Global Warming Is Dead - RIP AGW
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
Quote from pspr:
Yes they are. Yes they have.
The facts are inconvenient truths for you AGW Alarmists.
Global warming is history and you know it.
<img src=http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png width=460 height=345>
Not unless CO2 has suddenly stopped being a greenhouse gas. But even in your delusional world that's not going to happen.
Why do you remain so stupid? The trace gas CO2 has minimal impact on the planet. We know that from past warming events and from how CO2 works.
CO2 is just a convenient lie to find a way to tax energy and thus the U.S. and European populations.
It is quickly being shown to even the most skeptical AGW proponents that it has little, if any impact on temperatures. Just look at the chart above, if you can understand what charts say.
In other words that even a moron like you can understand - It's A SCAM!!!
Sorry but you are deranged and wrong. Get help.
Mulitple 'climate experts' who support AGW in general have come out over the past 3 years and stated the 'Hockey Stick' does not exist.
LOL Facts are difficult things to dispute, as you have been finding out.
A look at the facts, as they are known today, blows the AGW theories right out the window.
Everyone was scared by Mann and his hockey stick chart until some scientist who didn't work on the government dole took a look at the data. It was contrived. And the AGW crowd has been contriving data ever since. Facts and science are alien to you and your AGW friends.
Here are just a few quotes from some of the AGW alarmists you are supporting, FC.
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: ââ¦one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the worldâs wealthâ¦â
Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 âPredictions of Climateâ blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com, admitted: âNone of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed stateâ.
Raymond Bradley, co-author of Michael Mannâs infamously flawed hockey stick paper which was featured in influential IPCC reports, took issue with another article jointly published by Mann and Phil Jones, stating: âIâm sure you agreeâthe Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I donât want to be associated with that 2000 year reconstruction.â
Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: âIf you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].â
A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: âI got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etcâ¦If published as is, this paper could really do some damageâ¦It wonât be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically⦠I am really sorry but I have to nag about that reviewâConfidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.â
Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mannâs global warming hockey team, wrote: âI am not convinced that the âtruthâ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.â
Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying: âObservations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessaryâ¦â
In another e-mail, Thorne stated: âI also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.â
The quotes in pspr's post above make it quite clear that AGW 'climate science' is several steps beyond mere faulty science but is effectively a criminal conspiracy that should be prosecuted for the damage it is causing society.
They are wrong. It has been proven up down and sideways multiple times. This is baby stuff. Here it is again.
