GO AGAIN.

Evidence moron.

GO!!!

Either get the evidence or admit that you are wrong. Thats what we used to do in the old days prior to the global warming fraud.

your reading comprehension is seriously limited.

look at the pink line, that is the highest on in the mid-90s

http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/images/fig3.gif

it ends up as the LOWEST one around 2008. that model did NOT predict warming over that period!!!!

Do yourself everyone a favour, go back to science primary school.

GO!!!!!

bird, i know you are a little bit slow, but even you should spot the contradiction:

Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008

contradicts:

It is indeed clearly the case that individual GCM model runs simulate natural variability in a way which includes the depiction of periods of several years to a decade or so of cooling

both this sentences are from the fielding “team”.

please educate me. is that “decade of COOLING” part of the “steady INCREASE” that ALLL models show?

http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=394

http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?hl=en&q=maurice%20strong&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#q=maurice+strong&hl=en&emb=0

Here is one of the fathers of this global warming movement back in 1972, despite there being cooling fears at that time, talking up his anti-industrial, and centralization views. Later he was going to become a bigshot warming liar. Its the anti-industrialism and globalism that remains the same and that has nothing to do with any weather forecast and never did. Reducing CO2 means destroying or taking control of industrial activity. Thats the entire motive for this and there is nothing more to it.

Which is why none of the compulsive liars care about coming back day after day after day without any evidence. Either they are goose-stepping morons or they are motivated by these other goals. All of which of course are treasonous. Although people in the public sector have lost any sense of what treason is. Its a social faux pas now to even mention such a quaint concept. The-government-department-calling-itself-LUKE is essentially motivated by goals that must ‘on a technical level’ (since no-one can seem to get animated by the concept anymore) be considered treasonous. Which is why the total dearth of evidence does not matter.

Anyone who is behind this must be sacked. If not for malice, and working AGAINST the public interest, then otherwise for incompetence. There isn’t a warmer left in 2009 that is not a self-selected failed analyst. It really doesn’t matter what his specialty is. He has to be presumed to be getting in the way. Removing such people would slow our accumulation of debt and make the public sector less ineffective overall. We could turn this whole despicable subject into an advantage since its an acid test to decide the failed analysts from those who we might shortlist to stay on in a much more streamlined public sector.

Really? It’s a government department? Like a bunch of overpaid public servants types wasting taxpayer money and posting stuff over the web all day?

Fellas if we ever find out where it comes from, I copy everything you’ve said at this site and send it to the government auditor to figure out how much time you’ve wasted.

We cannot put a probability on these things. Since if we get serious warming it will be because of something currently not known. Its not like everything is so well known we can put odds on it. Rather all the evidence points to cooling, and if it warms it will be as a result of some sort of factor so far unknown. Like the rewriting of the way we look at the geological record. Something pretty implausible. The weather report is for nasty cooling. And all of these guys would know it.

Maybe they think the truth is just a little bit too much to soon for the public. Maybe even our best people are swayed by the constant propagandizing.

You may view it as splitting hairs, but the Fielding Four said that warming or cooling were equally plausible, not that they were equally likely.

The first wording implies that either MIGHT happen whereas the latter wording implies that there is an EQUAL CHANCE each will happen. These are not the same thing.

Cathy