Climate Change Deniers are Almost Extinct

With the way the energy companies are bankrolling Romney don't be surprised if you don't start seeing a lot more of flacaltenn like nonsense showing up all over the place. The super rich seem to believe they can live through anything. Who knows, maybe they can.
 
Hey Star::

Are you aware that increasing numbers of scientists are pointing to a HUGE probability of Global Cooling due to natural cooling via Sunspot activity within the next 12 years or so??

Are YOU aware of that? And if so -- are you PLEASED or dissapointed that the amount of cooling will be mitigated by warming that YOU THINK is caused solely by CO2 emissions? The best estimates are that the events of the next couple decades will be "a statistical wash" between natural cooling and "man-made" Global Warming?

PERHAPS those mean nasty Carbon dudes are saving your frigid ass from fracturing in the cold..

Anyway -- long term prognosis for making political hay out of this is ALMOST THE "F" Over.. When NATURAL CYCLICAL causes can wipe out all that hooting and hollowering that your minions have done to us for the past 20 years.

Links? To peer reviewed articles, not nonsense from fruitcakes like you.

You need links to articles that we just fought over 3 days ago??? Are you going daft?
 
With the way the energy companies are bankrolling Romney don't be surprised if you don't start seeing a lot more of flacaltenn like nonsense showing up all over the place. The super rich seem to believe they can live through anything. Who knows, maybe they can.

Really? Perhaps you should spend more time studying the topic and less time shaking those Blue-Green environaut pom-poms eh???

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘

World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’


Read more: Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

Faced with the inevitability that the Jig will Soon be Up --- The alarmists are gonna INSIST that CO2 based Global Warming WILL WIN THE DAY -- saving humanity from freezing their sorry skeptical buns right off.. :badgrin: :eusa_clap: :badgrin:

You have become a willing example of WHY I CHOSE that quote in my footer.. Because you ATTACK expecting lies and deceit because that's just what liars expect...

Next time -- check it out before you look silly..
 
Last edited:
And how many years now have I been hearing, "Don't worry, it's going to be cooling soon."?

And now we have just seen the record for the melt in the Arctic Ocean broken with 2 to 4 weeks of melt left. The vast majority of glaciers in the world are receding at an ever increasing clip.

I will remind you of this post in the coming months, Flatulance.
 
No links?

Okay, I understand and where you are coming from.


No link?
LOL - you understand? -- puhhhleeze!
2 funny -- R U stew-pid or is yer haed up yer azz?


I'd school you on how to find the/a link but it's more fun watching you make a fool of yourself.





Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation Poll. July 25-Aug. 5, 2012. N=3,130 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.

"Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?"

Find results here.

That's all I asked for dumb fuck.
 
With the way the energy companies are bankrolling Romney don't be surprised if you don't start seeing a lot more of flacaltenn like nonsense showing up all over the place. The super rich seem to believe they can live through anything. Who knows, maybe they can.

Really? Perhaps you should spend more time studying the topic
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.........ROTFLMAO.........oh fecalhead, ya gotta stop wit dat shyt......I nearly pissed myself laughing at that one......








and less time shaking those Blue-Green environaut pom-poms eh???

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘

World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’


Read more: Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

Faced with the inevitability that the Jig will Soon be Up --- The alarmists are gonna INSIST that CO2 based Global Warming WILL WIN THE DAY -- saving humanity from freezing their sorry skeptical buns right off..

You have become a willing example of WHY I CHOSE that quote in my footer.. Because you ATTACK expecting lies and deceit because that's just what liars expect...

Next time -- check it out before you look silly..
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are really funny today, little retard....that last line....omg...

This post of yours, besides being hilarious, is a good example of just how screwed up and confused you are. You, very ironically (unconsciously), advise someone else that they "should spend more time studying the topic" and then you demonstrate what that means to you by posting some idiotic drivel from a newspaper article without ever checking up on the accuracy of that drivel. LOL. You are such a good example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

That reporter for the Mail, David Rose, is a denier cult nutjob and a major liar. His article was so full of errors, lies and fraudulent statements that the Met Office, whose studies he was supposedly quoting, took the very unusual step of publicly responding to his bullshit.

Met Office in the Media
29 January 2012
(not under copyright)

Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.

For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.

“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.

“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

compare_datasets.png

Global average temperatures from 1850 to 2011 from the three individual global temperature datasets (Met Office/UEA HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC

Decadal-average-temperatures-ls2.jpg


Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.

It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.
 
No links?

Okay, I understand and where you are coming from.


No link?
LOL - you understand? -- puhhhleeze!
2 funny -- R U stew-pid or is yer haed up yer azz?


I'd school you on how to find the/a link but it's more fun watching you make a fool of yourself.





Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation Poll. July 25-Aug. 5, 2012. N=3,130 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.

"Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?"

Find results here.

That's all I asked for dumb fuck.
IN the post you so arrogantly tried to school the OP about, were the links you were looking FOR.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...deniers-are-almost-extinct-2.html#post5879876

At this part,
you hover your mouse over the words, and TA DAAAA, it's a fucking link.
:cool:
Now be a nice boy and apologize.
 
With the way the energy companies are bankrolling Romney don't be surprised if you don't start seeing a lot more of flacaltenn like nonsense showing up all over the place. The super rich seem to believe they can live through anything. Who knows, maybe they can.

Wasn't Newt promising colonies on the moon?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or1Mb1Vje1Q]Newt Gingrich promises US moon colony by 2020. - YouTube[/ame]

:lmao:
 
With the way the energy companies are bankrolling Romney don't be surprised if you don't start seeing a lot more of flacaltenn like nonsense showing up all over the place. The super rich seem to believe they can live through anything. Who knows, maybe they can.

Really? Perhaps you should spend more time studying the topic
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.........ROTFLMAO.........oh fecalhead, ya gotta stop wit dat shyt......I nearly pissed myself laughing at that one......

and less time shaking those Blue-Green environaut pom-poms eh???

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘

World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’


Read more: Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

Faced with the inevitability that the Jig will Soon be Up --- The alarmists are gonna INSIST that CO2 based Global Warming WILL WIN THE DAY -- saving humanity from freezing their sorry skeptical buns right off..

You have become a willing example of WHY I CHOSE that quote in my footer.. Because you ATTACK expecting lies and deceit because that's just what liars expect...

Next time -- check it out before you look silly..
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are really funny today, little retard....that last line....omg...

This post of yours, besides being hilarious, is a good example of just how screwed up and confused you are. You, very ironically (unconsciously), advise someone else that they "should spend more time studying the topic" and then you demonstrate what that means to you by posting some idiotic drivel from a newspaper article without ever checking up on the accuracy of that drivel. LOL. You are such a good example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

That reporter for the Mail, David Rose, is a denier cult nutjob and a major liar. His article was so full of errors, lies and fraudulent statements that the Met Office, whose studies he was supposedly quoting, took the very unusual step of publicly responding to his bullshit.

Met Office in the Media
29 January 2012
(not under copyright)

Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.

For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.

“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.

“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

compare_datasets.png

Global average temperatures from 1850 to 2011 from the three individual global temperature datasets (Met Office/UEA HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC

Decadal-average-temperatures-ls2.jpg


Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.

It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

I don't know WHY you think that LARGER BOLDED type is gonna work to intimidate folks like me or make you look smarter. The MET did NOT DENY any of the analysis they did to predict a COOLING CYCLE. And the author (Rose or whoever) did NOT MAKE UP those statements clarifying the MET press release. He had INTERVIEWED and QUOTED several different RESPECTABLE scientific sources that disagreed with the MET conclusions over THE DEGREE of NET WARMING/COOLING that was gonna occur. They can holler all they want about their attempt to show that it will still warm "a little" even if there is a massive NATURAL shift in climate cooling due to the sun. But that was result of largely picking upper/lower bounds in a favorable fashion to come up with a slight net warming. Something that MANY climate researchers disagree with. What is NOT GENERALLY disagreed about is the CRUX of the MET report. That accelerated warming predicted by CO2 alone and touted as gospel by the IPCC is gonna largely disappear for the next decade or so..

And that is that rough times are ahead for the "Church of CO2" as NATURE shows how much of an effect she has on NATURAL cycles of the climate. And the Top Clergy have to circle the wagons to find a rational way NOT to look stupid over the next 20 years or so....

I don't think you fully grasped the SCOPE of what the MET was quibbling about in that "reply". It did NOT affect the major prognostication that they are on record as making.
 
Last edited:
No link?
LOL - you understand? -- puhhhleeze!
2 funny -- R U stew-pid or is yer haed up yer azz?


I'd school you on how to find the/a link but it's more fun watching you make a fool of yourself.





Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation Poll. July 25-Aug. 5, 2012. N=3,130 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.

"Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?"

Find results here.

That's all I asked for dumb fuck.
IN the post you so arrogantly tried to school the OP about, were the links you were looking FOR.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...deniers-are-almost-extinct-2.html#post5879876

At this part,
you hover your mouse over the words, and TA DAAAA, it's a fucking link.
:cool:
Now be a nice boy and apologize.


ooohhh noes, now you've let the cat outta the bag Barb --- unfortunately for Papageorgio, Papageorgio doesn't even seem bright enough to recognize that s/he's just made a fool of him/herself.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Qw3Foa_XE]don't eat the yellow snow and nanook rubs it - YouTube[/ame]
 
"Recent events have caused speculation that the current Republican Party is anti-science.

For a nation that values its traditional science and technology edge over most of the rest of the world, it is somewhat astonishing that so many Republican politicians treat science as unproven theory or disregard it completely." ~ Ann McFeatters


Climate Change Deniers: First they said it isn't happening, then they said it was real but humans had nothing to do with it, then they said maybe it's natural warming or maybe it's caused by humans but we can't do anything about it, then they said it was real but...



Climate Change Deniers are Almost Extinct | NationofChange

Most North Americans know that human-caused global warming is real, even if political leaders don’t always reflect or act on that knowledge. According to a recent poll, only two percent of Canadians reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming at alarming rates—a figure that may seem surprising given the volume of nonsense deniers (many of them funded by the fossil fuel industry) spread through letters to the editor, blogs, radio call-ins and website comments.

Polling indicates more deniers live in the U.S., but they still make up just 15 percent of that population.


✄snip>


The truth is, as most of us know, that global warming is real and humans are major contributors, mainly because we wastefully burn fossil fuels. We also know solutions lie in energy conservation, shifting to renewable sources, and changing our patterns of energy and fuel use, for example, by improving public transit and moving away from personal vehicles.

Scientists have been warning about global warming for decades. It’s too late to stop it now, but we can lessen its severity and impacts. The side benefits are numerous: less pollution and environmental destruction, better human health, stronger and more diversified economies, and a likely reduction in global conflicts fueled by the rapacious drive to exploit finite resources.

We can all work to reduce our individual impacts. But we must also convince our political and business leaders that it’s time to put people—especially our children, grandchildren and generations yet to come—before profits.





Yes, "denialists" are such a dying breed that we are kicking your asses all over the planet. You've been able to get ONE carbon tax scheme passed since your cult exploded over CLIMATEGAT and that will be repealed as soon as the current government gets booted out of office (as it will because it has been revealed that the politicians that voted for the fraud get to make buckets of money from the tax....that doesn't sit well with the Aussies) and you say the sceptics are a dying breed:lol::lol::lol:


Your delusion is very illustrative....very.....
 
Really? Perhaps you should spend more time studying the topic
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.........ROTFLMAO.........oh fecalhead, ya gotta stop wit dat shyt......I nearly pissed myself laughing at that one......

and less time shaking those Blue-Green environaut pom-poms eh???



Faced with the inevitability that the Jig will Soon be Up --- The alarmists are gonna INSIST that CO2 based Global Warming WILL WIN THE DAY -- saving humanity from freezing their sorry skeptical buns right off..

You have become a willing example of WHY I CHOSE that quote in my footer.. Because you ATTACK expecting lies and deceit because that's just what liars expect...

Next time -- check it out before you look silly..
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are really funny today, little retard....that last line....omg...

This post of yours, besides being hilarious, is a good example of just how screwed up and confused you are. You, very ironically (unconsciously), advise someone else that they "should spend more time studying the topic" and then you demonstrate what that means to you by posting some idiotic drivel from a newspaper article without ever checking up on the accuracy of that drivel. LOL. You are such a good example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

That reporter for the Mail, David Rose, is a denier cult nutjob and a major liar. His article was so full of errors, lies and fraudulent statements that the Met Office, whose studies he was supposedly quoting, took the very unusual step of publicly responding to his bullshit.

Met Office in the Media
29 January 2012
(not under copyright)

Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.

For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.

“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.

“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

compare_datasets.png

Global average temperatures from 1850 to 2011 from the three individual global temperature datasets (Met Office/UEA HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC

Decadal-average-temperatures-ls2.jpg


Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.

It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

I don't know WHY you think that LARGER BOLDED type is gonna work to intimidate folks like me or make you look smarter.
I don't use larger type to "intimidate" you, fecalhead, I use it because you're a retard and you need that emphasis. Unfortunately you're too retarded to comprehend what you read anyway, as this post of yours demonstrates pretty conclusively.





The MET did NOT DENY any of the analysis they did to predict a COOLING CYCLE.
You have no idea what the Met Office did or did not do, you clueless retard. You're getting all of your information from newspaper accounts written by liars.





And the author (Rose or whoever) did NOT MAKE UP those statements clarifying the MET press release.
Oh but that denier cult douchebag Rose did in fact make up lots of stuff, moron. Starting with the headline.
"Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
"
First off, NASA scientists have never said anything that even implies that the Thames will be freezing over again. Second, the claim that the Met Office figures show no warming in 15 years is a total lie. A very obvious lie too since the very first two paragraphs of the Met Office's press release say:

2012 is expected to be around 0.48 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a predicted likely range of between 0.34 °C and 0.62 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.

The middle of this range would place 2012 within the top 10 warmest years in a series which goes back to 1850.

First paragraph of Rose's error filled article:
"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years." - LIE

Second paragragh:
"The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century." - LIE

Third paragraph:
"Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997." - LIE

Actual Met Office releases:
"New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases."

"Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases."

"The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun. It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C."​











He had INTERVIEWED and QUOTED several different RESPECTABLE scientific sources that disagreed with the MET conclusions over THE DEGREE of NET WARMING/COOLING that was gonna occur.
LOLOLOLOL. Yeah, denier cult reporter Rose interviews several denier cult kooks and cranks who pose as scientists but have little or no credibility in the world scientific community.
Henrik Svensmark
"The rebuttals to Svensmarks cosmic ray theories and hypothesis generally included lack of confirmation and unsupported claims."

Dr Nicola Scafetta
Ties to several AGW denying front groups linked to or sponsored by the fossil fuel industry; Heartland Institute, SPPI.
His findings are disputed by the rest of the scientific community - "Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global temperature"

Judith Curry Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot







They can holler all they want about their attempt to show that it will still warm "a little" even if there is a massive NATURAL shift in climate cooling due to the sun.
It is not going to warm "a little", fecalhead, it is going to warm a lot. There is no "massive NATURAL shift in climate cooling due to the sun", there may be a minor shift in the solar influence on Earth's climate. As the Met Office actually said:
"The study in question...confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases."​







What is NOT GENERALLY disagreed about is the CRUX of the MET report. That accelerated warming predicted by CO2 alone and touted as gospel by the IPCC is gonna largely disappear for the next decade or so..
Total bullshit based only on your inability to comprehend what the scientists are actually saying. That inability apparently comes from both the fact that you've been brainwashed by some clever propaganda and by the fact that you're incredibly retarded and completely ignorant about science.
Once again for the retard...
"The study in question...confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. "​





And that is that rough times are ahead for the "Church of CO2"
Actually it is the "Cult of Reality Denial" that is having rough times now as temperatures soar and droughts intensify. Your cult is fast sliding down the poop chute of history into the septic tank of failed ideological craziness. You are on a par with the Flat Earth Society.





as NATURE shows how much of an effect she has on NATURAL cycles of the climate. And the Top Clergy have to circle the wagons to find a rational way NOT to look stupid over the next 20 years or so....
You denier cult retards have been looking stupid for the last 20 years or so and you will soon be looking even more stupid as the climate change crisis deepens.






I don't think you fully grasped the SCOPE of what the MET was quibbling about in that "reply". It did NOT affect the major prognostication that they are on record as making.
You're obviously far too retarded to have any idea what the Met Office actually said. Too bad you're such a gullible little cretin.
 
Last edited:
TinkerBelle:

It's become increasingly difficult to find ANY evidence that you were sufficiently educated in Middle School. We've already established your inability to read graphs and understand the basics of logarithms and NOW --- your abysmal reading comprehension skills and logic are on full display..

I don't want to waste time on your bolded rants. But I DO WANT to offer a pop quiz to establish your general competency to discuss.. Remember those Weekly Reader quizes? Here goes.. I give you a paragraph, and you answer the questions...


According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

1) What is the MINIMUM predicted temperature impact of weak SunSpot Cycle 25 on average temperatures?

2) If Cycle 25 resembles the Maunder Minimum --- would that impact yield LOWER average Temps or HIGHER?

3) What is chance of this event NOT happening?

Good so far? The next paragraph builds on the facts presented in the first paragraph..

Carried out by the Met Office and the University of Reading, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun's activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on Earth.

It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC's B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).

Gareth Jones, a climate change detection scientist with the Met Office, said: "This research shows that the most likely change in the Sun's output will not have a big impact on global temperatures or do much to slow the warming we expect from greenhouse gases.

"It's important to note this study is based on a single climate model, rather than multiple models which would capture more of the uncertainties in the climate system."

The study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum - a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level - the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

Peter Stott, who also worked on the research for the Met Office, said: "Our findings suggest that a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases on global temperatures in the 21st Century."
.

Which of these statements are correct? (Choose just one)


A) The Cycle 25 effect on temperature in the 21st Century is only 0.08degC.

B) The NET effect of Cycle 25 and "global warming" in the 21st Century would result in a cooling of between 0.08 and 0.13degC.

C) The temperature difference between the Dalton Min and the Maunder Min is 0.05degC.

D) "...it's gonna warm a lot".... attributed to a DundrHead known as Rolling Thunder.


Stop there -- pencils down... Pass your papers to the front..

We will discuss the incredible flailing of the Met Office themselves to pull numbers and dates out of their arses tomorrow..
And I will have videos of that as well...
 
Last edited:
"Recent events have caused speculation that the current Republican Party is anti-science.

For a nation that values its traditional science and technology edge over most of the rest of the world, it is somewhat astonishing that so many Republican politicians treat science as unproven theory or disregard it completely." ~ Ann McFeatters


Climate Change Deniers: First they said it isn't happening, then they said it was real but humans had nothing to do with it, then they said maybe it's natural warming or maybe it's caused by humans but we can't do anything about it, then they said it was real but...



Climate Change Deniers are Almost Extinct | NationofChange

Most North Americans know that human-caused global warming is real, even if political leaders don’t always reflect or act on that knowledge. According to a recent poll, only two percent of Canadians reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming at alarming rates—a figure that may seem surprising given the volume of nonsense deniers (many of them funded by the fossil fuel industry) spread through letters to the editor, blogs, radio call-ins and website comments.

Polling indicates more deniers live in the U.S., but they still make up just 15 percent of that population.


✄snip>


The truth is, as most of us know, that global warming is real and humans are major contributors, mainly because we wastefully burn fossil fuels. We also know solutions lie in energy conservation, shifting to renewable sources, and changing our patterns of energy and fuel use, for example, by improving public transit and moving away from personal vehicles.

Scientists have been warning about global warming for decades. It’s too late to stop it now, but we can lessen its severity and impacts. The side benefits are numerous: less pollution and environmental destruction, better human health, stronger and more diversified economies, and a likely reduction in global conflicts fueled by the rapacious drive to exploit finite resources.

We can all work to reduce our individual impacts. But we must also convince our political and business leaders that it’s time to put people—especially our children, grandchildren and generations yet to come—before profits.




Is that so s0n?


Then please..............show us where your side is winning??



C0110_Bob_Rohrman-4.jpg





LMAO.........I posed this same ? to Rolling Thunder last October. Still.........not one single link ( but Ive beenn called "retard" 1,000 times :D:D)





In the real world ( outside the nether-regions of the internet).........nobody gives a rats ass about the global warming science. It they did............Cap and Trade would be a slam dunk. Instead? Its dead as a fucking doornail!!!:rock::rock::rock::2up::rock::rock::rock::rock::fu:
 
Last edited:
No links?

Okay, I understand and where you are coming from.

No links required.
Are you not aware that someone with the right opinion has already proclaimed that the GD debate is over? And if you disagree you will be marginalized as a nut.

pffft
AGW alarmism is the Loch Ness Monster debate for adults.
 
Climate Change Deniers "almost extinct"??? Maybe so if the Climate Change Bus keeps losing parts as rapidly as it is.. There IS Climate Change -- but we won't need Deniers and Skeptics once a better, more comprehensive theory of the Change is produced..

I'll be relieved when the Doom and Gloom cheering section is silenced everytime there's a natural weather disaster..
 
That's all I asked for dumb fuck.
IN the post you so arrogantly tried to school the OP about, were the links you were looking FOR.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...deniers-are-almost-extinct-2.html#post5879876

At this part,
you hover your mouse over the words, and TA DAAAA, it's a fucking link.
:cool:
Now be a nice boy and apologize.


ooohhh noes, now you've let the cat outta the bag Barb --- unfortunately for Papageorgio, Papageorgio doesn't even seem bright enough to recognize that s/he's just made a fool of him/herself.

He knows, he hasn't been back to acknowledge his mistake.

Skookerasbil following in his footsteps...:lalala:

C0110_Bob_Rohrman-4.jpg


LMAO.........I posed this same ? to Rolling Thunder last October. Still.........not one single link ( but Ive beenn called "retard" 1,000 times )
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top