Global Cooling Since 1995?

[eagleseven]

Times: World may not be warming, say scientists

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

Hmm...

 

[Tom Clancy]

Liberals have Disputable evidence! If you don't believe in Global Warming You are Un-Patriotic!

 

[Old Rocks]

Damn, it is cooling so quickly and completely that all the Ice Caps and glaciers are melting.

You people are a hoot.

 

[uscitizen]

Ohh yeah? the rules of global warming says the temp must constantly rise or it is global cooliing?

 

[eagleseven]

Ohh yeah? the rules of global warming says the temp must constantly rise or it is global cooliing?

Generally, the rules of logic suggest that one cannot be both cooling and warming simultaneously. Tis double-think.

 

[enigmablue]

Given the current loss of faith in climate scientists, Climategate and beyond, a huge dose of skepticism about any claims concerning global warming is advised.

 

[Old Rocks]

Given the current campaign to de-legitimize science, huge doses of scepticism are in order when considering whether there are any Conservatives with more than a two digit IQ.

The same people that organized the campaign to cast doubt on the fact that tobacco is bad for your health are now hired to cast doubt on the fact that AGW exists. Using the same people, Singer, Sietz, and Lindzen that have long prostituted their credentials.

 

[Skull Pilot]

skepticism is necessary in scientific pursuits so the more the better

 

[Annie]

Given the current campaign to de-legitimize science, huge doses of scepticism are in order when considering whether there are any Conservatives with more than a two digit IQ.

The same people that organized the campaign to cast doubt on the fact that tobacco is bad for your health are now hired to cast doubt on the fact that AGW exists. Using the same people, Singer, Sietz, and Lindzen that have long prostituted their credentials.

Certainly you are adding Phil Jones to your collection? You know the 'organizationally challenged' head of CPU? The one who admits to the fact there hasn't been warming for more than 15 years? The one that has smashed the hockey stick nonsense? That sort of person that has delegitimized science and made fools out of his defenders in the face of growing mountains of evidence that their data was cooked? All coming apart now since Nov., when the emails broke and it became evident that the conductor and stand-ins were controlling the means of publishing.

I'm sorry you were following the foolish man, but really if you cared about science, you wouldn't be unloading on the skeptics, but on those that undermined critical thinking.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, sceptism is neccessary. Both ways.

And how much scepticism have you seen of the claims of the wingnuts that it is the sun? Or cosmic rays? Or anything but GHGs?

The physics of AGW have been established for over a hundred years. That is not in doubt.

Yet you have people claiming that CO2 has no affect at all. Where is the scepticism then?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes, sceptism is neccessary. Both ways.

And how much scepticism have you seen of the claims of the wingnuts that it is the sun? Or cosmic rays? Or anything but GHGs?

The physics of AGW have been established for over a hundred years. That is not in doubt.

Yet you have people claiming that CO2 has no affect at all. Where is the scepticism then?

about as much as I see from you and the other alarmists.

It is impossible to predict the actual temperature rise from CO2 100 years from now

 

[Old Rocks]

The Mann Hockey Stick graph has been confirmed in at least fifteen independent studies. Even when the people doing the studies damned the way he used statistics, they came up with the essentially the same graph. That is a fact. Would you care to show differant?

What Phil Jones does or does not do is irrelevent to the evidence, very little of which depends on Phil Jones.

Go to any scientific journal and check and see how many articles are written on the observed effects of global warming. See how many are written denying those effects.

Until you gain some real science on your side of the debate, it will remain a debate between science and the ideologically driven that would deny science and de-legitimize it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, sceptism is neccessary. Both ways.

And how much scepticism have you seen of the claims of the wingnuts that it is the sun? Or cosmic rays? Or anything but GHGs?

The physics of AGW have been established for over a hundred years. That is not in doubt.

Yet you have people claiming that CO2 has no affect at all. Where is the scepticism then?

about as much as I see from you and the other alarmists.

It is impossible to predict the actual temperature rise from CO2 100 years from now

So, since we cannot exactly predict how much it will warm because of our actions, we just keep on doing what we are doing.

Gotta love that logic.

 

[Annie]

The Mann Hockey Stick graph has been confirmed in at least fifteen independent studies. Even when the people doing the studies damned the way he used statistics, they came up with the essentially the same graph. That is a fact. Would you care to show differant?

What Phil Jones does or does not do is irrelevent to the evidence, very little of which depends on Phil Jones.

Go to any scientific journal and check and see how many articles are written on the observed effects of global warming. See how many are written denying those effects.

Until you gain some real science on your side of the debate, it will remain a debate between science and the ideologically driven that would deny science and de-legitimize it.

For someone who claims to believe in science, you are to be pitied for your beliefs based on anything but.

 

[eagleseven]

Yes, sceptism is neccessary. Both ways.

Why then are skeptics lumped in with holocaust-deniers? Since when did science ignore Godwin's Law?

And how much scepticism have you seen of the claims of the wingnuts that it is the sun? Or cosmic rays? Or anything but GHGs?

The IPCC has thrown out all rival theories.

The physics of AGW have been established for over a hundred years. That is not in doubt.

We also understand the physics of volcanic activity...yet nobody is pretending to know when the next eruption will occur.

Yet you have people claiming that CO2 has no affect at all. Where is the scepticism then?

Red Herring. Everyone agrees that CO2 does affect the climate...but to what extent?

 

[driveby]

Yes, sceptism is neccessary. Both ways.

And how much scepticism have you seen of the claims of the wingnuts that it is the sun? Or cosmic rays? Or anything but GHGs?

The physics of AGW have been established for over a hundred years. That is not in doubt.

Yet you have people claiming that CO2 has no affect at all. Where is the scepticism then?

about as much as I see from you and the other alarmists.

It is impossible to predict the actual temperature rise from CO2 100 years from now

So, since we cannot exactly predict how much it will warm because of our actions, we just keep on doing what we are doing.

Gotta love that logic.

Let's destroy our economy because it may slow down the effects of this theory, gotta love that logic .......

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes, sceptism is neccessary. Both ways.

And how much scepticism have you seen of the claims of the wingnuts that it is the sun? Or cosmic rays? Or anything but GHGs?

The physics of AGW have been established for over a hundred years. That is not in doubt.

Yet you have people claiming that CO2 has no affect at all. Where is the scepticism then?

about as much as I see from you and the other alarmists.

It is impossible to predict the actual temperature rise from CO2 100 years from now

So, since we cannot exactly predict how much it will warm because of our actions, we just keep on doing what we are doing.

Gotta love that logic.

Since we cannot predict that the world will come to some sort of catastrophic end because temps rise a few degrees we should not be in panic mode as you are.

natural systems have a way of balancing we have no clue as to what the balance will be and really I am not worried about a few degree rise in temps.

The earth will be here long long after humans are extinct. And we will be extinct one day just as all other species before us.

And really I don't gives a rat's ass what will happen centuries after I'm dead.

 

[Annie]

Yes, sceptism is neccessary. Both ways.

And how much scepticism have you seen of the claims of the wingnuts that it is the sun? Or cosmic rays? Or anything but GHGs?

The physics of AGW have been established for over a hundred years. That is not in doubt.

Yet you have people claiming that CO2 has no affect at all. Where is the scepticism then?

You are screaming like a flat earther. With the admission regarding MWP, there is a boatload of truth coming at your nonsense. Unless of course you are speaking theoretical models of the possibility of AGW? Then again, look at the creationists, they think they're scientifically based also.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Mann Hockey Stick graph has been confirmed in at least fifteen independent studies. Even when the people doing the studies damned the way he used statistics, they came up with the essentially the same graph. That is a fact. Would you care to show differant?

What Phil Jones does or does not do is irrelevent to the evidence, very little of which depends on Phil Jones.

Go to any scientific journal and check and see how many articles are written on the observed effects of global warming. See how many are written denying those effects.

Until you gain some real science on your side of the debate, it will remain a debate between science and the ideologically driven that would deny science and de-legitimize it.

I'm not a scientist. I was an A student in science, but for reason I still can't fathom I turned down an opportunity to attend Bronx HS of Science. I spent most of my career as an analyst. I know how to read and analyze and research and explain complex real estate transactions so I have no qualms about digging into Climatology and AGW.

From my POV here's how it looks: we had real Global Warming that caused the Wisconsin deglaciation which caused sea levels to rise several hundred feet. There are underwater cities all over the planet that testify to the relative rapid rise of sea water in geologically recent time. That's Global Warming.

The studies presented by East Angelia and others are all assbackwards. First, what caused the most recent warming that drowned so many prior civilizations, was it CO2, was it something else? Is it still at work? Second, the vast majority of the papers you sight don't read like read science, they start with the premise that a deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 is warming the planet and then report on places where its been slightly warmer and say "Viola! Your SUV is melting the glaciers!"

I started looking into this phenomenon on that other Board I used to post on when the Scarfetta and West report came out. It was THE Paper that nailed humans as warming the planet. Except that when I looked into their methodology to see how they arrived at their allocation between natural and manmade factors their method was essentially "Because we say so"

That's it? That's science? How does a paper like that even get published?

Again, the big mistake Leftists make, especially with me, is that I actually read the articles that you post and probably 80% of the time, they don't say what you think they say and 19% of the time they totally contradict the point you thought you were making, so you can take a victory lap maybe once in ever hundred articles.

Because Spenser found some area of the atmosphere that was warmer than it was last year does not make it the Apocalypse you seem to be rooting for. In any event he does not assign a high value to the A in AGW.

 

[skookerasbil]

Damn, it is cooling so quickly and completely that all the Ice Caps and glaciers are melting.

You people are a hoot.

you dummy.............

When I saw this story ( #1 on DRUDGE right now ) I thought of all the fcukking k00ks like you who would gladly buy a bag of dog sh!t for $1,000 a pop if it was packaged just right!!


The concept of "man-made" global warming will be looked at in 10 years as a fad.........and the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people. LOL.........and Ive been saying it for at least 10 years!!!!


Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010
Add to My Stories
Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
There has been no global warming since 1995
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.


Read more: Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online