"Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced."

Okay, when are you going to face the fact that there has now been no significant global warming for eighteen years, according to all the officially-recognised figures?

"For RSS the warming is not statistically significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.122 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.139 +/- 0.165 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.091 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.107 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.105 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For NOAA the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For NOAA: 0.086 +/- 0.103 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/14/how-good-are-met-office-predictions-now-includes-at-least-may-data

When you can face that truth you'll be in a position to discuss what to do about people who can't.

For 60 years the USA has been messing around with using weather as a weapon. They did so in Vietnam. Geo-engineering is real as witnessed by extensive use of chemicals {chemtrails} in conjunction with their HAARP program.

Kubler-Ross might has been spot on with her analysis of the different stages of dying, Lyn, and you should be a congratulated on using this as a metaphor for your own apocalyptic belief in man made global warming. But too many of us are also conversant with the story about Chicken Little, and that could also be used a metaphor about people who think like you do.

As is so oftn the case Belly, your psusedo poetic ramblings leave me wondering if you might be a few sandwiches short of picnic.

As is so oftn the case Belly, your psusedo poetic ramblings leave me wondering if you might be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

This article rambles, but instead of the six stages of grief or whatever it was, why don't we look at the scare story spin cycle..

1 - proposal. Something dreadful is going to happen.
2 - governments get sufficiently alarmed about the stories to set up institutes or give grants to unis to study the problem. Suddenly there is a paid group whose job it is to collect "facts" about the scare story while ignoring anything contrary. Its their jobs after all.
3 - general acceptance. There is now a large number of academics and consults of all kinds whose job is to whip up fear on this issue.
4 - The actual physical world does not comply with the story, despite efforts to "reinterpret" the figures. Those involved start drifting away to other scare stories.
5 - We stop hearing about the scare story. Suddenly very few remember this story, or recall supporting it at the time.

We are now around phase 4.

yes let's ignore all the actual scientist and listen the telly weather guy. Hell we should aks him when he is going to start work on a cure for cancer?

"We need a strong economy to adapt to climate change so we need to keep burning coal."

This is the thinking of many people, perhaps most. They are in denial.

You cannot put out a fire by throwing petrol on it! We should be marching on coal mines and closing them down.

Problem is that our political leaders, who only think about their re-election, are controlled by corporations who only think about their profits. And most of our citizens put their own convenience first!

Human, like mammoths, will become extinct because they couldn't, sorry, WOULDN'T adapt to a reality that they created.

Irony indeed.

The people who need a serious reality check, are the recalcitrant greens!
You know, those eco-fascists who refuse to look at carbon free nuclear, and or, dams/carbon free hydro electric power.
Bob Brown is in the public record as declaring, that he'd sooner accept a brand new coal fired power station in Tassie, than allow a hydro electric dam be built on the Franklin. Quote unquote.
They also lock up our own naturally occurring, much lower carbon alternatives. Possibly massive alternative reserves, in common and or pragmatic usage, that could create four times less carbon than current imports; and, compel Canadian tar sands to be mothballed if exported on an international scale.
Ditto shale oil and gas!
Large scale companion algae farming, would allow coal-fired power to continue without any harm to the climate.
The emerging economies need a solution that prospers them, not one which costs impossible trillions!
The real culprits, who bury their heads and refuse to confront the urgent climate reality, are in fact, recalcitrant greens.
You know, those power hungry, tail-wagging the dog activists, who not only buried an ETS, but Mr Rudd as well!
Almost anyone else, would be finished for all time, or become like Lasurus on a triple bypass.
These oblivious and comfortably warm, self serving, obstructionist, divisive, power hungry, riding on the coat tails of others, patently, extreme political activists, with their own irrational hidden agenda? I believe, are the ones, who more than anybody, need to wake up and smell the atmospheric carbon!
Rhrosty.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Pity the person who gave this author the knowledge of the printed word, did not teach her how to think logically.

Another smart, clever, but unintelligent article from this recidivist author.
If she really does want CO2 free energy production then she has to realise that the only possible large reliable sources are (a)nuclear, using Uranium at first and then probably Thorium later, or (b)magic.
I really am trying to help her by advising her to spend some serious scientific time learning about the very low risks posed by ionising radiation and, linked to that, the unarguable scientific fact that nuclear power is the safest method of mass energy production. I'm sure she could handle it if she tried really hard.

Yes, maybe we should listen to the weather people. 2012 was the 9th warmest year on record globally, and in Australia average max temps were 0.51 degrees above expected. See link to Bureau of Meterology here. Given we are currently in a La Nina (after 2010), (therefore expecting cooler, wetter conditions, and given that it reached 43 degrees one day in January 2013 in Sydney I am not looking forward to the next El Nino.

We should definitely be leaving the coal in the ground

Sorry, forgot link in last post to Bureau of Meteorology - see below

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20130103.shtml

Funny isn't it Johnj, That's not what the satellites & weather balloons say.

I wonder why it is that the government funded man produced records show something other than the machines.

Johnj
look, go back and look at what you've written and then at your links. Just how convincing do you think it is that 2012 was the ninth warmest year on record? In fact, it confirms what the global warming crowd has only recently grudgingly admitted, that temperatures have been bumping along a plateau for well over a decade now despite emissions pouring into the atmosphere.

The earth is warm, climatically speaking, at the moment - the problem is that the climate models insist that temperatures should be increasing even further and they's stopped dead. Why? And while you're at it take another look at the figures you cite. The BoM stuff says the year was 0.11 degrees above average.. that's not a devastating increase is it? Wasn't the previous year well below average?

Curmudgeon, when you climb to the top of a mountain and look around, most of the points around you will be high points. That doesn't mean you're still going up -- in fact in this case it means the only way is down.

If your gurus in the climate alarmist movement could honestly say that the globe is getting hotter then they would. The fact that they have to resort to weasel words like 'nine of the last ten years were...' indicates that they've realised they're not going to get away with outright lies any more -- except to the thoroughly brainwashed, of course.

Fascism is of course applied boots-in-faces patriarchal politics. It completely objectifies everything and thus reduces everyone and everything to mere thingness to be ruthlessly exploited, and terminated if it/they get in the way of its expansionist imperative.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel14.html

Fascists do not like uppity women (especially feminists) except as stress-releasing wham-bam pleasurizing units, and of course breeders (to keep the race "pure").Women of course can not be priests in the "catholic" church - but why would they even want to?

Fascists do not like tree-hugging environmentalists, those that wish to protect and conserve the natural world, or those whose protest against the industrial-scale-slaughter-machine meat industry.

Fascists have no time for any kind of softness including soft religion. And certainly none for the applied politics of cooperation, tolerance and peace. Such politics being intrinsic in Reality Itself, and thus in the heart of every human being.

So who are the real fascists, or who has the real power?

Applied fascist politics 101:
http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner
The systematic politics of cruelty and massive plunder described in the above essay was/is further described in The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

Why not Google:
Koch Brothers and Fascism (with ALEC thrown in)
A related essay Rise Up or Die by Chris Hedges the truth-telling author of American Fascists
An interesting essay in the Guardian titled The Pentagon Braces For Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shock.

Daffy
Your post does not make a lot of sense. Fascists don't like environmentalists. But then neither they nor communists like anyone very much, so I don't think that means anything, and communist regimes really mistreated the environment. What was the name of the inland sea the Soviets managed to dry up entirely with idiotic schemes for planting cotton?

Maybe you want to rethink what you were trying to say and have another go.

HI Daffy Duck (singularly appropriate name)

You have been watching that psychobabble on YouTube which claims that "conservatives" have "absolutist" mindsets, haven't you?

OK, now in order to deprogram you, you need to perform a physical act which is called "concentrating". Then you must ignore your own subjective prejudices and turn on your objective critical analysis circuit. OK so far?

Right. Now, listen to me and use your head. What the YouTube ratbags who posted that stuff up "forgot" to tell you was that "Absolutist" personalities exist in any sort of political, religious and social movement. A PETA animal rights activist could in no way be called "a conservative" but they do have an absolutist position on animal rights. Does that make sense? Thought so, you are coming along fine.

People with "absolutist" personalities are unable to see shades of grey, they can only see black and white. Moral priorities and moral uncertainties can not exist for them. Something is either absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

All religious movements have people who do think entirely in this way, and they make up the religious fundamentalists of every religion. But such people also exist in political organisations of both the Left and the Right. Pol Pot's bunch or communist loonies who mass murdered pretty Cambodian girls, and even anyone who wore a pair of glasses, were quite obviously people who were Absolutist personalities. Agree? You are really on the ball today. The great German physicist Max Plank, who pleaded with Hitler to go easy on the German/Jewish scientists, noted after one meeting that Hitler could only think in absolutes. Stalin was no different. Anyone who disagreed with him got shot.

Social organisations can also contain very dedicated people who hold absolutist views. Greenpeace is full of them, and so is the US National Rifle Association.

Now, have you figured out they are quite deliberately massaging a psychological truth in order to advance their social theories? They know that you are smart enough to grasp what they are saying, but they know that you have not studied psychology and can be suckered.

Lyn Bender— it’s called weather, dear.

The Summers here in Queensland have been no more hotter in the last 20years
than I can remember in the 30years before that. I can remember times when we would get a
week of 40degrees temperatures and the floor was hot to walk on and the kitchen benches
and tables were just as hot to touch. I never saw these times as anything unusual because
they’ve been happening intermittently all my life in coastal Queensland.

We also had an 8year drought up here
when my own children were small and saw very little of the heavy rainfall we
were used to in the Summer months. The rain however returned once again, in the form of
weather lows that dumped massive rains on the city and the water was waist deep in a lot of
streets. I had witnessed this rainy weather and floods plenty of times in the Summers of
my childhood up here. So this was not unusual either.

I experienced the last 2 or 3Summers up here as moderately hot but nowhere near 40degrees, but I
expect I will experience this extreme heat again, but I will not think of it as extreme weather because
It is not new and quite normal in my life experience.