?

There’s the hiding of data, the inverting of data, the adjusting the data.

There’s the crook Gleick, the charlatans Lewandowsky, Karolly and Gergis.

There’s Big Al’s special hypocrisy sauce, enjoyed by Climate Conference Delagates the world over – jetting around the world to tell us all to cut our CO2 emissions. There’s the carbon trading scam, thank the skeptics for saving the world from that rort.

Four fucking polar bears. The Himalayan Glaciers disappearing in 35 years. Children just won’t know what snow is. Australia is facing permanent drought. The Medieval Warm Period didn’t really happen.

No, just no.

I dunno, you know those climate scientists are proven shills for the oil companies, they get paid millions you know.

And there’s evangelical christian John Cook, who runs the SS website. I heard you’re not meant to trust anything by anyone who is religious. Otherwise you’d have to actually pay attention to the 31,000+ signatories to the Petition Project.

The fact that one story on a blog is obviously a beat up or just bullshit made me start to look at who these blogs where
I soon found that the bloggers on the sites where often linked together Or shared links to heartland institute or similar.
Googling names often lead me to evidence of collusion that was driven by Funding or involvement by the oil industry.

This program of denial is designed to allow oil companies to make more money by deceiving us into future eating the planet and is one of the greatest evils of our time.

A closing thought: Climate science is to truth what Lance Armstrong is to cycling.

And you really shouldn’t trust anyone who won’t share their data. They’re lying to you.

If he wont listen to his own scientists, then why will he listen to us ?

Remember this is a Guy who lives, off the grid, on a boat, smoking dope while he waits for a global flood and the end of life as we know it. He is not generally crazy and I tend to agree with him on most topics, but he has lost the plot on this one. I think he sincerely believes in AGW, unlike the people behind this scam pulling his strings. They are driven by a general concern for the environment, social justice issues and a desire for power.

Your alamist world view is crumbling Griff, and your intellectually bereft ramblings only accelerate this. Like I said.. keep it up mate. You’re doing the world a favour.

And while you are at it here is some other stuff for you to refute
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

Scientific Societies

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (October, 2009)

American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

“Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.” (February 2007)

American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (November 2007)

American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

“The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.” (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

“The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (December 2006)

Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change

“The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.” (October 2006)

American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change

“There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century.” (July 2004)

National Science Academies

U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf)

“The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)

International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf)

“Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.” (2005, 11 national academies of science)

International academies: The Science of Climate Change

“Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.” (2001, 16 national academies of science)

Research

National Research Council of the National Academies, America’s Climate Choices

“Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.” America’s Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010

U.S. Climate Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)

“Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.”

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman

“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

Doran surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists. Thirty percent responded to the survey which asked: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? and 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes

“Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with the keywords ‘climate change.’… Of all the papers, 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it; 25 percent dealt with methods or ancient climates, taking no position on current anthropogenic [human-caused] climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level”

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

IPCC defines “very likely” as greater than 90% probability of occurrence.

Sign-on Statements

The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change: Scientists’ letter to the U.S. Congress. Statement signed by 18 scientists.
“We want to assure you that the science is strong and that there is nothing abstract about the risks facing our Nation.” (2011)

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
Signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences. “… For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. … The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. …Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.” (2010)

U.S. Scientists and Economists’ Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

“We call on our nation’s leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e. prior to 1860). As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts will continue to accelerate.” (2008)

Increase Your Leadership on Global Warming: A Letter from California Scientists

“If emissions continue unabated, the serious consequences of a changing climate for California are likely to include a striking increase in extreme heat and heat-related mortality, significant reductions in Sierra snowpack with severe impacts on water supply, mounting challenges to agricultural production, and sea-level rise leading to more widespread erosion of California’s beaches and coastline.” (2005)

Kea (1,964) Says:
January 31st, 2013 at 6:06 pm
Griff, when a suitably qualified climate scientists does NOT support AGW, you claim they are in the pay of big oil or the fictional shadowy “carbon industry”. You are acknowledging that scientists can present findings favourable to their employer.

Lets go with that then…

When a scientist DOES support AGW you deny that they could be influenced by the money they receive from their employer, because they are “scientists”.

You often (daily actually) attempt to discredit climate scientists by claiming they are on the pay roll of BIG OIL or the “carbon industry” (carbon means organic in this context boys & girls). You are a great one for providing figures to back up your point of view, so it should be no problem for you to substantiate your claims by providing the typical pay of an IPCC scientist compared with other climate scientists who do not support AGW theory ?

You are I think referring top linking to graphs on wiki. Guess what they are better referenced and more accurate then the junk you link too because they have a moderator that does not allow junk since from the nutters to be AstroTurfed on wiki something that really pisses you nutters of …..eh…..

Hows the proof of a massive global hoax coming KK is it taking second place to preparing your rapture pack?