Alarmist David Suzuki - a "complete know-nothing"

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

After watching Q & A  with David Suzuki....I am starting to  feel kind of sorry for Alarmists....

David Suzuki also had to admit  he was wrong..lol.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3841115.htm

"David Suzuki on the very first question is revealed as a complete know-nothing. His questioner tells him that the main climate

data sets show no real warming for some 15 years.

Suzuki asks for the references, which he should have known if he knew anything of the science.

His questioner then lists them: UAH, RSS, HadCrut and GISS - four of the most basic measurement systems of global

temperature.

Suzuki asks what they are.

Anyone interested in global warming should know right there that Suzuki has absolutely no understanding of what he is talking

about...

For Example - 

Challenged from the floor by Professor Stewart Franks, Suzuki admits he might have been mistaken in claiming global warming

was causing more cyclones, which he blamed for killing the Great Barrier Reef. He blames some Australian for “suggesting” it to

him. The truth, as I’ve noted before, is easily found on the Bureau of Meteorology website:.."

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/suzuki_revealed_as_comple...

Between Tim Flannery and David Suzuki, it must be very embarrassing time to be an Alarmist......lol.

[lakeland27]

 how do you explain the last year being the hottest on record ?  how ?

[monman12]

POD that is a silly, and unscientific respose.

History is good for producing data trends if it is of a significant time period, however , DLA (SRB) I kept this past gem of yours, and my response, for obvious reasons, (it uses NASA, and covers the present period!)

siggie-reported-by-alarmists: "So...... how come the temperature has dropped.......giggle........"

"We still haven't matched the temperatures of 1998..."

GISS
NASA Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C) (Anomaly with Base: 1951-1980)

 Year     Annual     5-year
              Mean       Mean
 1997      0.46      0.45
 1998      0.61      0.44
 1999      0.40      0.48
 2000      0.41      0.51
 2001      0.53      0.51
 2002      0.62      0.53
 2003      0.60      0.58
 2004      0.52      0.60
 2005      0.66      0.60
 2006      0.59      0.58
 2007      0.62      0.59
 2008      0.49      0.59
 2009      0.59      0.58
 2010      0.66      0.57
 2011      0.55         *
 2012      0.56         *
 2013         *         *

1998 annual mean was warm (spike) due to a  El Niño event, but in annual mean it was exceeded in 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2010. However, if one takes the more meaningful 5 year_Mean, every year after 1998 has a greater (+) temperature anomaly from the 1998 and the 1951-1980 base.

Perhaps you would consider amending: "We still haven't matched the temperatures of 1998"
Chuckle.

nɥºɾ

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

The temperatures have dropped........

Of course, you are welcome to notify  Nasa and let them know that  their satellites are wrong......good luck!

Back peddling by Alarmists is always entertaining.......

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

Poddster..... it looks like you get the cigar yet again........

[lakeland27]

---

@monman12 wrote:

POD that is a silly, and unscientific respose.

History is good for producing data trends if it is of a significant time period, however , DLA (SRB) I kept this past gem of yours, and my response, for obvious reasons, (it uses NASA, and covers the present period!)

DLA: "So...... how come the temperature has dropped.......giggle........"
"We still haven't matched the temperatures of 1998..."

GISS
NASA Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C) (Anomaly with Base: 1951-1980)

 Year     Annual     5-year
              Mean       Mean
 1997      0.46      0.45
 1998      0.61      0.44
 1999      0.40      0.48
 2000      0.41      0.51
 2001      0.53      0.51
 2002      0.62      0.53
 2003      0.60      0.58
 2004      0.52      0.60
 2005      0.66      0.60
 2006      0.59      0.58
 2007      0.62      0.59
 2008      0.49      0.59
 2009      0.59      0.58
 2010      0.66      0.57
 2011      0.55         *
 2012      0.56         *
 2013         *         *

1998 annual mean was warm (spike) due to a  El Niño event, but in annual mean it was exceeded in 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2010. However, if one takes the more meaningful 5 year_Mean, every year after 1998 has a greater (+) temperature anomaly from the 1998 and the 1951-1980 base.

Perhaps you would consider amending: "We still haven't matched the temperatures of 1998"
Chuckle.

nɥºɾ

---

there seems to be selective blindness/deafness here. thanks for putting the record straight.

[poddster]

All this great 'to do' about increasing temperature and hockey sticks is really just flim flam and smoke and mirrors.

When you look at the reality of the temperature swing that sustains life without catastrophic consequences  is 8,000 greater than the figures that are bandied about.

By the way that temperature swing exists today -40 to +40 degrees C in at least one, that comes to mind, highly populated place in the world. It happens to be a thriving metropolis. Not my idea of a place to live but it is to many millions of others

[meh_too]

---

@monman12 wrote:

DLA I see your ignorance of the Scientific Method, and understanding of data periods has not changed:

SRP: " His questioner tells him that the main climate data sets show no real warming for some 15 years.
Suzuki asks for the references, which he should have known if he knew anything of the science."

I will ask for a reference also SRP to confirm "no real warming for some 15 years"  , because the systems you have mentioned  produced this, also have a bonus: NOAA.



 As you so rightly, and unusually, comment SRP , four of the most basic measurement systems (+1) of global temperature,  but for some reason the concept of meaningful trend period is never addressed for the selected 15 years,  because the observation data periods you mention are selected to prove a short term point,  when global warming (or cooling)  of any significance takes  many decades.

Why not present  1900-1915 or 1940-1955  as  portents of meaningful cooling? Whoops, they were not then, nor will the current 15 years be either..

Remember SRP (DLA),  always use a significant  trend period to produce a significant  yearly running average.

nɥºɾ

---

John do you have one of those graphs to cover the last 1000 years?

[poddster]

I am waiting until the "Fat Lady Sings' 🙂

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

Smoke your cigar will you wait....

[joz*garage]

are you suggesting pods smokes cigars?