back to article Scariest climate change prediction yet: More time to eat plane food

Increasingly powerful transatlantic jet streams thanks could by 2050 add a global 2000 hours of extra flight time, says a University of Reading study. Jet streams are fast winds that can reach 300km/h and which flow from west to east. The winds are at their strongest during winter when the boundaries between hot and cold air …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    False premise leads to false results

    Pretty much sums up the state of "climate change" modelling. Once you have bought off on the bogus predictions of the climate modellers, one can more or less model any future result.

    However, if the actual satellite data is correct, and the warming stays in the trivial department (as it has for 40 years according to the instruments in space), this, like most catastrophic predictions will not come to pass.

    I miss Lewis :(

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: False premise leads to false results

      New narrative: okay, we admit things are actually getting warmer, but only a little bit.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: False premise leads to false results

        @ Dan 55

        "New narrative: okay, we admit things are actually getting warmer, but only a little bit."

        I am fairly sure the narrative is the same old 'we all gonna die, the saviour is coming, something about 4 horsemen'.

        You would have thought the many false claims and blatant wealth transfer would have changed their story by now but nope. They still wanna stand on top of a hill waiting for their mothership to take them away while the rest of us burn on this planet. (I may have got the religions mixed up a little there. Eventually they all start sounding so similar)

      2. Fluffy Bunny
        Holmes

        Re: False premise leads to false results

        "Except that things aren't getting warmer. What are getting warmer are the brows of all the "climate scientists" as they rewrite the world's temperature record to turn flat and/or cooling trends into warming. There is a new hockey stick in the world. It is all the modifications to the world's temperature records getting higher and higher in yet another attempt to produce the "world's warmest".

        Every site in Paraguay was corrupted. Ditto Iceland. Even in Australia, an astounding level of scientific fraud has been committed.

    2. Thought About IT

      Re: False premise leads to false results

      "Boffins" can predict all they like, but no evidence will change the mind of those who are convinced AGW is a conspiracy. Some "boffins" even calculated that, given the number of scientists involved, such a conspiracy would fall apart after 3.5 years at most, but conspiracy theorists are immune to evidence.

      1. Someonehasusedthathandle

        Re: False premise leads to false results

        It's not a conspiracy, it's skepticism. It's looking at the data provided and finding it lacking.

        1. Thought About IT

          Re: False premise leads to false results

          "It's not a conspiracy, it's skepticism. It's looking at the data provided and finding it lacking."

          When over 97% of those qualified to study the evidence find it compelling, only a conspiracy theory explains your so-called scepticism.

          1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

            Re: False premise leads to false results

            When somebody tells you that there is 97% agreement for something as complex as this, you have to question whether it's true.

            The 97% figure is one of the things that makes me think 'hmmm'.

            1. Thought About IT

              Re: False premise leads to false results

              "The 97% figure is one of the things that makes me think 'hmmm'", that must be a conspiracy!

            2. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

              Re: False premise leads to false results

              Another thing that makes me think 'hmmm' is that temperatures are currently relatively stable ( ie: it's not 50°c in the UK today ), but any day now, if we don't do something immediately, that hockey stick is going to kick in. It's all too way convenient.

              1. TheVogon Silver badge

                Re: False premise leads to false results

                "temperatures are currently relatively stable"

                You must have missed the last 2 years being in turn the warmest since records began?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: False premise leads to false results

                  Only if you believe the homogonised ground data sets, which here in Australia are modified on a daily basis. The past has been cooled and the present is warmed ... ho-hum, the farce continues.

                2. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: False premise leads to false results

                  @ TheVogon

                  "You must have missed the last 2 years being in turn the warmest since records began?"

                  Last I heard from the priests of MMCC it took many years to establish a trend and a couple of years data that didnt fit the pre-assumed conclusion was not acceptable as evidence of anything at all. Or have the rules changed again?

                  1. TheVogon Silver badge

                    Re: False premise leads to false results

                    "it took many years to establish a trend"

                    But only a few years in this case to demonstrate that something is not "stable" but is subject to significant variation.

                    Trends like AGW though do indeed take many years to take us to the current point of lack of credible scientific doubt.

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: False premise leads to false results

                      @ TheVogon

                      "But only a few years in this case to demonstrate that something is not "stable" but is subject to significant variation."

                      Nobody but the cult of absolute disbeliever understand that the world has gone through many changes.

                      "Trends like AGW though do indeed take many years to take us to the current point of lack of credible scientific doubt."

                      Except for the large periods of doubt where the amount of evidence forever needed increasing until it proved the pre-determined outcome. Say the world is doomed for long enough and eventually you will be proven right, but calling 6 every time a dice rolls will eventually land on the right answer too.

                      1. TheVogon Silver badge

                        Re: False premise leads to false results

                        "Nobody but the cult of absolute disbeliever understand that the world has gone through many changes."

                        But most of them not caused by mankind over a few decades.

                        "but calling 6 every time a dice rolls will eventually land on the right answer too."

                        That's a good example of what the deniers are doing citing "18 years" of no warming - natural variation in the short term will always provide windows where you can pretend your chosen outcome is happening by cherry picking time ranges.

                        However, the longer term your data set versus the effect you are measuring, the less likely statistical anomalies are versus a long term trend...See for instance https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

                        1. codejunky Silver badge

                          Re: False premise leads to false results

                          @ TheVogon

                          "But most of them not caused by mankind over a few decades."

                          And there is a HUGE question over this one. That is why claiming the change is abnormal requires better proof than a religious belief. This is why it is sound to disbelieve the doomsday prophecy as it is to ignore those who claim nothing changes. Our understanding of climate just isnt good enough but a religious exploitation of a lack of scientific information is the same thing creationists did to argue against evolution (until science caught up). We cant get the answer until the work has been done.

                          "That's a good example of what the deniers are doing citing "18 years" of no warming - natural variation in the short term will always provide windows where you can pretend your chosen outcome is happening by cherry picking time ranges."

                          It is a fantastic example of the MMCC co2 theory religion. For many years everything they predicted was wrong, but they still insisted they were right. They were proven wrong and proven to be falsifying data to push their point. MMCC co2 theory has dont more to damage the reputation of 'scientists' than pretty much anything else I can think of. As I recall the 18yr argument was an amusement at the forever moving goalposts of MMCC co2 theory. We need x more years of data, every time the deadline passed the same comment was made and the same prophecy made. The religion made the sticks they are consistently beaten with (including cherry picking date ranges). As you say anyone can prove their chosen outcome by cherry picking, and people are sick of it (from both sides but mostly the homicidal people pushing MMCC co2 theory).

                          "However, the longer term your data set versus the effect you are measuring, the less likely statistical anomalies are versus a long term trend"

                          Very true depending on the reliability of the data and the manipulations which are applied. Lewis popped up a wonderful article ages ago about NASA modifying a dataset so badly that even the IPCC (not the most reliable nor trustworthy) refused to stand by it. And shockingly the modification changed a flat line to an increasing one.

                3. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: False premise leads to false results

                  "You must have missed the last 2 years being in turn the warmest since records began?"

                  Meh. "Since records began" is merely a blip in the earth's history.

            3. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

              Re: False premise leads to false results

              And another ( last one, promise ):

              THIS YEAR HOTTEST EVER ( although actually *way* within the error margins, technically equally as warm as one year just after the war before AGW really apparently kicked in ). That form of hyperbole doesn't sit well with me.

              1. NomNomNom

                Re: False premise leads to false results

                "THIS YEAR HOTTEST EVER ( although actually *way* within the error margins, technically equally as warm as one year just after the war before AGW really apparently kicked in ). That form of hyperbole doesn't sit well"

                Well 2015 was the warmest year on record at the surface. It isn't within the error margins, it's the warmest.

                1. NomNomNom

                  Re: False premise leads to false results

                  so there is no 97% consensus of climate scientists that man made global warming is true but 100% of climate scientists believe in man made global warming to get more funding.

                  Thanks for the laugh people

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: False premise leads to false results

                    Well, NomNomNom, you might actually read some of the sources claiming this (but we all know you won't, because you are a cheerleader for this bullshit). The links have been provided, so you do not have to dig up the papers - I have read some of them, utter bollocks!

                2. Fluffy Bunny
                  Holmes

                  Re: False premise leads to false results

                  2015 hottest ever. Except for 2010. And 1997. Oh, and let's not forget the medieval warm period, or the Roman warm period, or the Minoan warm period. Don't worry your pretty little head about that, we have the very best scientists rewriting history to remove those inconvenient truths.

                  And be very careful not to tell anyone that we're just in the latest of the interglacials, and a rather weak one at that.

                  1. NomNomNom

                    Re: False premise leads to false results

                    2015 is the hottest on record in all records except the lower troposphere records. It beats both 2010 and 1997.

                    That's land surface, sea surface and ocean heat.

                    curiously sceptics only see fit to ever quote the lower troposphere records as the single source of truth. Never mentioning that the most serious errors found in any records were in those lower troposphere records, which are just as heavily adjusted as the surface records.

                    As I said before the whole data adjustment conspiracy theory is politically motivated by sceptics straining for a justification for why they cherrypick the record that is most convenient to their argument. That's also why sceptics never question the adjustments made to the lower troposphere records. They could do so easily, but it wouldn't be politically expedient for the lobbyist funded think tanks (GWPF, Heartland Institute, SEPP) who churn out the sceptic memes for media consumption to do so.

                    Another thing is that only a few years ago sceptics were actively citing the other records to claim there was a pause in warming. It's only since additional time in a warming world has demolished the idea that the world has stopped warming that they are now disowning those records and clinging on to one. I expect the lower troposphere will go the same way soon too. All the indexes are heading upwards, it's only a matter of time.

                    Even sea level which is a proxy of thermal expansion and therefore (although just a few years ago sceptics were even trying to claim that had paused).

                    All the failed predictions seem to be stacking up on the side of the sceptics. Including their global cooling "it's going to cool down any day now" ideas.

                    Only the fervent believers among sceptics are going to be able to keep it up in coming years, probably trying to whitewash the history of pause advocacy in the process. We'll have another arctic sea ice record minimum in years to come and these sceptics will be desperately trying for a THIRD time to claim it's the last one and that ice is not heading towards zero. Really don't think the wider world is going to buy such insane repeatedly demonstrated wrong denial.

                    Perhaps this was why lewis page was disposed of. Afterall republican anti-science conspiracy theory style tabloid trash about "hoaxes" of adjusted data and new world order puppet masters is in stark contrast to decent scientific reporting such as:

                    http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

                    Perhaps the register doesn't want to be associated with trump-like reality bending stupidity anymore.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: False premise leads to false results

                      "All the failed predictions seem to be stacking up on the side of the sceptics. "

                      An obligatory cartoon - https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/failed-climate-predictions.jpg

                      Entertaining reading, about failed predictions.

                      http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

                      http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/

                      http://climatechangepredictions.org/

                      Meanwhile, the search for the missing "tropospheric hotspot", the #1 verifiable prediction of the "CO2 will cook us all" brigade, continues apace.

            4. GrumpenKraut Silver badge

              Re: False premise leads to false results

              > The 97% figure is one of the things that makes me think 'hmmm'.

              You'll find that about the same percentage (likely a higher one) of physicists accept, say, quantum mechanics.

              Interpreting overwhelming agreement on a topic in the scientific community as suspect is very unwise.

              1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

                Re: False premise leads to false results

                But nobody is hoping to use the consensus on QM to reduce the living standards of everybody in the world.

                My point is that I don't believe the 97% figure. It's being jammed down our throats so as to say "You're wrong, science says so, reduce your living standards".

                I won't believe until I see some some actual evidence, not a vague promise that keeps getting pushed back, that any day now, we're going to experience the pointy end of hockey stick. Every time it's "firey death in 20 years", but 20 years came and went and we're apparently occasionally 0.1° warmer, within the margin of error.

                Next prediction, of course, will be different.

                1. TheVogon Silver badge

                  Re: False premise leads to false results

                  "I won't believe until I see some some actual evidence"

                  Like the accelerating year on year rise in sea levels for instance?

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: False premise leads to false results

                    "Accelerating sea level rises" - not happening anywhere in the real world. Of course after data is homogonised and corrected, who knows (or cares).

                    1. TheVogon Silver badge

                      Re: False premise leads to false results

                      ""Accelerating sea level rises" - not happening anywhere in the real world."

                      Sure - so those island states that are gradually sinking benieth the waves are imagining it? Or they are not "the real world"?

                      See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1880-2013.png

                      1. TheVogon Silver badge

                        Re: False premise leads to false results

                        Also of note for sea level rise - 20% of it has been offset by increased retention of water on land - see:

                        http://spacecoastdaily.com/2016/02/study-nasa-satellite-shows-rising-seas-slowed-by-increasing-water-on-land/

                    2. This post has been deleted by its author

                    3. Vladimir Nicolici
                      FAIL

                      Re: False premise leads to false results

                      "data is homogonised"

                      Homo-what?

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: False premise leads to false results

                        "Homogonised" is the term used by the Australian BoM for the temperature data set that is altered on a daily basis and is published. There have long been discussions about whether this activity is alone responsible for "creating" warming in Australia.

                        Here, there is a (disingenuous IMHO) defence of the practice.

                        http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

                        Basically, they claim that "everyone does it and so should we" and claim that their data reduces the trend in "extreme temperatures" in the 1951-2010 data set. This is a magicians trick, look here, not there! One wonders why this particular period is chosen or this particular aspect - indeed

                2. Alan Brown Silver badge

                  Re: False premise leads to false results

                  "But nobody is hoping to use the consensus on QM to reduce the living standards of everybody in the world."

                  If you want to curb AGW, then you _can't reduce the living standards of everyone. Developed countries, perhaps, but 3/4 of the world lives in poverty and the only way to reduce their population growth is to make them better off.

                  The REAL answer to the issue is "more nooclear", but that doesn't fit the prevailing political agenda.

                  It's also worth noting that whilst a few hundred million dollars get thrown at things like the G8 Paris conference on climate change so all the leaders can hob-nob, actual researchers are mostly hard pressed to even get 50-100k grants for enough computing power to validate atmospheric satellite observations made over the last 40 years and see how much things have actually changed

                  (Hint: we know what the heat blanketing factor of CO2 is, but what we don't know is how much the earth's reflectivity has changed overall and therefore how much actual solar heat was retained in the atmosphere. At the current pace of data crunching, the project for analysing the change in every km^2 of the earth via satellite imagery taken over the last 40 years will be completed in 10-15 years)

                  1. TheVogon Silver badge

                    Re: False premise leads to false results

                    "the only way to reduce their population growth is to make them better off."

                    Or not spend billions of our aid budget on keeping them alive in countries already populated well beyond what local resources can consistently support.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: False premise leads to false results

                @GrumpenKraut It also turns out that a significant number of theoretical physicists and real scientists incl. Nobel laureates, think that "climate science" is completely bogus and unrelated to science.

                1. GrumpenKraut Silver badge

                  Re: False premise leads to false results

                  > ...a significant number of theoretical physicists and real scientists incl. Nobel laureates ... [citation needed]

                  Certainly not a significant percentage.

                  Plus, how do you define "real scientists", as not doing climate research?

              3. G R Goslin

                Re: False premise leads to false results

                If you look back, I think you'll find that at one time, not too long ago, more than 97% of scientists said that plate tectonics was not possible, and looking back a bit more, that the Big Bang Theory of evolution was rubbish. Whilst the first has been proven, we're still waiting on the latter. And going back a lot further the consensus of scientists was that the sun and stars orbited the Earth.

              4. Fluffy Bunny
                Holmes

                Re: False premise leads to false results

                Interestingly, quantum physicists don't accept quantum physics. That isn't to say that they don't accept quantum mechanics. It has made far too many accurate predictions to not be true. But they don't accept the exact same quantum mechanics. There is a tremendous amount of churn in the field, with everybody developing their own specific improvements.

                The same applies to relativity. The field is tremendously useful, but it is also very active with everybody providing their own unique contribution. Again, many accurate predictions demonstrate the worth of the theory. Gravitational lensing, and such.

                And this is where climate science demonstrates that it isn't actually a science. Although it has made many "predictions" (actually they call them projections because they aren't good enough to call predictions), none of them has come true. Only in climate science do they average garbage and expect to get gold out.

                Anybody that points out the failure to predict anything is shouted down. The worst insult is "not the right sort of climate scientist". There are two fatal, false, predictions:

                1) computer models all predict far too much warming - two, three, even more, times what is actually found on a long-term basis

                2) none of the climate scientists predicted the pause, which has lasted for 18 years an 8 months now.

                Finally, in a real science, failed theories are modified in the light of new evidence. Only in climate science is the data modified to fit the theories.

                1. NomNomNom

                  Re: False premise leads to false results

                  "computer models all predict far too much warming - two, three, even more, times what is actually found on a long-term basis"

                  They do appear to show too much warming, but it isn't two or three times higher. It's more like 10-40%, which doesn't invalidate the theory that human emissions are warming the earth anymore than punctuated equilibrium invalidated the theory of evolution.

                  "none of the climate scientists predicted the pause, which has lasted for 18 years an 8 months now."

                  Actually the pause no longer exists in most datasets. Meaning it never existed. It was a statistical anomaly. Some scientists did warn sceptics that starting trends in 1998 over a short period was a bad idea. They didn't listen though.

                  I would say the fact warming has continued is probably the best example now of a prediction that AGW theory has got correct, mainly because it's detractors cannot claim it was an easy prediction to make. A potential falsification and the theory passed.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: False premise leads to false results

                    "Actually the pause no longer exists in most datasets."

                    And there we have it ...

                    “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

                2. TheVogon Silver badge

                  Re: False premise leads to false results

                  "none of the climate scientists predicted the pause, which has lasted for 18 years an 8 months now."

                  I think you are a bit out of date - there is no 'pause': See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/d/2/hadcrut4_graph_small.jpg

                  Not to mention that 2016 is expected for the third year in a row to be the warmest on record: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2015/global-temperature

            5. TheVogon Silver badge

              Re: False premise leads to false results

              "The 97% figure is one of the things that makes me think 'hmmm'."

              It comes from here: http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: False premise leads to false results

                @TheVogon: You probably should start reading here. http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html

                Like the HockeyStick, it is fraud. Anyone quoting the 97% merely demonstrates they are incapable of independent thought (or research for that matter).

                1. TheVogon Silver badge

                  Re: False premise leads to false results

                  "Anyone quoting the 97% merely demonstrates they are incapable of independent thought "

                  Anyone quoting incorrectly as 97% of climate scientists maybe. The actual consensus was 97% of peer reviewed climate science papers. See the source I posted.

                  That global warming is happening and that man is at least a significiant cause hasn't been in any credible doubt for at least a decade now. The things really in question are how bad is it going to get, in what time scale, versus what atmospheric levels of CO2 as we don't know how accurate the models are, and what natural amplification or mitigation effects might exist that we don't yet know about?

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: False premise leads to false results

                    Well Vogon, now I know you are a clown, not like there has been any doubt for a least a decade now.

                    You really need to educate yourself on the total GHG effect in the atmosphere versus the delta of human GHG emissions. Thermogeddon is not going to happen. The missing science is still AWOL.

                    What is more likely to happen is that idiot governments will listen to idiot pseudo-scientists and spend billions on desalination plants because rain is going to stop falling (or whatever there next wrong prediction is), making life less good for everyone. Oh wait, that already happened!

                    1. TheVogon Silver badge

                      Re: False premise leads to false results

                      "You really need to educate yourself on the total GHG effect in the atmosphere versus the delta of human GHG emissions."

                      Yes, done that in much detail. The impact of human emissions of CO2 are well known, anyway. e.g. long term warming of the planet.

                      "Thermogeddon is not going to happen."

                      Depends what you mean by 'Thermogeddon'. The planet is likely going to continue getting warmer as a direct consequence of increased level of human caused CO2 emissions. A catastrophic runaway impact as I would infer from your term is apparently quite possible. For instance what happens when the permafrost melts? Or the clathrates?

                      See http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/melting_permafrost.asp

                      and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

                      "What is more likely to happen is that idiot governments will listen to idiot pseudo-scientists "

                      Seems to be a particularly American thing, but yes there is apparently a risk of ignoring the problem - largely driven by a massive funding effort by those with vested interested (like fossil fuel companies) to create the illusion of an on-going scientific debate where none really exists.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: False premise leads to false results

                        "The planet is likely going to continue getting warmer as a direct consequence of increased level of human caused CO2 emissions. "

                        I think it was Burt Rutan who rhetorically asked, "If I told you that it is very likely that this plane I have designed will not crash, would you get in it?" (I did not double check the exact quote, but this was the gist)

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: False premise leads to false results

                    "Anyone quoting incorrectly as 97% of climate scientists maybe. The actual consensus was 97% of peer reviewed climate science papers. See the source I posted."

                    And I posted the links where this piece of fraudulent surveying (and others) was debunked over and over again. You read not one of the referenced papers or articles.

                    That 97% of scientists who believe in AGW agree with AGW is a pretty poor showing. Apparently 3% of the believers are heretics.

            6. Sirius Lee

              Re: False premise leads to false results

              @disgusted

              Absolutely. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two of physics most studied phenomena neither of which has failed a test in over 100 years (GR) and nearly 100 years (QM). Yet these are constantly tested for flaws. Meanwhile in climate change, anyone daring to suggest the climate models may be wrong are denounced as deniers. Whether you agree with the AGW hypothesis or not, surely any one can agree this is not science. This is religion.

              If the figure of 97% agreement is true it's unhealthy. It probably illustrates a bias in funding. If the only organizations receiving funding are those that agree with the majority, there can be no scepticism. Funding by organizations with a different bias such as, but not only, the oil companies, are ignored.

              This bias seeps into every communication, especially from the BBC. There's no program about nature that cannot end with a warning about climate changes. On Country File last week, a representative of the Met Office explained to Tom heap that the recent wet weather was a consequence of El Niño putting more moisture into the atmosphere. Pressed by Heap the forecaster had to admit that *if* the atmosphere warmed then it, too, would result is more moisture in the atmosphere and wetter weather in Britain. *if * not *when* but the implication was left there.

              With scientists from the Met Office attempting to offer honest explanations for the weather, but not ones that accentuate the AGW story, perhaps its not surprising the BBC is ending there long relationship with the Met Office.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: False premise leads to false results

                "If the figure of 97% agreement is true it's unhealthy."

                It's not true - links previously. Even noted climate scientists from the heart of the "we're all doomed" departments have distanced themselves from this oft repeated falsehood

          2. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: False premise leads to false results

            @ Thought About IT

            "When over 97% of those qualified to study the evidence find it compelling, only a conspiracy theory explains your so-called scepticism."

            I will point out that those religious believers all believe themselves to be qualified and are believed to be qualified by their believers. Are you a sceptic? Or only of every god but yours?

            1. itzman

              Re: False premise leads to false results

              "When over 97% of those qualified to study the evidence find it compelling, only a conspiracy theory explains your so-called scepticism."...

              ...If indeed there is any evidence at all that 97% did find it compelling: If not the fact that its been stated so often is, itself evidence of a conspiracy...

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: False premise leads to false results

            @Thought About IT

            The 97% meme so often quoted has been dismantled and shown to be not what it is claimed to be. However the "converted" preach it as gospel, despite having been falsified - rather like the "settled science" they also worship.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: False premise leads to false results

              For Mr. Thumbs down, I suggest Google, or you could start here. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

              You don't have to like the WSJ, but they give their sources. As usual, the "believers" have been sold a lie, they are just too stupid and gullible.

              I am really looking forward to the day that the useful idiots of the Church of AGW suddenly realise that they have been duped, and robbed of their living standard in the name of their church.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: False premise leads to false results

                Here is a very long list http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html

                1. NomNomNom

                  Re: False premise leads to false results

                  I really don't understand the obsession with denying that the vast majority of climate scientists believe man is warming the climate. If I walked into a pub with 20 in I'd expect to be hard pressed to find just 1 who didn't think man was responsible. Is that really so threatening to skeptics? I guess so

      2. LucreLout Silver badge

        Re: False premise leads to false results

        "Boffins" can predict all they like, but no evidence will change the mind of those who are convinced AGW is a conspiracy.

        It's not a conspiracy; It's a lifestyle.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: False premise leads to false results

          Few people who question the AGW assertion (it is not in any way a theory), do so by claiming there is a conspiracy. Mostly they do so because the evidence is rather thin on the ground, and pretty much all of the predictions the AGW assertion has made turned out to be totally wrong (there is a website somewhere keeping score).

          And just so you are clear, there does not need to be a conspiracy. There simply needs to be a sufficient number of people who make the same choices for their own self interest. A lot of climate scientists need funding, and toeing the AGW party line is the way to funding, publication, career and tenure.

      3. Fluffy Bunny
        Holmes

        Re: False premise leads to false results

        "Are you going to point out that the emperor has no clothes? The emperor with a very short temper and a thirsty chopping block?

        Scientists need grant money to live. Grant money doesn't go to troublemakers like that.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: False premise leads to false results

          The sceptic tactic of at one moment saying they accept the world is warming but dispute the cause of it, and then next moment going back to disputing the world is warming and claiming it's all data manipulation is wearing thin.

          Over a dozen measures of different properties of the earth by many independent scientific groups from different countries around the world show the Earth has continued warming since the 70s.

          https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

          http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html

          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

          http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/d/2/hadcrut4_graph_small.jpg

          http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/data/products/ocean-indicators-products/mean-sea-level.html

          https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2015

          http://berkeleyearth.org/berkeley-earth-temperature-update/

          No objective person would look at this mass of data and conclude anything but the world is warming. Additionally with each passing year of continued warming the idea that this is just some natural cycle becomes less credible.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: False premise leads to false results

            "The sceptic tactic of at one moment saying they accept the world is warming but dispute the cause of it, and then next moment going back to disputing the world is warming and claiming it's all data manipulation is wearing thin."

            As the original poster under this heading, I would like to point out that I said no such thing.

            Additionally, I would point out that the data has always pointed to a very slow gradual long term warming, even before the climate clowns of the world started "homogonising" the data. The satellite data anomalies seen to confirm this very slow warming trend for the past 40 years. It is the consistent act of cooling the past and warming the present to create the giant thermogeddon scare that is both odious and fraudulent. The Argo fraud from NOAA recently adds yet another black spot on an already blackened reputation.

            What is wearing thin, is the naive fools such as yourself who continue to quote the party line and ignore the facts on the ground, to wit, the climate models are all wrong (and wildly so), and almost all predictions that the so called "theory" upon which they are based, have been wildly wrong and continue to be so. The body of evidence grows daily.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      AC: "I miss Lewis :("

      Anyone get a desperate spam email from Lewis Page in recent weeks looking for work?

      (Get the impression he was shown the door in a style not unlike his explosive prose)

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: AC: "I miss Lewis :("

        Anyone get a desperate spam email from Lewis Page in recent weeks looking for work?

        That would indicate he had access to our e-mail address which would be quite worrying.

        Lewis' articles on anything (especially defence) other than climate change were usually entertaining and thought-provoking. But the climate-change stuff was very partial ranting; a bit like Worstall's stuff on economics. I don't mind reading stuff that I don't necessarily agree with – I might learn something – but do when it's too obviously pushing an agenda.

        While I do believe that human development is affecting the planet, I'm also not convinced by the greenhouse effect. But this is largely down to the fact that we simply do not have sufficient historical data. However, I don't think it's something we should bet against. And what advantages do we really have in a dependence on fossil fuel?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: AC: "I miss Lewis :("

          "And what advantages do we really have in a dependence on fossil fuel?"

          1: It's cheap

          2: There is an awful lot of it around (centuries worth), and we have very good systems in place for finding it, delivering it and consuming it.

          3: It's not nuclear (though personally nuclear is fine by me)

          4: You can generate base load from it.

        2. itzman
          Paris Hilton

          Re: AC: "I miss Lewis :("

          And what advantages do we really have in a dependence on fossil fuel?

          Oh, the mere fact that without it modern civilisation as we know it would cease to exist in a matter of days, along with 90% of the worlds population?

          But dont worry your pretty little head about it, keep voting green (or red: not much difference these says).

          1. Charlie Clark Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: AC: "I miss Lewis :("

            Oh, the mere fact that without it modern civilisation as we know it would cease to exist in a matter of days, along with 90% of the worlds population?

            You really think 90% of the world's population is dependent upon fossil fuel? I've got news for you: if the rest of the world develops anything like the same hunger for energy as we do, then we're screwed.

            But dont worry your pretty little head about it, keep voting green (or red: not much difference these says).

            Ah bless, being patronised by a Tory…

      2. h4rm0ny

        Re: AC: "I miss Lewis :("

        No. And if he was pushed out, it's a shame on El Reg. because I enjoyed his articles, I've enjoyed the site under his term as editor and in my opinion, it's worse without him.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Dead Vulture

          Re: AC: "I miss Lewis :("

          >"No. And if he was pushed..."

          No if about it.

          Didn't you get the memo? The Register is a fully compliant company house now. Deviation from properly approved blackwhite is not tolerated.

        2. Anonymous Coward
    4. The First Dave
      Headmaster

      Another False premise...

      "... which will mean longer trans-Atlantic flights"

      No, it won't. On average, they will remain the same, one way will be faster, and the opposite direction will be slower.

      1. Patrick R
        Holmes

        Re: one way faster, the opposite direction slower... on average the same

        Unfortunately that's not how scientists see it. Must be a conspiracy.

        Simply, for instance, you drive 200km at 100km/h, it takes 2h. Now if you drive 1h TIME at 50km/h and one hour at 150km/h, you've done 200km in 2 hours as well, but this is not what's happening here.

        Here you drive a DISTANCE of 100km at 50 (which takes 2h already...) then 100km at 150.Imagine (it's theory) the wind is so strong it takes 3 times more to go one way, how do you keep the average time on the way back? Warp speed?

      2. Brangdon

        Re: On average, they will remain the same

        That's not how dynamics works. Think about it. If the plane's groundspeed is 300 mph, and the jet stream is also 300 mph, then one way the combined speed is 600 mph so half the travel time. But in the opposite direction the combined speed is 0 mph, so the travel time becomes infinite.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: On average, they will remain the same

          Brangdon is, of course perfectly correct about the relative dynamics. However the quivering carbophobes can relax once again: Airlines already have a tendency to avoid flying planes directly head-on against jetstreams for the purely commercial reasons of (1) passenger comfort and safety and (2) elementary economics... however they do routinely make use of following winds to reduce flight times and fuel consumption. Also for purely commercial reasons. You can safely trust that these practices are sure to continue - at least until such times as oil prices fall into negative values. Therefore, should any foretold jetstream embiggening actually come to pass, the resultant savings will be correspondingly embiggened while any potential hindrances will continue to be avoided resulting in net reductions in both flight times and fuel consumption. That means the aviation industry would be releasing less carbon if the jetstreams were to strengthen, BTW.

          So, rest assured dear carbophobes, your terrible end is (still) not nigh.

          1. adam 40

            How do they do this?

            So far, people have correctly pointed out the gains are not equal, and here that airlines avoid head-on jetstreams, but use tail-on ones.

            But how do they do this?

            By the expedient of choosing the cruising height, The jetstream is bounded by a lower altitude, if you are below it, you don't get the (full) effect. The height is negotiated with ATC before leaving US or UK airspace and typically they will arrange planes crossing the Atlantic in each direction to get the benefit or avoid as necessary.

            The researchers are correct if you take "random" use of the airspace, however we didn't create an Empire based on this (and sailing ships) we make use of the winds intelligently. So we will save fuel, not use more.

      3. GrumpenKraut Silver badge

        Re: Another False premise...

        Please do the calculation (it's not hard) to spot your error.

        [edit: somebody beat me to it.]

      4. scarper

        Re: Another False premise...

        "... On average, they will remain the same, one way will be faster, and the opposite direction will be slower."

        No. I am a pilot, and one of the things we have to teach newbies is that it *doesn't* cancel out. In practice, the lose from a headwind is reliably bigger than the win from the tailwind going the other way. Any book aimed at student pilots will have a discussion of this.

      5. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Another False premise...

        The speedup in one direction (4-5 minutes) is outweighed by the slowdown in the other direction (7-8 minutes)

        You could fly a more southerly route to catch the easterly trade winds, but the extra great circle distance would wipe out any gains.

    5. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: False premise leads to false results

      "as it has for 40 years according to the instruments in space"

      Nope. The satellite data shows the same very clear long term warming trend as the surface data. See http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: False premise leads to false results

        Well, we all know it is warming, but it is doing so at a trivial rate. No hockeystick, no accelerating increase - and as we all know it has been pretty flat for the second half of the 40 year satellite record.

        The thermogeddon folks got it very seriously and grossly wrong. The data does not in any way support their assertion, but supports the continued gradual rise consistent with us warming up since the last cold spell.

        In recent news, the Australian Government has pulled the pin and realigning CSIROs research priorities, the religion of AGW has lost here, largely because the predictions have been so catastrophically wrong - and expensive!

        The Australian article is good, but behind a paywall. Start here and look onwards. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-11/csiro-boss-apologises-for-climate-religion-comments/7160288

        I am expecting things to cool down rather soon and rather dramatically.

        1. TheVogon Silver badge

          Re: False premise leads to false results

          "The data does not in any way support their assertion, but supports the continued gradual rise consistent with us warming up since the last cold spell."

          You mean that it hasn't happened yet.

          There are a number of possible scenarios that could result in "runaway" global warming, and whilst they are by no means a certainty, we are also in no position to dismiss the possibility.

    6. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: False premise leads to false results

      The warming is not trivial. The difference between glacial earth and now is only 3-4C and it's only another couple of degrees to tropical earth.

      That's _average_ global temperatures. Regional variations are (of course) a lot higher.

      Mind you, it looks to me like a bigger risk of the current CO2 spike is oceanic anoxic events (they go hand in hand with CO2 spikes right through geological history). If that's the case there may not be much civilisation around to worry about ocean level rises.

    7. ShortStuff

      Re: False premise leads to false results

      Man-made global warming (oh wait, they had to change it to climate change when their first lie didn't pan out) has become a religion to the true believers. There's no amount of facts or figures that can sway there beliefs.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A suggestion for those worried about all that extra time, fuel, CO2, ...

    Build a proper, new multi-runway airport for London, in a sensible location that doesn't involve a constant stream of aircraft approaching to or departing from one runway over the centre of the capital city. Like just about every other country manages to do, but is apparently impossibly difficult in Britain - something that even Boris has managed to work out. That'd save far more time/fuel/etc in reduced taxi and holding times than the piddling 7 minutes a faster jetstream has this guy worried about.

    1. Thought About IT

      Re: A suggestion for those worried about all that extra time, fuel, CO2, ...

      That's a bit of a generalisation, as it often takes 20 minutes at Charles de Gaulle and Amsterdam to taxi from the terminal to the runway.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A suggestion for those worried about all that extra time, fuel, CO2, ...

        Yeah, runway 5 at Schipol is in a different postcode!

        1. TheVogon Silver badge

          Re: A suggestion for those worried about all that extra time, fuel, CO2, ...

          "runway 5 at Schipol is in a different postcode!"

          As a UK postcode is ~25 houses, that's not saying much.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: A suggestion for those worried about all that extra time, fuel, CO2, ...

            Netherlands != UK

            Taxi times are in the region 20-30 minutes depending on the weather and how fast the driver wants to get there

    2. Will Godfrey Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: A suggestion for those worried about all that extra time, fuel, CO2, ...

      Ah yes. Good old Boris, who wants to build an airport right in the centre of a massive bird migration route, adjacent to a sunken warship full of unstable explosives and in an area with zero infrastructure or access. I'm sure that will work out well.

      Also, the problem isn't airports, it's London itself. There are no easy routes in, out or across the city, and this new airport would be the wrong side for access to anything West or North - so pretty useless really.

      1. Chris Miller

        @Will

        I'd just add: and plenty of scope for conflicting traffic with CDG and AMS. Boris Island is an arts graduate's 'solution' to the problem.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A suggestion for those worried about all that extra time, fuel, CO2, ...

        I'm sure that will work out well.

        A similar but much more ambitious strategy has worked out very well in Hong Kong. Regarding the Richard Montgomery, if it were the hazard that doom-sayers reckon, it would already have gone boom, or have been cleared away. I'm sure it would make a modest bang, but there's thousands of tonnes of unexploded ordnance under most cities in Europe. And if the worst happened, the Medway towns are shit holes anyway.

        Access to London would be easy - just extend Crossrail to Boris Island.

        1. Martin Budden

          Re: A suggestion for those worried about all that extra time, fuel, CO2, ...

          "A similar but much more ambitious strategy has worked out very well in Hong Kong."

          I was on holiday there a couple of weeks ago. Although I do miss the excitement of landing at the old airport, the new airport is very impressive. What makes the new airport work so well is the excellent express train into Kowloon & Hong Kong Island*, and the big fast road as well. Basically they've thought very carefully about transport infrastructure and they've spent big as required.

          *A nice feature when departing is that you can check in your bags and collect your boarding pass at the central station on Hong Kong Island, thereby avoiding check in queues at the airport itself.

      3. Graham Marsden
        Thumb Up

        @Will Godfrey - Re: A suggestion for those worried about all that extra time, fuel, CO2, ...

        > the problem isn't airports, it's London itself.

        Exactly! It's like a black hole, the more it grows, the more it drags in everything else around it and, more importantly, takes money away from everywhere else.

        There's more to the UK than London...

      4. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. jake Silver badge

    The more we know,the more we forget.

    "Stanford University researchers have reckoned an hour's worth of slow strobe light exposure the night before long haul flights can help reduce jet-lag."

    I was a global network troubleshooter, working out of Stanford and Berkeley, from the early '80s thru' the late '90s ... at any given hour I could expect to be flying off to anywhere on the planet.

    0.25mg melatonin 45 minutes before "local bedtime" on the first night out, and I was fine for the duration of the trip ... until the next timezone. Lather, rinse, repeat ... I experienced no ill effects, could wake up immediately if required, and apparently it's not addictive (all unlike alcohol, sleeping pills, etc.).

    Yes, I know, "studies indicate", yadda yadda yadda. I am not an MD, this is not a prescription, might be illegal in your jurisdiction, etc.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The more we know,the more we forget.

      I have probably clocked closer to 2 than 1 million air miles - melotonin works for me, and has done so for a very long time. I have heard others say that it doesn't work for them, but my sample space of 1 is happy with the result.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Facepalm

        Re: The more we know,the more we forget.

        The problem with melatonin is braindead dickheads think they're "sleeping pills" and resolutely and often belligerently shun the will/concentration/attention to comprehend anything to the contrary. As a result, the braindead dickheads do things like take one when something disturbs them at 5am and they can't get back to sleep! Said braindead dickheads then start whining and ranting crap at their doctors and oneanother about weird insomnia problems and melatonin "not working".

  4. Steve Todd

    Surely it wil average out

    Trips west to east will be faster.

    Trips east to west will be slower.

    1. James Micallef Silver badge

      Re: Surely it wil average out

      That was my first thought as well. The article fudges around the issue with this quote :

      "The good news is that eastbound flights will be boosted by stronger tailwinds, but not enough to compensate for the longer westbound journeys. The net result is that round trip journeys will significantly lengthen."

      I have no idea why the westbound journeys should be longer - something to do with earth's rotation?

      1. Steve Todd

        Re: Surely it wil average out

        Actually what happens is that routes eastbound deliberately alter to pick up the jetstream. Westbound they avoid it as much as possible. The result is that the average time is less than the aircraft speed +/- the jetstream speed.

      2. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Re: Surely it wil average out

        Google suggests it's only a few hundred miles wide - I wonder why they don't fly around it.

        1. AndrewDu

          Re: Surely it wil average out

          "I wonder why they don't fly around it."

          They do. They always have.

          This is another desperate bollocks-claim by the warmists.

          And the figures are cooked too - tiny differences added up over huge numbers to make a headline.

          Not worth dignifying it by taking it seriously, in fact.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Surely it wil average out

        "significantly lengthen"

        It requires a very special definition of "significantly" to be able to make this statement based on the numbers they model their way to in this paper.

        1. Chris Miller

          Re: Surely it wil average out

          It's just the way 'averages' (arithmetic means) work. Consider a 60 mph journey by bike. If you can pedal at 30 mph in a flat calm, you can get there and back (120/30) in 4 hours. Now suppose there's a 10 mph head wind (to be exact, a head wind that slows you down by 10 mph) in one direction (tail wind in the other, of course). So getting there now takes 3 hours (60/20) and getting back takes 1.5 hours (60/40), and your whole journey takes 30 minutes longer.

          However, in the real aviation world, as an earlier post suggested, airlines reroute westbound to avoid the jet stream so this simplistic approach is wrong - faster jet streams further reduce travel times eastbound and don't have much effect westbound.

          Anecdotal illustration - a flight from Heathrow to New York will usually route out over Liverpool, Ireland and then you won't see any land until Long Island. But I've done the route on a very windy day and ended up going over Greenland (normally only seen on flights to the US west coast) and coming in over the St Lawrence (I could see Quebec City off the starboard side). The flight took an hour or so longer than normal.

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Surely it wil average out

      No, because drag costs more energy than pushing gives.

      However, advances in aviation are likely to make more of an impact, especially if something like SABRE really can be shown to work.

      1. inmypjs Silver badge

        Re: Surely it wil average out

        "No, because drag costs more energy than pushing gives."

        If wind ever pushed a plane it would fall out of the sky. There is only drag and at the same air speed the drag is unchanged.

        It is true that it doesn't average out if you have to fly through the same wind in both directions. If for example your plane can fly at 300mph air speed in a 300mph head wind it would never arrive.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Surely it wil average out

          Clearly no one here is a pilot. If there is a wind at dead right angles to your path, your trip takes longer, and a larger wind has a larger cost. The reason is that you have to point the airplane somewhat into the side-wind, in order to not be blown off course. This is called "crabbing". Your speed along the course is now smaller: this follows from vector arithmetic.

          Are winds getting stronger? Well, yes, it's been measured, and they are. A study of albatrosses found that their average weight has been decreasing in recent years, and it is assumed that this is because the higher winds are making them work harder per calorie of food gained. And no, there are no known "natural causes" for albatrosses being on a diet.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            FAIL

            Re: Surely it wil average out

            Clearly no one here is a pilot...

            Are winds getting stronger? Well, yes, it's been measured, and they are. A study of albatrosses found that their average weight has been decreasing in recent years, and it is assumed that this is because the higher winds are making them work harder per calorie of food gained. And no, there are no known "natural causes" for albatrosses being on a diet

            Thank you oh great wise expert for enlightening us all with that glorious non sequitur which so effortlessly and beautifully encapsulates your entire zombie religion.

            ASSUMED by whom and by what authority?

            "Albatrosses are getting thinner therefore AGW! DEATH!!! DEATH!!! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE"

            Nothing, OF COURSE, to do with industrial fishing forcing them "on a diet"

            Nothing, OF COURSE, to do with that EQUALLY WELL KNOWN krill collapse forcing them "on a diet"

            ...etc... etc...

            Do you know what "ecosystem" means? "Complex"?

            Christ alive

            Thinner THEREFORE AGW! DEATH!!! DEATH!!! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Between 33 seconds & 93 seconds!

    And UK taxpayers funded research too stupid even for an IgNobel Award contender.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/2/024008

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hummm...

    So this work is the output of a computer model that uses the the output of unvallidated computer models of a very chaotic system that can't predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10, 20 or more years in the future.

    It would appear that this paper does not even consider any possible improvements in aircraft design or advances in engine design and fuel efficiency. It therefore appears to be nothing more than something to prop up the CAGW religious scam that is being used to milk money from the population using higher taxes..

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hummm...

      Ivan, you beat me to it!

    2. NomNomNom

      Re: Hummm...

      how do you think climate scientists have known since the 70s that the earth would warm and continue warming? Climate models. They remain our best predictors of future climate and impacts. Btw studies like this are based on premises such as the impact being on current aircraft design. That is an entirely reasonable case to test.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hummm...

        Probably the same models that told us the earth was going to freeze over.

        James Hansen was one of the scientists who made this claim IIRC.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: Hummm...

          You don't recall correctly and it wasn't the same models

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Hummm...

            Do I really need to cite a Nature article with JH's name on it predicting Gobal cooling? Go look it up!

            1. NomNomNom

              Re: Hummm...

              You recall incorrectly

            2. scarper

              Re: Hummm...

              "... Do I really need to cite a Nature article with JH's name on it predicting Gobal cooling? Go look it up!"

              Your claim, your cite.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh dear ...

    I just read this paper. I think it qualifies for an IgNobel, it is utter pointless bollocks.

  8. Mikel

    A pinch in your sock

    Research has proven that the climate change affects humidity and so, the flexibility and friction of the common foot sock. Extensive modelling demonstrates that further CO2 emissions will lead to an increase in the incidence of "toe fold", where a small flap or seam of the sock will fold under the toe. This causes an odd feeling in the foot, a strange gait, and in extreme cases might start a blister.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Childcatcher

      Re: A pinch in your sock

      That's exactly what I was going to say! ;)

      ..and that's not to mention that the proven change in humidity has been proven to cause an increase in cloud cover and density resulting in a 7.01375620009465936472305632% fall in mean global solar radiation reaching the ground by 2019. Extensive modelling has proven this will comprehensively snuff out any warming effects result in a 1.300476% increase in cases of childhood rickets and is the duly proven cause of CCD which by 2019 will account for a massive 62.5860938% collapse in global bee activity causing a 97.00000% fall in global fruit production and thereby a 84799.9600835% increase in scurvy deaths *and* a global mass starvation event.

      ...and then there's the 22.485% increase in point freezing incidents. 97% of scientist agree what that'll cause. DEATH!! Haven't you read the papers you ignorant denialist twat?

      ..and a 3.200058967357% increase in the rate of corrosion of critical electronic components in critical communication apparatus within life saving emergency ambulances. DEATH

      ...and... oh, the humanity! How many people must die?????

      We're doomed! DOOMED I SAY

      WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE

      DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

      WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE

      THIS IS IMPORTANT

      WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE

      WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE

      WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE

  9. mememine69

    Climate Change

    CO2=Y2K²x1000

    *Occupy no longer mentions CO2 in it's list of demands so move on.

    35 more years of global debate is certain and unstoppable no matter how much you eager "believers" exaggerate science's; "99% real" for a CO2 Armageddon.

    Smoking causing cancer is "real", not 99% real.

    Were your climate gods also only 99% sure the planet wasn't flat?

    Is this how you climate drama queens want your kids and all of history remembering you?

  10. Mikel

    Climate change increases homelessness

    In our area at least, a warming climate is impacting the homeless population. Ever more people on the dole and in retirement are finding themselves accepting the decrepitude of lying on warm grass soothed by a gentle breeze sipping wine instead of basking in the glorious sweat of honest toil or giving their mite to a slumlord. The warmer the coldest winter nights get, the more of them there are. Should freezing nights end entirely, such folk might become a sizeable share of the population.

    And then there is the incidence of Lycra outerwear - and now evening attire. It is shameful how many young people are wandering about with clothing that looks like body paint. Warming can only accelerate this trend as well until folk are walking the streets entirely naked. The horror!

    Clearly industrialization must be reversed and we must return to an agrarian society before we are all doomed to this unspeakable fate.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Climate change increases homelessness

      "And then there is the incidence of Lycra outerwear"

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYRENWT8lz8

    2. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Climate change increases homelessness

      "In our area at least, a warming climate is impacting the homeless population"

      It's the same in London. The Scots that visit find it so hot that they have to consume vast quantities of drink and sleep out on the streets...

  11. The Islander
    Boffin

    Curious ...

    I felt compelled to look at the handle associated with comments on this article. My little thought experiment was driven by my perception that a lot of comments considered* "anti-AGW" are apparently posted anonymously. Here's my view at time of writing ...

    Pro AGW - Handle: 28 Anonymous: 0

    Anti AGW - Handle: 26 Anonymous: 24

    Non AGW - Handle: 21 Anonymous: 10

    Deleted - 3

    I'm curious why so many anti-AGW posts are submitted under Anonymous Coward?

    (* Yes, yes it's subjective, I probably am pro-AGW, YMMV, etc ...)

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Curious ...

      Even more strange is that nearly none of the commentards actually commented on the actual subject of the original article ...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019