More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[jc456]

Not sure if you all have seen this information before, but thought I'd add it here, I found this on this web page link:The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

From one of the sections:

Skepticism (1900-1940s)

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference. (7*)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

An experiment was run and wouldn't you know, Frank it backs our story!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Brilliant post JC............ ^^^

 

[jc456]

Another new piece of news Jon Rappaport: UN climate change 1000 scientists say no Jon Rappoport s Blog

UN climate change: 1000 scientists say no by Jon Rappoport

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

UN Climate Change: 1000 scientists say no
By Jon Rappoport
September 18, 2014
http://www.nomorefakenews.com
Read it.
It’s a shocking 321-page report assembled by The Climate Depot:
“More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.”
It names names. It lists reasons for the dissent.
Reality is engineered consensus. But when that doesn’t work, “experts” just assert there is a consensus when there isn’t.
“What the hell, let’s just say that ‘everybody agrees’ manmade warming is destroying Earth and we have ten minutes to solve it, and let’s get our friends in the press to shut out the naysayers. You know, media blackout.”
Science is supposed to be about evidence and proof, not consensus. But that idea is now laughed out of court. Science is about PR and who sits on the important thrones.
Which is why the UN is holding Climate Summit 2014 in New York in a few days. Yes, the city that never sleeps will be hosting the gala and also kicking off Climate Week NYC 2014.
And then there is this. The UN Secretary General has appointed Leonardo DiCaprio a “messenger of peace, with a special focus on climate change.” Messenger of Peace. Wow. Will Leo appear out of a cloud hovering above the Chrysler Building? Will an angel anoint Leo? Will anybody call the Ghostbusters?
Will Obama show up and read from the teleprompter, “The science is settled, the science is settled…”
Will a CIA drone zoom over Times Square and launch gluten-free electromagnetic love bombs on the adoring crowds?
Will a blimped-out Al Gore waddle into the UN General Assembly hall, trailing fumes from his jet and casting oil leases to a few favored ambassadorial hustlers?
The latest climate science tells us that upcoming freezing weather or boiling hot weather are both reasonable inferences from the basic Climate Change hypothesis. This is, logically speaking, a new brand of tautological “research.” Round and round it goes, inside its bubble.
“Useful predictions? We don’t need no stinkin’ useful predictions. We just need dupes, and we got plenty of them.”
Here are a few excerpts from the boggling Climate Depot report:
“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”
-- UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.”
-- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the [UN] IPCC.”
-- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.”
-- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
“In December 8 2009, 166 scientists from around the world wrote an Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General rebuking the UN and declaring that ‘the science is NOT settled.’”
“On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS [to] revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group's climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: ‘Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.’”
Consensus on manmade global warming? Are you kidding?
The “consensus” is in favor of something else: staging and maintaining a media blackout to conceal the dissenters, to pretend they don’t exist, to pretend “the science is settled.”
Leo DiCaprio, messenger of peace. We’re living in a cartoon of a cartoon.

 

[skookerasbil]

Another new piece of news Jon Rappaport: UN climate change 1000 scientists say no Jon Rappoport s Blog

UN climate change: 1000 scientists say no by Jon Rappoport

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

UN Climate Change: 1000 scientists say no
By Jon Rappoport
September 18, 2014
http://www.nomorefakenews.com
Read it.
It’s a shocking 321-page report assembled by The Climate Depot:
“More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.”
It names names. It lists reasons for the dissent.
Reality is engineered consensus. But when that doesn’t work, “experts” just assert there is a consensus when there isn’t.
“What the hell, let’s just say that ‘everybody agrees’ manmade warming is destroying Earth and we have ten minutes to solve it, and let’s get our friends in the press to shut out the naysayers. You know, media blackout.”
Science is supposed to be about evidence and proof, not consensus. But that idea is now laughed out of court. Science is about PR and who sits on the important thrones.
Which is why the UN is holding Climate Summit 2014 in New York in a few days. Yes, the city that never sleeps will be hosting the gala and also kicking off Climate Week NYC 2014.
And then there is this. The UN Secretary General has appointed Leonardo DiCaprio a “messenger of peace, with a special focus on climate change.” Messenger of Peace. Wow. Will Leo appear out of a cloud hovering above the Chrysler Building? Will an angel anoint Leo? Will anybody call the Ghostbusters?
Will Obama show up and read from the teleprompter, “The science is settled, the science is settled…”
Will a CIA drone zoom over Times Square and launch gluten-free electromagnetic love bombs on the adoring crowds?
Will a blimped-out Al Gore waddle into the UN General Assembly hall, trailing fumes from his jet and casting oil leases to a few favored ambassadorial hustlers?
The latest climate science tells us that upcoming freezing weather or boiling hot weather are both reasonable inferences from the basic Climate Change hypothesis. This is, logically speaking, a new brand of tautological “research.” Round and round it goes, inside its bubble.
“Useful predictions? We don’t need no stinkin’ useful predictions. We just need dupes, and we got plenty of them.”
Here are a few excerpts from the boggling Climate Depot report:
“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”
-- UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.”
-- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the [UN] IPCC.”
-- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.”
-- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
“In December 8 2009, 166 scientists from around the world wrote an Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General rebuking the UN and declaring that ‘the science is NOT settled.’”
“On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS [to] revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group's climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: ‘Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.’”
Consensus on manmade global warming? Are you kidding?
The “consensus” is in favor of something else: staging and maintaining a media blackout to conceal the dissenters, to pretend they don’t exist, to pretend “the science is settled.”
Leo DiCaprio, messenger of peace. We’re living in a cartoon of a cartoon.

JC.....what did I tell you about Rappoport??!!! Some of the stuff is real, real hard to fathom given our level of being so programmed. He has some vids on YOuTube......scare the pants off you when you wake up and realize how much of reality is manufactured.

The AGW crowd is so naïve, its beyond stoopid. It is well documented that when you go to a meeting of these socialist groups, they come right out and speak about how important the environmental movement is towards them establishing t heir agenda......part of the goal of taxing the middle class to death >see green energy<. That's the ENTIRE goal of carbon taxes. Only stooped jerkoff bubble dwellers think its about the environment. The more folks that go on the government payroll = permanent power. This war on coal fixes to put 2.2 million people out of work........sure effectively fucks a lot of people. But for the hard core socialist fuck......no worries, here comes the government ( you and me ) to bail them out.

 

[skookerasbil]

Leading scientist, formerly of the Obama administration writes an article in todays Wall Street Journal.........

Very instructive and educational article here......basically says that the whole consensus science stuff is "no way a settled matter".

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mod=trending_now_1


The evidence he produces makes the hard core AGW religion look incredibly stoopid to make "settled science" pronunciations.

I laughed my balls off while reading the article.......

 

[Billy_Bob]

Leading scientist, formerly of the Obama administration writes an article in todays Wall Street Journal.........

Very instructive and educational article here......basically says that the whole consensus science stuff is "no way a settled matter".

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mod=trending_now_1


The evidence he produces makes the hard core AGW religion look incredibly stoopid to make "settled science" pronunciations.

I laughed my balls off while reading the article.......

My personal favorite paragraph is this one. Its bound to tear some of the faithfuls hearts right out of their chests...

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

He quantifies the miniscule size of our influence and then questions the gloom and doom from the alarmists...

And then there is this little gem... He all but tells the world that the models are CRAP! worthless for any use whatsoever... OMG!!!! Alarmists heads are going to explode...

We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences.

And this just in time for the manufactured climate crisis conference..


I wanna see what kind of big bang happens when Crick and his band of cronies explode...

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Billy.........check this shit out.......found it this am..........talk about AGW k00k losing >>>


Hang onto your hat my friend >>>>>


FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS

1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006
****
2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.
****
3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.
****
4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007
****
5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.
****
6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.
****
7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,
Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007
****
8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010
9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010
****
10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000
****
11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
Spiegel, 1 April 2000
****
12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.”
3Sat, 26 June 2003
****
13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)
****
14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007
****
15. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”
and
“ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002
****
16. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006
****
17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”
Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010
****
18. “Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007
****
19. “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007
****
20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”
FOCUS, 24 May 2006
****
21. “Consequences and impacts for regional agriculture: Hotter summers, milder plus shorter winters (palm trees!). Agriculture: More CO2 in the air, higher temperatures, foremost in winter.”
Dr. Michael Schirmer, University of Bremen, presentation of 2 Feb 2007
****
22. “Winters: wet and mild”
Bavarian State Ministry for Agriculture, presentation 23 Aug 2007
****
23. “The climate model prognoses currently indicate that the following climate changes will occur: Increase in minimum temperatures in the winter.”
Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony Date: 6 July 2009
****
24. “Both the prognoses for global climate development and the prognoses for the climatic development of the Fichtel Mountains clearly show a warming of the average temperature, whereby especially the winter months will be greatly impacted.”
Willi Seifert, University of Bayreuth, diploma thesis, p. 203, 7 July 2004
****
25. “Already in the year 2025 the conditions for winter sports in the Fichtel Mountains will develop negatively, especially with regards to ‘natural’ snow conditions and for so-called snow-making potential. A financially viable ski business operation after about the year 2025 appears under these conditions to be extremely improbable (Seifert, 2004)”.
Andreas Matzarakis, University of Freiburg Meteorological Institute, 26 July 2006
****
26. “Skiing among palm trees? … For this reason I would advise no one in the Berchtesgadener Land to invest in a ski-lift. The probability of earning money with the global warming is getting less and less.”
Hartmut Graßl, Director Emeritus,
Max Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 3, 4 Mar 2006
****
27. “Climate warming leads to an increasingly higher snow line. The number of future ski resorts that can be expected to have snow is reducing. [...] Climate change does not only lead to higher temperatures, but also to changes in the precipitation ratios in summer and winter. [...] In the wintertime more precipitation is to be anticipated. However, it will fall more often as rain, and less often as snow, in the future.”
Hans Elsasser, Director of the Geographical Institute of the University of Zurich, 4 Mar 2006
****
28. “All climate simulations – global and regional – were carried out at the Deutschen Klimarechenzentrum [German Climate Simulation Center]. [...] In the winter months the temperature rise is from 1.5°C to 2°C and stretches from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. Only in regions that are directly influenced by the Atlantic (Great Britain, Portugal, parts of Spain) will the winter temperature increase be less (Fig. 1).”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Press Release, Date: December 2007/January 2013.
****
29. “By the year 2050 … temperatures will rise 1.5ºC to 2.5°C (summer) and 3°C (winter). … in the summer it will rain up to 40% less and in the winter up to 30% more.
German Federal Department of Highways, 1 Sept 2010
****
30. “We are now at the threshold of making reliable statements about the future.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 44, 10/2001
****
31. “The scenarios of climate scientists are unanimous about one thing: In the future in Germany we will have to live with drier and drier summers and a lot more rain in the winters.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 20 May 2010
****
32. “In the wintertime the winds will be more from the west and will bring storms to Germany. Especially in western and southern Germany there will be flooding.” FOCUS / Mojib Latif, Leibniz Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel, 27 May 2006.
****
33. “While the increases in the springtime appear as rather modest, the (late)summer and winter months are showing an especially powerful warming trend.”
State Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Saxony, p. 133, Schriftenreihe Heft 25/2009.
****
34. “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model … Despite appearing as part of a natural climate oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human activities,”
Science Daily, Dr. Drew Shindell 4 June 1999
****
35. “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000
****
36. “This data confirms what many gardeners believe – winters are not as hard as they used to be. … And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”
BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec 2004
****
37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999
****
38. “Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the wintertime.”
Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000
****
39. “In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005
*****
40. “We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000
****
41. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001
****
42. “Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters…9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters … One study estimates a decrease in annual cold-related deaths of 20,000 in the UK by the 2050s (a reduction of 25%)”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001
****
43. “The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2007
****
44. “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
WalesOnline, Sir John Houghton – atmospheric physicist, 30 June 2007
****
45. “In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme rainfall even under general drying.”
Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007
****
46. “Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.”
Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008
****
47. “The past is no longer a guide to the future. We no longer have a stationary climate,”…
Independent, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 27 Jul 2007
****
48. “It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers. …the winter we have just seen is consistent with the type of weather we expect to see more and more in the future.”
Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007
****
49. “ If your decisions depend on what’s happening at these very fine scales of 25 km or even 5 km resolution then you probably shouldn’t be making irreversible investment decisions now.”
Myles Allen, “one of the UK’s leading climate modellers”, Oxford University, 18 June 2009
****
50. “It’s great that the government has decided to put together such a scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change in the UK.”
Keith Allott, WWF-UK, 18 June 2009





And these 50 are just the tip of the iceberg. The list is a mile long >>>

The big list of failed climate predictions Watts Up With That

 

[skookerasbil]

New NOAA study says.........

West coast warming due to naturally occurring cycles >>>

West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes - LA Times



more AGW k00k losing.........

 

[jc456]

Still WiNNiNg

 

[skookerasbil]

More k00k losing........


"Anti-climate-change marchers took to the streets of Manhattan in the hundreds of thousands over the weekend to demand international action to fight global warming.
The throng would have better advised to parade in downtown Beijing, assuming the Politburo wouldn’t have called out the infantry."


Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/09/23/the_climate_march_to_nowhere_124075.html#ixzz3EPvWNyV0
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter



It is fascinating to me that none of the 300,000 has ever heard of China!!! Or India for that matter!!!

And we should listen to these people???

 

[skookerasbil]

NOAA data........the losing continues.........

NOAA 1695 Low Max Records Broken or Tied From Sept 11 to Sept 20. One record broken by 25F Climate Depot


I cant even believe how many links we've posted up in this thread in the past year. If those who are uninformed on global warming were to seriously read this thread, the whole concept of AGW would disappear over night.

 

[skookerasbil]

How green is Europe?

Evidently......not so much!!!!


Take a look >>>>>


How Green Is Europe mdash The American Magazine

 

[skookerasbil]

w0w

US oil production at HiStOrIc LeVeLs.....will pass OPEC by years end!!!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/98104974-47e4-11e4-be7b-00144feab7de.html#axzz3EovNYzmx


Who is not winning?

 

[Billy_Bob]

"We will have to wait another 30 years before the data is old enough to be adjusted down historically and then it will be clear that there has been no hiatus at all and, in fact, it was always worse than we thought. Until then we must continue to act with great caution and build many more wind turbines."

Still no tropospheric hot spot....

And Dr Ben Santers 17 year falsification bar for global warming has now been fully surpassed at 18 years 1 month.... (peer reviewed by their own pals to boot)

The Earth calling these alarmists Fools...

Source

 

[Billy_Bob]

Solar values dropping into near zero territories... And are expected to stay there. The number of active spot regions is 5. No flares, no magnetic storms, solar wind and pressures near the bottom.

The sun is now showing signs of rapid shut down again reminiscent of 1998. Background responses which indicate next cycle strength are not seen. This has many in the Boulder office concerned that our next cycle will be much lower than the current one. IF this shut down follows the one in 1998 we will experience a rapid cool down of polar regions of 2-3 deg C again.

And everyone thinks I'm crazy about a potential ice age starting. This didn't even happen in the late 60's and early 70's. Now it has happened twice in less than 20 years. WE assume this is what happened in the early LIA but at this point it is only conjecture.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I hate it when the earth and her sun show the alarmist meme waste all by themselves...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not sure if you all have seen this information before, but thought I'd add it here, I found this on this web page link:The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

From one of the sections:

Skepticism (1900-1940s)

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference. (7*)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

An experiment was run and wouldn't you know, Frank it backs our story!!!!!

Funny how that correlates perfectly with what others have found..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not sure if you all have seen this information before, but thought I'd add it here, I found this on this web page link:The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

From one of the sections:

Skepticism (1900-1940s)

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference. (7*)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

An experiment was run and wouldn't you know, Frank it backs our story!!!!!

That's why they never post any experiments

 

[Billy_Bob]

Of the five active regions on the sun three are in decay and not expected to do anything more. The other two might have an M or X class flare but nothing is expected as the magnetic polarization is wrong for the hemisphere they are in. The sun is showing an inverted polarization of its sun spots in its southern hemisphere.

hmmmmmmm... Interesting development. I'm going to have to go back and look at 1998. Why the disphasic presentation?(S-S to N-N alignment) Was it also present then? IF not, why not and why now? Are the suns internal systems in disarray?

Well... No disphasic presentations in 1998 just a rapid shutdown. hmmmmmmm...

 

[skookerasbil]

Yo Frank.....Billy.......a major nut sack kick to the AGW crowd today.......leading climate guy Dr Peiser says most of the climate scientists are not telling the truth on climate change >>>

Dr Benny Peiser says public are more sceptical about climate change and global warming Nature News Daily Express


Made me laugh my balls off.......top story on DRUDGE right now.