You lying prick.
Why does your chart stop at 1970? You fucking cocksucking lying bastard. Kill yourself now.
Fuck you.
Global Warming: The coldest Spring in 50 years.
- Thread starter Grandluxe
- Start date
You lying prick.
Why does your chart stop at 1970? You fucking cocksucking lying bastard. Kill yourself now.
Fuck you.
.....Climate science is a mixture of real science and junk science. The real climate science knows a lot about climate, but it doesn't know how to predict the future, and it doesn't have a good handle on the effect of greenhouse gases. The fake "the sky is falling" climate science created a financial and professional windfall for numerous special interests: climate scientists, bureaucracies, politicians, green groups, ethanol producers, and windmill manufacturers, to name a few. The beneficiaries of this windfall are very protective of their empire. A climate mafia protects the windfall by suppressing dissent from the global warming party line. Very few scientists are brave enough and independent enough to publicly dissent. The scientific organizations that are sensitive to government funding gleefully promote the scare story. Many climate scientists know full well that a fraud is in motion, but they have no desire to walk into a buzz saw by complaining.
Climate doom predictions are based on very complicated computer models that disagree one with another and that are generally acknowledged to have major shortcomings. The models predict warming from increased concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. However, major contradictions are given little attention or ignored. The models are unable to explain the climate history of the 20th century, even when "calibrated" with speculative inputs. For example, the considerable warming trend in the early 20th century, from 1910 to 1940, has never been definitively explained. It wasn't due to increasing CO2, because CO2 was barely increasing during that era. The only warming trend that could be plausibly blamed on CO2 was the 1970-1998 warming, but that warming stopped 16 years ago, even though CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere continued to increase rapidly. Even scientifically literate people mistakenly assume that climate scientists must be disinterested and know what they are talking about.
The climate bureaucracy depends on the continuing global warming scare for its existence, and those familiar with the ways of government agencies know that a bureaucracy whose existence depends on a problem will always exaggerate the importance of the problem.
In this vein, a National Climate Assessment document has been released in draft form by the climate bureaucracy in Washington. The document was vetted by a federal advisory committee stacked with global warming promoters; it is 1,100 pages long and mostly lacks serious justifications for its broad claims. The global warming bureaucrats have entangled critics in a mushy science blob, but the blob has been refuted in considerable scientific detail by a 133-page <a href=http://www.cato.org/publications/the-missing-science-from-the-draft-national-assessment>CATO institute document</a>....
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013...ideology_the_national_climate_assessment.html
Climate doom predictions are based on very complicated computer models that disagree one with another and that are generally acknowledged to have major shortcomings. The models predict warming from increased concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. However, major contradictions are given little attention or ignored. The models are unable to explain the climate history of the 20th century, even when "calibrated" with speculative inputs. For example, the considerable warming trend in the early 20th century, from 1910 to 1940, has never been definitively explained. It wasn't due to increasing CO2, because CO2 was barely increasing during that era. The only warming trend that could be plausibly blamed on CO2 was the 1970-1998 warming, but that warming stopped 16 years ago, even though CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere continued to increase rapidly. Even scientifically literate people mistakenly assume that climate scientists must be disinterested and know what they are talking about.
The climate bureaucracy depends on the continuing global warming scare for its existence, and those familiar with the ways of government agencies know that a bureaucracy whose existence depends on a problem will always exaggerate the importance of the problem.
In this vein, a National Climate Assessment document has been released in draft form by the climate bureaucracy in Washington. The document was vetted by a federal advisory committee stacked with global warming promoters; it is 1,100 pages long and mostly lacks serious justifications for its broad claims. The global warming bureaucrats have entangled critics in a mushy science blob, but the blob has been refuted in considerable scientific detail by a 133-page <a href=http://www.cato.org/publications/the-missing-science-from-the-draft-national-assessment>CATO institute document</a>....
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013...ideology_the_national_climate_assessment.html
^wrong, try NOAA asshole, not some right wing blog. What a dick you are.
You are just really stupid futurecunt. That data in the chart was from NOAA, dip shit. The NOAA link to the data is shown right on the chart!
NOAA also has the biggest interest in keeping the billions flowing into climate research, idiot. That's why they changed the normalization data to push up the appearance of more warming in the 1990's.
Get a clue, fool
Why don't you just go suck your brother's dick and leave scientific discussions to those who know science.
Your air conditioner installation experience disqualifies you from knowing what the fuck you are talking about, dumbass!
Lol, "they slipped it in later"?
It's in the first paragraph!
"This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys."
When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that donât, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, thereâs nothing else to call it â a lie of presidential proportions.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/
There is no study which shows that 97% of scientists state that man made co2 is causing warming.
The paper says human activity causes warming.... not man made co2.
Which is why I was asking ricter and fc to cite the paper...
In response fc just lies and calls names and ricter plays citing to complete bullshit statements on wikipedia instead of any particular study.
Of course now that the met admits that they can discern any warming outside of natural variation since the 1800s... all those "climatologists" still in the consensus look like complete scientific dunces anyway.
The paper says human activity causes warming.... not man made co2.
Which is why I was asking ricter and fc to cite the paper...
In response fc just lies and calls names and ricter plays citing to complete bullshit statements on wikipedia instead of any particular study.
Of course now that the met admits that they can discern any warming outside of natural variation since the 1800s... all those "climatologists" still in the consensus look like complete scientific dunces anyway.
