Comments On “Contributions Of Stratospheric Water Vapor To Decadal Changes In The Rate Of Global Warming By Solomon Et Al 2010 « Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

2. The evidence that the stratospheric temperatures have not been behaving as the IPCC models have predicted (i.e. with a more-or-less monotonic cooling in the absence of major volcanic eruptions of ash into the stratosphere) has been clear to anyone who has looked at the data.

And They Wonder Why They Are Not Taken Seriously « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

23. Eva – February 12th, 2010 – 4:25 pm
In 1899, Washington DC had 54 inches of snow. We are told that was because there was less CO2 and it was cold. In 2010, Washington DC had 55 inches of snow. We are told that is due to global warming.

Why does the global warming community expect the rest of the world to be as neurotic and confused as they are?

Kevin Rudd's chaos theory | Herald Sun

Before Hopenhagen, a case could be made - an utterly stupid and empty case, but one nevertheless - that we had to join the world in cutting emissions of carbon dioxide.

After Copenfloppen, no such case can be made. The world is not going to cut emissions. Certainly not the two that matter - the US and China. Except by accident, if they slide into a replay of the Great Depression.

Yet Climate Minister Penny Wong, continues to chant, like some lonely staggering short-circuiting Dalek: "Exterminate? Extermincohabitate! Carbon will be destroyed. Car, car, flicker, flicker, Abbotts will be smuggled."

Doubt fuels opposition to CPRS | The Australian

VOTERS have been turning off Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme at a faster rate than they have stopped believing in the existence of climate change.

The IPCC's "warming bias" | Australian Climate Madness

It's curious, isn't it, that all of the errors that have been picked up in IPCC AR4 over the past few weeks have been in the warming direction? They all exaggerate the effects of climate change to some extent. If there were random errors, then one would assume that there would be a roughly equal amount indicating less warming as more warming. But no, they all indicate more warming. To my mind this can only indicate one thing: there is a pre-conceived agenda that global warming is real and dangerous, and the IPCC is desperately looking for evidence to back that up. What it should be doing is looking impartially at the evidence and evaluating it free from such preconceptions. But when your organisation's very existence depends on one particular outcome, it isn't surprising that that is precisely what you find…