Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[Lucrum]

Looks like being "Green" is getting a little dangerous.



Could you get arrested for plugging in your phone at a public building? Well, a man in Georgia was arrested after he plugged in his Nissan Leaf and was charged with “theft of power” from the city. And how much power did he steal? $.05

from NBC:

A Georgia man found himself in handcuffs after charging his electric car outside a middle school where his son was playing tennis in what police alleged was unlawful “theft” of county power worth roughly five cents.

Kaveh Kamooneh, of Decatur, said he was attending a Saturday morning tennis practice session for his 11-year-old son on Nov. 2 when he plugged in his electric car at a power outlet outside Chamblee Middle School...

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/69346142214/youll-never-believe-why-georgia-cops-arrested-this

 

[gwb-trading]

Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating
http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/

The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way.

Warmist claims of a severe increase in hurricane activity go back to 2005 and Hurricane Katrina. The cover of Al Gore’s 2009 book, “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis,” even features a satellite image of the globe with four major hurricanes superimposed.

Yet the evidence to the contrary was there all along. Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms — but no more frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence — then repeated their false claims after Hurricane Sandy last year.

And the media play along. For example, it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all.

That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this “pause” could extend into the 2030s.

Mind you, the term “pause” is misleading in the extreme: Unless and until it resumes again, it’s just a “stop.” You don’t say a bullet-ridden body “paused” breathing.

Remarkably, that stoppage has practically been a state secret. Just five years ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, the group most associated with “proving” that global warming is man-made and has horrific potential consequences, told Congress that Earth is running a “fever” that’s “apt to get much worse.” Yet he and IPCC knew the warming had stopped a decade earlier.

Those who pointed this out, including yours truly, were labeled “denialists.” Yet the IPCC itself finally admitted the “pause” in its latest report.

The single most damning aspect of the “pause” is that, because it has occurred when “greenhouse gases” have been pouring into the atmosphere at record levels, it shows at the very least that something natural is at play here. The warmists suggest that natural factors have “suppressed” the warming temporarily, but that’s just a guess: The fact is, they have nothing like the understanding of the climate that they claimed (and their many models that all showed future warming mean nothing, since they all used essentially the same false information).

If Ma Nature caused the “pause,” can’t this same lady be responsible for the warming observed earlier? You bet! Fact is, the earth was cooling and warming long before so-called GHGs could have been a factor. A warm spell ushered in the Viking Age, and many scientists believe recent warming was merely a recovery from what’s called “the Little Ice Age” that began around 1300.

Yet none of this unsettles the rush to kill debate. The Los Angeles Times has even announced that it will no longer print letters to the editor questioning man-made global warming. Had the Times been printing before Columbus, perhaps it would have banned letters saying the Earth was round.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to push to reduce supposed global-warming emissions. Last month, the president even signed an executive order establishing a Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience that could dramatically expand government bureaucrats’ ability to restrict Americans’ use of their property, water and energy to reduce so-called “greenhouse gas emissions.”

Such attempted reductions in other countries have proved incredibly expensive, while barely reducing emissions. But damn the stubbornly weak economy, says President Obama, full speed ahead!

This, even as new data show that last year the US median wage hit its lowest level since 1998 and long-term unemployment is almost the highest ever.

People have a right to religious and cult beliefs within reason. But the warmists have been proved wrong time and again, each time reacting with little more than pictures of forlorn polar bears on ice floes and trying to shut down the opposition. (More bad timing: Arctic ice increased by almost a third this past year, while that at the South Pole was thicker and wider than it’s been in 35 years.)

In war and in science, the bloodiest conflicts always seem to be the religious ones. Time for the American public to say it’s no longer going to play the victim in this one.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Wallet:

There's no paranoia here, I don't give a flying rat's ass fuck what the UN thinks I should do. The whole Global Warming fiasco is about power and money, not saving the globe.

Grow up.

And you are seriously deluded by the Koch bros and company.

Congratulations for being a good sheep.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from stoic:

I'm not surprised that you missed the point, let me put it into very, very simple terms.

You're a potty mouth hypocrite!

That's about as simple as I can make it,.....I could add more but it would just add to your confusion. Let us close with more examples of the hypocrisy that is fc

"Gun nut righties can't figure this out and it's all about hyperbolic fear and paranoia for them.....flag-wavers on the right who see all these problems through the site of a gun .....self-appointed, self-important, wanna-be-a-cop, gun-nut-righties......should not have a gun....Having a gun and shooting first insures immunity. This is why handguns should be outlawed for civilians.....Fox News is to blame for a self-appointed, hand gun carrying wannabe cop assuming a .......a young thug carrying a gun issue.....What's America coming to when one can't carry a gun and kill innocent people...... it's time to stand up to the gun nuts and demand common sense regulations... I know that's all the gun nuts hear but.... More proof of how crazy the gun nuts are...... the gun worshipers...... They just don't want to give up their toys. Like spoiled little boys........ You are a detestable psychopath and an example of someone who should not have a gun.......... I think there should more gun control....... Banning handguns makes lots of sense............. the person applying for a gun permit is mentally ill ........ regulations are fought tooth and nail by the paranoid gun nut righties..... the hysterical gun nuts....."

Well I know you like simple terms. No surprise there.

No I am not a hypocrite and nothing that you so insanely pasted shows otherwise.

Potty mouth? Shit, you have me there. Sorry if I offended your delicate senses. It is the stupidity and attacks by others that prompt such talk.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

FC you lying drone. The paper was using your Mauna Loa data.

See the green line... it says co2.

Its the delta for each month being compared. Read the science you idiot and stop making shit up. Even the blogger you cited got that part right.

here is the quote from your blogger...


"My bold. Essentially, the method in HSS12 is to compare the “DIFF12” values for each time series – that is, for each month they find the difference between the last 12 months and the 12 preceding months.

In general, they find that the fluctuations in DIFF12 of temperatures lead the fluctuations in DIFF12 of atmospheric CO2, and then conclude:

In general, we find that changes in atmospheric CO2 are lagging behind changes in any of the five different temperature records considered. The typical lag is 9.5-12 months for surface temperatures and about 9 months for lower troposphere temperatures, suggesting a temperature sequence of events from the surface to the lower troposphere.
As cause always must precede effect, this observation demonstrates that modern changes in temperatures are generally not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the sequence of events is seen to be the opposite: temperature changes are taking place before the corresponding CO2 changes occur."

Jem you are so gullible and delusional. To get the delta they are using....

"globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data".


In other words they are measuring the CO2 levels at the surface of the oceans and are measuring, among other things, the biological effect on the CO2 level and varying annual uptake of the oceans.

We are not interested in the CO2 levels at the surface of the ocean. That is not the CO2 that is able to cause a greenhouse effect. We are interested in the CO2 levels measured high in the troposphere like this one below. There is not even any annual variation of CO2 levels to even compare to a variation in temps. You are so fucking dumb and gullible to believe the shit you read on these fake climate sites funded by The Heritage Foundation and other similar fossil fuel interests.

Jem, keep reading the above until it sinks in. The paper is just another irrelevent red herring piece of bullshit from the denialist machine.

 

[jem]

You are a deceptive slick lying ass troll. Just making up any lie to protect you big govt world view.


They used NOAA CO2 data set. ------


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

Here is a quote from page 52 of a pdf of the subject payer.
Note - Figure 1 is the chart I showed you with green line on it.

"Global monthly CO2 data (NOAA) are available from January 1980,
and is shown graphically in Fig. 1, along with the monthly global sea surface temperature (HadSST2) and the monthly global surface air temperature (HadCRUT3), using data published by the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre, UK. In addition, in the present study we also analyze global air temperature data from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in USA, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in USA, and lower troposphere temperature data published by the University of Alabama (UAH), Huntsville, USA. At the end of the paper a list of URL's used to obtain the data used can be
found. All these monthly data series are now sufficiently long to
have collected a population of climate perturbations, and they are
therefore likely to reveal essentials of the coupling between atmospheric CO2 and temperature in modern time.

Here is the link .


CO2 globally averaged marine surface data (accessed March 11, 2012): ftp://ftp.cmdl.
noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_gl.txt

Quote from futurecurrents:

Jem you are so gullible and delusional. To get the delta they are using....

"globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data".


In other words they are measuring the CO2 levels at the surface of the oceans and are measuring, among other things, the biological effect on the CO2 level and varying annual uptake of the oceans.

We are not interested in the CO2 levels at the surface of the ocean. That is not the CO2 that is able to cause a greenhouse effect. We are interested in the CO2 levels measured high in the troposphere like this one below. There is not even any annual variation of CO2 levels to even compare to a variation in temps. You are so fucking dumb and gullible to believe the shit you read on these fake climate sites funded by The Heritage Foundation and other similar fossil fuel interests.

Jem, keep reading the above until it sinks in. The paper is just another irrelevent red herring piece of bullshit from the denialist machine.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating
http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/

The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way.

Warmist claims of a severe increase in hurricane activity go back to 2005 and Hurricane Katrina. The cover of Al Gore’s 2009 book, “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis,” even features a satellite image of the globe with four major hurricanes superimposed.

Yet the evidence to the contrary was there all along. Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms — but no more frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence — then repeated their false claims after Hurricane Sandy last year.

And the media play along. For example, it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all.

That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this “pause” could extend into the 2030s.

Mind you, the term “pause” is misleading in the extreme: Unless and until it resumes again, it’s just a “stop.” You don’t say a bullet-ridden body “paused” breathing.

Remarkably, that stoppage has practically been a state secret. Just five years ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, the group most associated with “proving” that global warming is man-made and has horrific potential consequences, told Congress that Earth is running a “fever” that’s “apt to get much worse.” Yet he and IPCC knew the warming had stopped a decade earlier.

Those who pointed this out, including yours truly, were labeled “denialists.” Yet the IPCC itself finally admitted the “pause” in its latest report.

The single most damning aspect of the “pause” is that, because it has occurred when “greenhouse gases” have been pouring into the atmosphere at record levels, it shows at the very least that something natural is at play here. The warmists suggest that natural factors have “suppressed” the warming temporarily, but that’s just a guess: The fact is, they have nothing like the understanding of the climate that they claimed (and their many models that all showed future warming mean nothing, since they all used essentially the same false information).

If Ma Nature caused the “pause,” can’t this same lady be responsible for the warming observed earlier? You bet! Fact is, the earth was cooling and warming long before so-called GHGs could have been a factor. A warm spell ushered in the Viking Age, and many scientists believe recent warming was merely a recovery from what’s called “the Little Ice Age” that began around 1300.

Yet none of this unsettles the rush to kill debate. The Los Angeles Times has even announced that it will no longer print letters to the editor questioning man-made global warming. Had the Times been printing before Columbus, perhaps it would have banned letters saying the Earth was round.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to push to reduce supposed global-warming emissions. Last month, the president even signed an executive order establishing a Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience that could dramatically expand government bureaucrats’ ability to restrict Americans’ use of their property, water and energy to reduce so-called “greenhouse gas emissions.”

Such attempted reductions in other countries have proved incredibly expensive, while barely reducing emissions. But damn the stubbornly weak economy, says President Obama, full speed ahead!

This, even as new data show that last year the US median wage hit its lowest level since 1998 and long-term unemployment is almost the highest ever.

People have a right to religious and cult beliefs within reason. But the warmists have been proved wrong time and again, each time reacting with little more than pictures of forlorn polar bears on ice floes and trying to shut down the opposition. (More bad timing: Arctic ice increased by almost a third this past year, while that at the South Pole was thicker and wider than it’s been in 35 years.)

In war and in science, the bloodiest conflicts always seem to be the religious ones. Time for the American public to say it’s no longer going to play the victim in this one.

So if you read something in the Rupert Murdoch's NY Post's editorial section and you assume it's correct? I presume just the opposite and this article reaffirms why.

Some questions for you gwb that address all the points in this piece of propaganda article. If you please.

Do you think that one year means anything significant when looking at climate trends?

Did you know that hurricanes have gotten stronger as the waters have gotten warmer although they have not gotten more numerous as some scientists thought.

Do you think the earth has stopped warming over the last 17 years?

Do you think that because past climate changes were natural, it means that man made climate change is not possible now?

Do you think that there is a tremendous amount of fossil fuel money at stake and a concerted and well funded campaign to fight GW by spreading disinformation, deception and outright fraud about GW ? Similar to what the Tobacco companies did?

Do they tie it in with neo-Libertarianism by melding corporate rights with those of individuals?

Are the Koch bros and Rupert Murdoch the sugar daddies of the Tea Party? Why?

Do you think that the Koch bros are against any government enterprise that would either inhibit their business profits or increase their taxes?



Please think carefully about these questions as their answers are important.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

You are a deceptive slick lying ass troll. Just making up any lie to protect you big govt world view.


They used NOAA CO2 data set. ------


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

Here is a quote from page 52 of a pdf of the subject payer.
Note - Figure 1 is the chart I showed you with green line on it.

"Global monthly CO2 data (NOAA) are available from January 1980,
and is shown graphically in Fig. 1, along with the monthly global sea surface temperature (HadSST2) and the monthly global surface air temperature (HadCRUT3), using data published by the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre, UK. In addition, in the present study we also analyze global air temperature data from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in USA, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in USA, and lower troposphere temperature data published by the University of Alabama (UAH), Huntsville, USA. At the end of the paper a list of URL's used to obtain the data used can be
found. All these monthly data series are now sufficiently long to
have collected a population of climate perturbations, and they are
therefore likely to reveal essentials of the coupling between atmospheric CO2 and temperature in modern time.

Here is the link .


CO2 globally averaged marine surface data (accessed March 11, 2012): ftp://ftp.cmdl.
noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_gl.txt

Yes, to protect my big government world view. Wow you are nuts.

And funny you should mention deceptive lying-ass troll. You learned to do it so well.


What part of marine boundary layer Co2 levels do you not understand?

The levels of CO2 at the surface of the ocean are NOT RELEVANT .

That they are from NOAA is also irrelevant.

Let me repeat to make it easier for you.

The levels of CO2 at the surface of the water have ZERO to do with the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere as a whole. So regardless of what else this study shows, it is not relevant to the earth's greenhouse effect.

It's a poorly done irrelevant piece of smoke and mirrors.



The simple fact which you still don't understand but maybe one day you will is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we raised levels by 40% over the last two hundred years.

 

[futurecurrents]

This the only CO2/ temperature relationship that matters. Anything else is noise. There is no significant variation in rate of change to even correlate a shorter term temp change with.

 

[gwb-trading]

Answered in-line in red - is GWB.

Quote from futurecurrents:

So if you read something in the Rupert Murdoch's NY Post's editorial section and you assume it's correct? I presume just the opposite and this article reaffirms why.

Some questions for you gwb that address all the points in this piece of propaganda article. If you please.

Do you think that one year means anything significant when looking at climate trends?
Every time we have a hot summer or a single storm like Katrina then the Climate Alarmists think that a single year or event is important.

Did you know that hurricanes have gotten stronger as the waters have gotten warmer although they have not gotten more numerous as some scientists thought.
We just had the weakest hurricane season in decades both in terms of the number of Atlantic hurricanes and intensity. If you plot hurricanes over years the storms relate more to the Atlantic ocean surface temperature than any type of 'climate change'. Can you explain the very intense hurricane seasons in the early 1800s that put anything in the modern era to shame.

Do you think the earth has stopped warming over the last 17 years?
According to the British Met Hadcrut data the earth has stopped warming for the last 17 years. The IPCC people admitted to this 'pause'. At this point the lack of global termperature increase for the past 17 years is generally well-accepted within the scientific community. You can not deny the raw data.

Do you think that because past climate changes were natural, it means that man made climate change is not possible now?
Actually I believe that man can effect the climate locally through pollution. Acid rain is an excellent example, which you could see in Germany during the Soviet era because all the eastern European countries burned soft coal which caused acid rain to the west. To cause this to happen however, East Germany had to burn so much coal that every outside surface in every town was covered in black soot. Impacting global temperature takes much more than increasing CO2. There is no relationship proven demonstrating man-made CO2 is causing temperature to increase globally.

Do you think that there is a tremendous amount of fossil fuel money at stake and a concerted and well funded campaign to fight GW by spreading disinformation, deception and outright fraud about GW ? Similar to what the Tobacco companies did?
Can you explain how much money Al Gore made from his "climate change" hedge fund? Can you explain where the $22.2 Billion the U.S. government spends on climate change' every year is going? The funding from pro-climate change alarmist factions are much greater than the amount spent by 'fossil fuel money'. In fact the climate alarmists outspend the 'skeptics' by a factor of over 100 to 1 - sadly most of this money spent by alarmists are our tax dollars which can be much put to much better uses.

Do they tie it in with neo-Libertarianism by melding corporate rights with those of individuals?
Who cares? What does this have to do with 'global warming'?

Are the Koch bros and Rupert Murdoch the sugar daddies of the Tea Party? Why?
Are Ted Turner and George Soros the sugar daddies of the Democratic party and numerous organizations that promote voter fraud? Why?

Do you think that the Koch bros are against any government enterprise that would either inhibit their business profits or increase their taxes?
Just like Al Gore they promote what is good for their pockets. How much has Al Gore spent to pimp his carbon-credit trading schemes to enrich his hedge fund? I will agree that the Koch brothers and many 'businessmen' on both the right and the left drive political agendas designed to increase their wealth and minimize their tax liability. I do have an issue with the big money that is inserted into politics in the U.S.

Please think carefully about these questions as their answers are important.
Maybe it is time that you carefully re-think your position on AGW because it is scientificly incorrect and within two decades will be an international laughing stock that comedians poke fun of on late night shows world-wide.