"Global Warming is rubbish"

[akphidelt]

[h=2]Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree[/h]Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

 

[akphidelt]

sorry but I agree with scientists. Those scientists without a hidden agenda. Those scientists who manipulate data to get more of your tax dollars. This is proven fact.

I am not in denial. I have to political party line to tow. Someone does though. Who? I will give you a hint .. (word scramble) ... tAkphidel

So you can't prove their data wrong, you just attack them with something that can't be proven? Got ya. That's how intelligent people think, lol.

 

[scottcarter]

[h=3]1. Humans are NOT to Blame for Global Warming, Says Greenpeace Co-founder… (Daily Mail)[/h]“There is no scientific proof of man-made global warming and a hotter earth would be ‘beneficial for humans and the majority of other species’, according to a founding member of environmental campaign group Greenpeace. The assertion was made by Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986, to U.S senators on Tuesday.”
[h=3]2. James Hansen Admits Global Temperature Standstill Is Real(The GWPF)[/h]“According to Hansen et al. the Nasa Giss database has 2012 as the ninth warmest year on record, although statistically indistinguishable from the last 12 years, at least. Noaa says it’s the tenth warmest year. The difference is irrelevant.”
[h=3]3. ‘Gaia’ Scientist James Lovelock: I Was ‘Alarmist’ About Climate Change (NBC)[/h]“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
[h=3]4. Climategate U-turn as Scientist at Centre of Row Admits: There Has Been No Global Warming Since 1995 (Daily Mail)[/h]“Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.”
[h=3]5. Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating? (Der Spiegel)[/h]“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened.”
[h=3]6. Warming Plateau? Climatologists Face Inconvenient Truth (Der Spiegel)[/h]“Data shows global temperatures aren’t rising the way climate scientists have predicted. Now the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change faces a problem: publicize these findings and encourage skeptics — or hush up the figures.”
[h=3]7. German Public Television Stuns Its Readers, Concedes Medieval Warm Period May Have Been 0.5°C Warmer Than Today! (Wetterthema via No Tricks Zone)[/h]“The ARD piece even goes on to say that the Medieval Warm Period from the years 800 to 1300 was similarly as warm as the ‘last climate normal period of 1961 to 1990, whose mean temperature is used as the reference value.’ The ARD writes further: Using alternative reconstructions that period was even about 0.5°C warmer than today.”
[h=3]8. Why Has Global Warming Stalled? (BBC)[/h]“There are plenty of possible explanations but none of them adds up to a definitive smoking gun.”
[h=3]9. Global Warming Pause ‘Central’ to IPCC Climate Report (BBC)[/h]“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is meeting in Sweden to thresh out a critical report on global warming. Scientists will underline, with greater certainty than ever, the role of human activities in rising temperatures. But many governments are demanding a clearer explanation of the slowdown in temperature increases since 1998. One participant told BBC News that this pause will be a ‘central piece’ of the summary.”
[h=3]10. There Has Been No Global Warming Since 1998 (Telegraph)[/h]“The headline of this post really shouldn’t be controversial. It chimes perfectly with what Kevin ‘null hypothesis’ Trenberth wrote in that notorious 2009 Climategate email to Michael Mann: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
[h=3]11. Senator Barbara Boxer’s Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming (Forbes)[/h]“I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change,” Obama added. However, climate scientists including United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author Hans von Storch report temperatures have remained essentially flat for the past 10 years, and indeed for the past 15 years.”
[h=3]12. ‘Global Warming’ is Rubbish says Top Professor (Yorkshire Evening Post)[/h]“He doesn’t believe in ‘global warming’ and says ‘climate change’ is a meaningless term used as a sop by big business to create money. Neil Hudson met Prof Les Woodcock.”
[h=3]13. Global Warming ‘Hiatus’ Puts Climate Change Scientists on the Spot (LA Times)[/h]“Since just before the start of the 21st century, the Earth’s average global surface temperature has failed to rise despite soaring levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and years of dire warnings from environmental advocates.”
[h=3]14. Man-made Global Warming: Even the IPCC Admits the Jig is Up (Telegraph)[/h]“Breaking news from the US – h/t Watts Up With That? – where a leaked draft of the IPCC’s latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in ‘climate change’ than the scientific ‘consensus’ has previously been prepared to concede.”
[h=3]15. RSS Global Temperature Data: No Global Warming at All for 202 Months (Christopher Monckton at WUWT)[/h]“The least-squares linear-regression trend on the data from the RSS satellites since November 1996 shows there has been no global warming at all for 202 months (16 years 10 months). In a few more months, unless an el Niño comes along in January, its favorite month, RSS may be the first dataset to show 17 full years with a zero global warming trend.”
[h=3]16. ‘Nothing Off-limits’ in Climate Debate (The Australian)[/h]“THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last ’30 to 40 years at least’ to break the long-term global warming trend.”
[h=3]17. 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong (Dr. Roy Spencer)[/h]“I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)…”
[h=3]18. 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season Ends – No Major Hurricanes For First Time Since 1994 (MyFoxHurricaneBlog)[/h]“The accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) measures the total energy output of all tropical systems during the hurricane season. In 2013 the ACE is just 33% of the 1981 – 2012 average. 2013 is the 6th least active Atlantic season (measured by ACE) since 1950. 2013 has the fewest hurricanes since 1982 and is the first time since 1994 there are no major hurricanes.”
[h=3]19. 2013 is a Record Low Year for U.S. Tornadoes (WUWT)[/h]“When looking historically at where we are, we find that 2013 has slipped below the historical minimum, setting a new record for the ~60 years in the tornado database.”
[h=3]20. Accumulated Cyclone Energy (Weather Underground)[/h]“There is no evidence of a systematic increasing or decreasing trend in ACE for the years 1970-2012.”
[h=3]21. 2013 Will Finish One Of The Ten Coldest Years In US History, With The Largest Drop In Temperature (Real Science)[/h]“Before NASA and NOAA start tampering with the data, 2013 is one of the ten coldest years in the US since 1895, and has had the largest year over year decline on record. NOAA of course won’t talk about this, and will massively tamper with the data before releasing it. The graph (above) is the monthly average of all daily high and low temperatures at all NOAA USHCN stations.”
[h=3]22. And Now It’s Global Cooling! Return of Arctic Ice Cap as it Grows by 29% in a Year (Daily Mail)[/h]“A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent. The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.”
[h=3]23. Deaths From Hurricanes, Floods, Droughts, and Other Weather Events Are Down 98 Percent Since 1920s (Reason Foundation)[/h]“Extreme weather events were responsible for just .07% of the world’s deaths between 2000 and 2010. The extreme weather categories studied in the Reason Foundation report include droughts, floods, wildfires, storms (hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, typhoons, etc.) and extreme temperatures, both hot and cold.”
If the green movement is about “science,” then why are climate change activists against the challenging of their ideas? Is it because they have ulterior motives for pushing their agenda or are they naturally intolerant of the actual scientific process that entails the falsification of their views?

 

[scottcarter]

So you can't prove their data wrong, you just attack them with something that can't be proven? Got ya. That's how intelligent people think, lol.

and you cant prove their data right. See how gullible some people are, lol.

 

[akphidelt]

and you cant prove their data right. See how gullible some people are, lol.

Because I'm not a climatologist and don't act like one, lol. Apparently you guys know it's false with out even being scientists. Just "thought geniuses", lol.

 

[Acebb]

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

I love the fact that you keep posting this even thought the statement is abjectly false and the fact that "consensus" had nothing to do with science.

You are a scientific illiterate and an embarrassment.

notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

 

[akphidelt]

I love the fact that you keep posting this even thought the statement is abjectly false and the fact that "consensus" had nothing to do with science.

You are a scientific illiterate and an embarrassment.

notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

This is from NASA. Sorry, but, I find them more credible than you. Not going to lie.

 

[scottcarter]

Because I'm not a climatologist and don't act like one, lol. .

yes you do actually. lol.

Apparently you guys know it's false with out even being scientists. Just "thought geniuses", lol

wrong again. Yawn. If it did exist then there would be 100% agreement and not 97% or 60% or whatever the shrinking percentage is now. Sorry that you cant see the obvious but its starring you right in the face. Man that Al Gore really did a number on you. oh, almost forgot .... lol.

 

[Acebb]

This is from NASA. Sorry, but, I find them more credible than you. Not going to lie.

Except NASA relies on a Web based survey conducted six years ago that gathered up the opinion of 147 climate scientists to make that laughable claim.

Of course you would find that "credible" you are not that bright and easily misled.

 

[akphidelt]

yes you do actually. lol.

wrong again. Yawn. If it did exist then there would be 100% agreement and not 97% or 60% or whatever the shrinking percentage is now. Sorry that you cant see the obvious but its starring you right in the face. Man that Al Gore really did a number on you. oh, almost forgot .... lol.

Lmao, that's your argument? That there is not 100% agreement therefore it doesn't exist. Solid logic! And no, I have never once acted like a climatologist.

 

[Acebb]

So you can't prove their data wrong,

There is no "data"

The fact that you think there is actual 'data' shows how comically stupid and uninformed on the topic you are.

Don't worry, this is all confusing to you.

Carry on.

 

[akphidelt]

Except NASA relies on a Web based survey conducted six years ago that gathered up the opinion of 147 climate scientists to make that laughable claim.

Of course you would find that "credible" you are not that bright and easily misled.

Largest survey conducted of climate scientists. You don't even understand statistics. You are really dumb. Lol

 

[Acebb]

^ Your average "global warming" person's understanding of the climate

 

[akphidelt]

There is no "data"

The fact that you think there is actual 'data' shows how comically stupid and uninformed on the topic you are.

Don't worry, this is all confusing to you.

Carry on.

There's a lot of data. That's why 97% of climatologists agree that man is causing increased global warming.

 

[SheriffJoe]

and you cant prove their data right. See how gullible some people are, lol.

The debate is over - and the climate frauds lost. k:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the ‘Consensus’

by Dan McGrath on May 8, 2014 in Climate History, Failed predictions, IPCC, Michael Mann, Mythical Consensus

By James Delingpole -

One of the world’s most eminent climate scientists – for several decades a warmist – has defected to the climate sceptic camp.
Lennart Bengtsson – a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction – is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...t-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus

 

[Acebb]

Largest survey conducted of climate scientists. You don't even understand statistics. You are really dumb. Lol

147 climate scientists responded to a Web based survey six years ago.

You don't understand what that means. Mainly because you're comically dumb and easily misled.

 

[Acebb]

There's a lot of data. That's why 97% of climatologists agree that man is causing increased global warming.

Except there is no "data" at all.

Which is why they keep fighting to turn their data over.

And of course "97%" believe no such thing.

 

[akphidelt]

Except there is no "data" at all.

Which is why they keep fighting to turn their data over.

And of course "97%" believe no such thing.

There's tons of data. That's why smart, educated, scientists believe man made global warming exists. And they do not keep fighting to turn their data over, there is plenty of data. Their data though is in scientific journals where scientists read and review them. Called the peer review process. Your .com bloggers aren't very convincing, lol.

 

[Acebb]

There's a lot of data.

You have no idea, literally not 1 bit of understanding, of what "data" is and what these climate scientists do.

Even though this was already posted

While we are busy getting temperature graphs that end in 2000, I wanted to remind everyone that NASA Goddard (creator of several of those graphs) takes data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

Here is the CRU's statement on data availability:

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/

Isn't that nice?

 

[Acebb]

There's tons of data. That's why smart, educated, scientists believe man made global warming exists. And they do not keep fighting to turn their data over, there is plenty of data. Their data though is in scientific journals where scientists read and review them. Called the peer review process. Your .com bloggers aren't very convincing, lol.

Except I've never linked to a .com blogger

lol

Keep flailing, idiot.