18
Feb
Feb
NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco won’t answer question of if last 15 years saw no warming
When asked yesterday whether she agreed or disagreed with one of the world’s top climate-change scientists that there had been no statistically significant global warming over the last fifteen years, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Jane Lubchenco would only say “that it is inappropriate to look at any particular short period of time to discern the long-term trend.”
In fact, Lubchenco twice avoided directly answering a yes-no question as to whether she agreed with the observation that there has been no statistically significant global warming over the last decade and a half.
Full story: CNSNews.com
Possibly related posts:
She just couldn’t get that “no” across her lips. LOL
On a side note, Lord Monckton has revealed in the recent Alex Jones interview that it was him who told BBC to directly question Phil Jones whether there had been any statistically significant warming the last 15 years. Perhaps the interview deserves a full blog post here.
Here is part 1/5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3se5J3gs6eM
Look for the remaining parts.
Look at the ties between Lubchenco and IUCN. And IUCN and WWF.
A very statistical NOT NO.
Just a side note, but isn’t the last 15 years of data used that created the infamous hockey stick ? With that admission of Phil Jones, where is the blade ….there has been no statistically warming in the past 15 years, well according to the now debunked graph of the temperature shooting to the sky, this pretty much kills it , or am I missing something, please enlighten me.
On a side note, as she tries to say you can’t look at just one decade for a trend, isn’t that what they are trying to “prove” with that stupid hockey stick blade ?
Thanks
Just another confirmation that some alarmists cannot bring themselves to admit anything that might cast even a scrap of doubt on the AGW theory, even when it was stated by an arch alarmist!
Gee. Didn’t she take “rocks for jocks” or any classes in earth science? 100-150 years is a short period of time in geological or climatic terms. She’s an idiot and a liar praying that the great unwashed will get lost in the rubbish coming out of her face. We have some house cleaning to do here in the USA in our party of the right. The usual supects are wheeling and dealing with the alarmist hacks behind closed doors right now. We need to remind voters that one party drove the economy of the cliff because they believed in BS and the other went along to make money. No more compromises at our expense. Tell the truth and we’ll fight it out at the polls together. Cut a deal and we’ll make it a three way fight.
Now it’s become Kafkaesque.
This clip shows us the hilarious/hideous Orwellian obfuscation of science among the tenured.
(NOAA) Administrator Jane Lubchenco: “…very strong evidence – [of global increase in global temps] (over 1909-2009?)].
What strong evidence?
“It is inappropirate to look at any short period of tiem to discern a long-term effect.” Again, we must define the scope and limites of our terminology.
Define the period!
PS: Fair dues to that brave reporter!!