NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...

[westwall]

Westwall -

Given the choice between having 0 international scientific organisations in your corner, or having all of them in your corner - which would you choose?

When they are wrong only lap dogs like you care. Every scientific body out there thought that Wegener was a crackpot (and this a mere 80 years ago) and here we see the same fools merely repeating the cycle.

I leave with two quotes from Einstein. The first describes the current situation as regards your precious societies..the second applies to you....your eyes are closed and no amount of learning will ever open them again...

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Given the choice between having 0 international scientific organisations in your corner, or having all of them in your corner - which would you choose?

That's an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

What do call your appeal to no authority?

We don't appeal to authority...we refer to science and the scientific method. Something you clowns are unfamiliar with...

 

[Saigon]

We don't appeal to authority...we refer to science and the scientific method. Something you clowns are unfamiliar with...

Right....so we have just established that all 50 of the world's 50 largest scientific organisations back climate change science - but you are the ones referring to science.

Interesting.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Given the choice between having 0 international scientific organisations in your corner, or having all of them in your corner - which would you choose?

That's an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

It's also a sign that you have very little science on your side of the debate.

No one is suggesting that scientists MUST be right simply because they all agree on something - but any intelligent person is going to agree that the leading physicists in the world are also our best sources of information.

You mean like the Nobel prize winner who stated that AGW is a fraud? That scientist?


Nobel Prize Physicist abruptly quits APS - Says Global Warming IS BUNK
September 14, 2011 10:38 PM EDT
views: 264 | 6 people recommend this | comments: 25
The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is inconvertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

 

[westwall]

We don't appeal to authority...we refer to science and the scientific method. Something you clowns are unfamiliar with...

Right....so we have just established that all 50 of the world's 50 largest scientific organisations back climate change science - but you are the ones referring to science.

Interesting.

We don't generate billions in grant money by being sceptics. They generate billions in grant money by being warmists. Were you smart you could figure that one out. And don't bother accusing me of being a shill for the oil companies...you see they too have jumped on the bandwagon and are heavily invested in "green" energy as well. They screw the little guy (who I care about...you want him dead) coming and going.

 

[Saigon]

American Physical Society (APS) position on climate change.

Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years).

Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite.

Climate Change

 

[Saigon]

btw. For about the 400th time on these threads - it is impossible that research science results are based on funding.

It is impossible because most universities around the world are set up to ensure governments can not "buy" conveniant research results. Universities are bulk funded, with research being run from within each university.

It's an imbecilic claim that not only has no basis in reality, but could have no basis in reality.

Why posters keep rolling that old myth out I don't know. What we do know is that no one claiming this has spent much time working in research!

 

[konradv]

That's an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

What do call your appeal to no authority?

This is what the authorities say about the recent global temperatures.

Cherry-picked data. You're giving us less than ten years. Do the ten years before that ruin the slope of your lines? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[westwall]

American Physical Society (APS) position on climate change.

Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years).

Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite.

Climate Change

Yes, and the APS has never won a Nobel Prize I see. The board of directors have written that position paper in defiance of their members wishes. That makes it a political statement and not a scientific one. But you knew that allready didn't you, propagandist.

 

[westwall]

What do call your appeal to no authority?

This is what the authorities say about the recent global temperatures.

Cherry-picked data. You're giving us less than ten years. Do the ten years before that ruin the slope of your lines? Inquiring minds want to know.

Pot meet kettle! Your bullshit only works if you ignore the 1930's and 40's! Hell let's go all the way back to the end of the LIA, the majority of the globes temperature has been higher than today in that period (85% of the time to be precise), talk about ignoring the facts...what a complete waste of air.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

SSDD -

Saigon-

You got to stop using a timeline that "conveniently" only starts from 1970, it doesn't do ANYTHING to prove your point of Global Warming. Try looking at the past 150 - 200 years and see what happens. Then there are others who try to accuse me of "cherry picking" results.

BTW what qualifies skepticalscience as being scientific? How do I know which group of science researchers (if this comes from ANY climatologists at all) put this graph together?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Some background information about Skeptical Science

This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I've pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn't forced to study for impending exams.

My interest in global warming began when I drew a cartoon spoof of the TV show 24 that wondered what Jack Bauer would do if Al Gore was President and global warming was the "threat du jour". I watched An Inconvenient Truth for research which I found thought provoking although I didn't know what to make of all the science.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Doesn't look at all like the model predictions or the claimed effect of steadily increasing atmospheric CO2. Looks more like a series of not well understood natural cycles. Very much the sort of trend one would expect in a world in the process of exiting an ice age. Make the chart cover more time and it only begins to look more natural.

 

[skookerasbil]

cherry picked data is gay imo.

 

[Saigon]

Looks more like a series of not well understood natural cycles.

And yet you understand them - and the foremost scientists of our time don't. Funny, isn't it?

Can you see a natural cycle in thi chart?

 

[ScienceRocks]

What do call your appeal to no authority?

This is what the authorities say about the recent global temperatures.

Cherry-picked data. You're giving us less than ten years. Do the ten years before that ruin the slope of your lines? Inquiring minds want to know.

It was clear during the 1980-1990 or 1990-2000 periods. What charged?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd give it another 5 years and if that flat slope keeps up. What can I say?

 

[ima]

Looks more like a series of not well understood natural cycles.

And yet you understand them - and the foremost scientists of our time don't. Funny, isn't it?

Can you see a natural cycle in thi chart?

So what? Worse things have happened in earth's history, like super-volcanos, asteroid hits... and Mother Nature always restores the balance. So just chill out, move to higher ground (I'm there) and relax.

 

[polarbear]

Looks more like a series of not well understood natural cycles.

And yet you understand them - and the foremost scientists of our time don't. Funny, isn't it?

Can you see a natural cycle in thi chart?

Your temperature graph is from your usual source, the "skeptical science" alarmist blog :http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/hockey_stick_TAR.gif
and it stops for some reason that escaped your pea-brain at the beginning of the year 2000
For a "journalist living in Finland" you are woefully uninformed because it has been in almost all major online newspapers that temperatures have stalled since 2000:

Stillstand der Temperatur: Erklärungen für Pause der Klimaerwärmung - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung

Translation:
Stall in temperature increase baffles researchers

As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit - Forbes

As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit

The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis. NOAA data show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 2.67 parts per million in 2012, to 395 ppm. The jump was the second highest since 1959, when scientists began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all. Global warming activists are having a difficult time explaining the ongoing disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

This isn’t the first time in recent years that global temperatures have disobeyed the models presented by global warming activists. From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent. From 1900 through 1945, by contrast, global temperatures rose rapidly despite a lack of coal power plants, SUV’s, and substantial carbon dioxide emissions.
Remarkably, global warming activists are spinning the ongoing rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, along with the ongoing lack of global temperature rise, as evidence that we are facing an even worse global warming crisis than they have been predicting.

And now more and more articles written by climatologist who jumped off the band-wagon are appearing in the news:
This one is from today`s edition of der Spiegel on-line, the magazine that employs the largest number of fact-checkers of any news organization in the world...with formal schooling in subject related matter:

Klimafalle: Von Storch und Krauß über Politik und Klimaforschung - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Vorwürfe gegen Klimaforscher: Wahn der Weltverbesserer

Von Storch arbeitet seit den Siebzigern in der Klimatologie, er hat Aufstieg und Krisen des Fachgebiets als international angesehener Experte miterlebt. Ethnologe Krauß untersucht die Wissenschaftler mit den Methoden seines Fachgebiets:
"Die Klimaforschung wurde von der Politik gekidnappt, um ihre Entscheidungen als von der Wissenschaft vorgegeben und als alternativlos verkaufen zu können", meinen von Storch und Krauß. Forscher hätten sich mit der Politik gemein gemacht und würden nun zerrieben im Spiel der Interessen. "Wissenschaft", sagen die Autoren, "lieferte das Rohmaterial für eine große Klimaerzählung", die "das Schreckensszenario des Kalten Krieges abgelöst" habe
Das Verschwindenlassen wissenschaftlicher Unsicherheit aus der öffentlichen Klimadebatte, die Diskreditierung wissenschaftlicher Skepsis und das Ausklammern der Bedeutung politischer Interessen räche sich nun, schreiben von Storch und Krauß, die als wortgewaltige Kritiker der Zunft bekannt sind. Gefordert sei eine neue Streitkultur, meinen sie: Das plumpe "vertraut uns, wir sind Wissenschaftler", sei anmaßend.

Translation:...verbatim not possible, for a word like "Weltverbesserer" I would have to write "busy body do-rights "

The AGW hysteria is under fire again
Von Storch had been a climatologist since 1970 and joined with ethnologist Krauß to publish the methods that have been used in his profession

Climate research has been kidnapped from the onset by politics and has sold the findings as "science" in order to promote a policy that has no alternatives.
The findings of climate research has been rendered to the level of story-telling due to the suppression and outright deletion of all data that contradicted the conclusions that were made public.
This is coming back to haunt us, especially so the systematic discreditation of all scientific skepticism in order to promote the politics that have been driving climate research..
Saying "Trust us we are scientists" is no longer applicable (...as more information to the contrary is made public)

So who are in fact the "deniers"...?
The reality checkers or the spin doctors and their ill-informed and naive flock of followers.

Every time some idiot posts a graph like this one without noticing that it stops when the facts don`t support the religion and does not even notice how the y-axis scalar factor has been grossly exaggerated is evidence that such a person, like "RollingUnder" is an imbecile:
Originally Posted by RollingThunder:

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points

Here we have a total moron with a foul mouth who does not have a clue what the difference between opinion is and the facts that have been made public after almost every scientific body of national and international standing now maintains that temperatures have not increased since 2000:

Von Storch and Krauß are accusing their climatolgy colleagues of fear mongering in excess of the cold war fear mongering which also had the same political motives as AGW now has

 

[IanC]

Some background information about Skeptical Science

This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I've pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn't forced to study for impending exams.

My interest in global warming began when I drew a cartoon spoof of the TV show 24 that wondered what Jack Bauer would do if Al Gore was President and global warming was the "threat du jour". I watched An Inconvenient Truth for research which I found thought provoking although I didn't know what to make of all the science.

Cook and his pal Lewandowsky are the ones behind the failed papers that purport that skeptics are also conspiracy theorists as well. more than a bit dodgy