Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Correct, I ignored the goofy, tinfoil hat video. Mea culpa.I fail to acknowledge them because this topic is climate, not weather. Also becaise I am a rational adult not prone to believing hilarious nonsense. Thanks for asking!So what? Your point is meaningless, unless you quantify it. The "extra particulate from man" (gibberish) is not enough to cause warming? Says who?Planet has warmed and cooled for eons
Mother Nature injects far more suspended particulate than mankind: roughly equivalent to 5 seats in a 40,000 seat stadium is mans contribution. 98% of the planet is water, forests, deserts, non inhabited mountains and other open spaces.
The only question is what are those 5 seats doing? 5 seats of beach sand-nothing
5 seats of anthrax-problem
Why do you refuse to acknowledge geo-engineering and weather modification programs?
Hey Scoffers! Look Who OPENLY Admits to Controlling the Weather!
So you obvious didn't watch the video that produces government documents and the history of weather modification.
You are not rational because you belong to this "Global Warming...oops "Climate Change" U.N agenda cult where the IPCC (that works at the leisure of the U.N) produces data (by hook or crook) that claims that man is the enemy of nature.
Allow me to sum it all up, you are woefully uninformed with no knowledge of the history of this false flag "panic " agenda that was thought up by a think tank group in 1967. Your arguments are weak and you lack basic education while spewing U.N talking points. You have never bothered to address one point that I have so saliently made....and why is that? Because you only regurgitate shit that the fabian socialist leftists throw out there and that is a FACT.
I directly answered all of your questions. Of course you ignore "IPCC data" ( a nonsensical phrase). You have to ignore mountains of evidence to believe what you believe.Correct, I ignored the goofy, tinfoil hat video. Mea culpa.I fail to acknowledge them because this topic is climate, not weather. Also becaise I am a rational adult not prone to believing hilarious nonsense. Thanks for asking!So what? Your point is meaningless, unless you quantify it. The "extra particulate from man" (gibberish) is not enough to cause warming? Says who?
Why do you refuse to acknowledge geo-engineering and weather modification programs?
Hey Scoffers! Look Who OPENLY Admits to Controlling the Weather!
So you obvious didn't watch the video that produces government documents and the history of weather modification.
You are not rational because you belong to this "Global Warming...oops "Climate Change" U.N agenda cult where the IPCC (that works at the leisure of the U.N) produces data (by hook or crook) that claims that man is the enemy of nature.
Allow me to sum it all up, you are woefully uninformed with no knowledge of the history of this false flag "panic " agenda that was thought up by a think tank group in 1967. Your arguments are weak and you lack basic education while spewing U.N talking points. You have never bothered to address one point that I have so saliently made....and why is that? Because you only regurgitate shit that the fabian socialist leftists throw out there and that is a FACT.
I ignore the U.N/IPCC data since I know that not all factors are put into the equation.....your spew IS the quintessential tripe of one that belongs to a cult and simply nods in agreement while choking down the bullshit you have been fed.
As I have stated before? You don't ever answer the questions put forth to you....
LOLThe BEST study disproved that contention.
Human Effect
Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend.
Summary of Findings - Berkeley Earth
If you follow the links you can find all their data.
I directly answered all of your questions. Of course you ignore "IPCC data" ( a nonsensical phrase). You have to ignore mountains of evidence to believe what you believe.Correct, I ignored the goofy, tinfoil hat video. Mea culpa.I fail to acknowledge them because this topic is climate, not weather. Also becaise I am a rational adult not prone to believing hilarious nonsense. Thanks for asking!Why do you refuse to acknowledge geo-engineering and weather modification programs?
Hey Scoffers! Look Who OPENLY Admits to Controlling the Weather!
So you obvious didn't watch the video that produces government documents and the history of weather modification.
You are not rational because you belong to this "Global Warming...oops "Climate Change" U.N agenda cult where the IPCC (that works at the leisure of the U.N) produces data (by hook or crook) that claims that man is the enemy of nature.
Allow me to sum it all up, you are woefully uninformed with no knowledge of the history of this false flag "panic " agenda that was thought up by a think tank group in 1967. Your arguments are weak and you lack basic education while spewing U.N talking points. You have never bothered to address one point that I have so saliently made....and why is that? Because you only regurgitate shit that the fabian socialist leftists throw out there and that is a FACT.
I ignore the U.N/IPCC data since I know that not all factors are put into the equation.....your spew IS the quintessential tripe of one that belongs to a cult and simply nods in agreement while choking down the bullshit you have been fed.
As I have stated before? You don't ever answer the questions put forth to you....
LOLThe BEST study disproved that contention.
Human Effect
Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend.
Summary of Findings - Berkeley Earth
If you follow the links you can find all their data.
Their assumptions are unsupported by the facts they present. How many times must we go over this...?
Haha...you are always full of these grandiose, authoritative declarations. You really need to get something through your head:LOLThe BEST study disproved that contention.
Human Effect
Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend.
Summary of Findings - Berkeley Earth
If you follow the links you can find all their data.
Their assumptions are unsupported by the facts they present. How many times must we go over this...?
I directly answered all of your questions. Of course you ignore "IPCC data" ( a nonsensical phrase). You have to ignore mountains of evidence to believe what you believe.Correct, I ignored the goofy, tinfoil hat video. Mea culpa.I fail to acknowledge them because this topic is climate, not weather. Also becaise I am a rational adult not prone to believing hilarious nonsense. Thanks for asking!Why do you refuse to acknowledge geo-engineering and weather modification programs?
Hey Scoffers! Look Who OPENLY Admits to Controlling the Weather!
So you obvious didn't watch the video that produces government documents and the history of weather modification.
You are not rational because you belong to this "Global Warming...oops "Climate Change" U.N agenda cult where the IPCC (that works at the leisure of the U.N) produces data (by hook or crook) that claims that man is the enemy of nature.
Allow me to sum it all up, you are woefully uninformed with no knowledge of the history of this false flag "panic " agenda that was thought up by a think tank group in 1967. Your arguments are weak and you lack basic education while spewing U.N talking points. You have never bothered to address one point that I have so saliently made....and why is that? Because you only regurgitate shit that the fabian socialist leftists throw out there and that is a FACT.
I ignore the U.N/IPCC data since I know that not all factors are put into the equation.....your spew IS the quintessential tripe of one that belongs to a cult and simply nods in agreement while choking down the bullshit you have been fed.
As I have stated before? You don't ever answer the questions put forth to you....
Why is it that you idiots always use heavily adjusted and manipulated data sets? BEST has been shown to homogenize and remove lower temp stations while making sure the high temp stations remain.LOLThe BEST study disproved that contention.
Human Effect
Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend.
Summary of Findings - Berkeley Earth
If you follow the links you can find all their data.
Their assumptions are unsupported by the facts they present. How many times must we go over this...?Haha...you are always full of these grandiose, authoritative declarations. You really need to get something through your head:LOLThe BEST study disproved that contention.
Human Effect
Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend.
Summary of Findings - Berkeley Earth
If you follow the links you can find all their data.
Their assumptions are unsupported by the facts they present. How many times must we go over this...?
You are not challenging accepted, robust theories by claiming them false. Why aren't you or anyone else publishing mountains of science to counter the acvepted theories, themselves suppprted by mountains of science? The answer is simple and obvious: you are wrong, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you are merely takimg positions that line up with your superstitions and politics. How frustrating this must be for you....no matter how many times you say, "Nuh-uh!", the evidence and science are unaffected.
That's a lie. The models have been surisingly accurate. 0.5degC per doubling? Another lie."3 days out"...? Only somebody who knows less than nothing about this topic would say something so dumb. Go waste somebody else's time.I directly answered all of your questions. Of course you ignore "IPCC data" ( a nonsensical phrase). You have to ignore mountains of evidence to believe what you believe.Correct, I ignored the goofy, tinfoil hat video. Mea culpa.I fail to acknowledge them because this topic is climate, not weather. Also becaise I am a rational adult not prone to believing hilarious nonsense. Thanks for asking!
So you obvious didn't watch the video that produces government documents and the history of weather modification.
You are not rational because you belong to this "Global Warming...oops "Climate Change" U.N agenda cult where the IPCC (that works at the leisure of the U.N) produces data (by hook or crook) that claims that man is the enemy of nature.
Allow me to sum it all up, you are woefully uninformed with no knowledge of the history of this false flag "panic " agenda that was thought up by a think tank group in 1967. Your arguments are weak and you lack basic education while spewing U.N talking points. You have never bothered to address one point that I have so saliently made....and why is that? Because you only regurgitate shit that the fabian socialist leftists throw out there and that is a FACT.
I ignore the U.N/IPCC data since I know that not all factors are put into the equation.....your spew IS the quintessential tripe of one that belongs to a cult and simply nods in agreement while choking down the bullshit you have been fed.
As I have stated before? You don't ever answer the questions put forth to you....
The IPCC has used modeling, which has been shown to be significantly incorrect. The models are incapable of predicting just three days out.. The Climate Sensitivity estimates have gone from 6 deg C per doubling of CO2 to just 0.5 deg C per doubling which is just 1/2 of what CO2 by LOG shows it should be capable of BY ITSELF..
The IPCC is a bunch of worthless modeling that has no predictive powers. NONE!
Two can play the same game, all YOUR data is cooked, there was no pause, TSI has been down since 1900, sea ice has never stabilized or increased, etc.If TSI was controlling global warming, then we would have been cooling since 2000, but 14 of the 15 warmest years have been since 2000.
15 warmest years only in the cooked books....The fact is that the pause is coming up on two decades and la nina is on the way....and do you actually believe that a reduction in TSI would result in an immediate change? Do you have any idea much energy is stored in the system?
I know you guys don't like to hear the truth but out here in reality, the North Atlantic and southern oceans are cooling as glaciers thicken and gain mass.
Sea and land surface temperatures, ocean heat content, Earth's energy imbalance and net radiative forcing over the recent years
We investigate the global mean and regional change of sea surface and land surface temperature over 2003–2013, using a large number of different data sets, and compare with changes observed over the past few decades (starting in 1950). … While confirming cooling of eastern tropical Pacific during the last decade as reported in several recent studies, our results show that the reduced rate of change of the 2003–2013 time span is a global phenomenon. GMST short-term trends since 1950 computed over successive 11-year windows with 1-year overlap show important decadal variability that highly correlates with 11-year trends of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index. The GMST 11-year trend distribution is well fitted by a Gaussian function, confirming an unforced origin related to internal climate variability.
Mechanisms underlying recent decadal changes in subpolar North Atlantic Ocean heat content
The subpolar North Atlantic (SPNA) is subject to strong decadal variability, with implications for surface climate and its predictability. In 2004–2005, SPNA decadal upper ocean and sea-surface temperature trends reversed from warming during 1994–2004 to cooling over 2005–2015. … Over the last two decades, the SPNA has undergone a pronounced climate shift. Decadal OHC and SST trends reversed sign around 2004–2005, with a strong warming seen during 1994–2004 and marked cooling observed over 2005–2015. These trend reversals were pronounced (> 0.1 °C yr−1 in magnitude) in the northeastern North Atlantic (south and west of Iceland) and in the Labrador Sea. … To identify basic processes controlling SPNA thermal variations, we diagnose the SPNA heat budget using ECCOv4. Changes in the heat content of an oceanic control volume can be caused by convergences and divergences of advective, diffusive, and surface heat fluxes within the control volume. [Advective heat convergence] explains 87% of the total [ocean heat content] variance, the former [warming] showing similar decadal behavior to the latter [cooling], increasing over 1994–2004, and decreasing over 2005–2015. … These results demonstrate that the recent SPNA decadal trend reversal was mostly owing to advective convergences by ocean circulation … decadal variability during 1993–2015 is in largest part related to advection by horizontal gyres.
Recent Progress in Understanding and Predicting Atlantic Decadal Climate Variability
[W]hile the late twentieth century Atlantic was dominated by NAO-driven THC [thermohaline circulation] variability, other mechanisms may dominate in other time periods. … More recently, the SPNA [sub polar North Atlantic] upper ocean has again been cooling, which is also thought to be related to a slowdown in the THC. A continued near-term cooling of the SPNA has been forecast by a number of prediction systems, with implications for pan-Atlantic climate.
Southern Ocean Decadal Variability and Predictability
The Southern Ocean featured some remarkable changes during the recent decades. For example, large parts of the Southern Ocean, despite rapidly rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, depicted a surface cooling since the 1970s, whereas most of the planet has warmed considerably. In contrast, climate models generally simulate Southern Ocean surface warming when driven with observed historical radiative forcing. The mechanisms behind the surface cooling and other prominent changes in the Southern Ocean sector climate during the recent decades, such as expanding sea ice extent, abyssal warming, and CO2 uptake, are still under debate. Observational coverage is sparse, and records are short but rapidly growing, making the Southern Ocean climate system one of the least explored. It is thus difficult to separate current trends from underlying decadal to centennial scale variability.
https://www.clim-past.net/13/231/2017/cp-13-231-2017.pdf
Occupying about 14% of the world’s surface, the Southern Ocean plays a fundamental role in ocean and atmosphere circulation, carbon cycling and Antarctic ice-sheet dynamics. … As a result of anomalies in the overlying wind, the surrounding waters are strongly influenced by variations in northward Ekman transport of cold fresh subantarctic surface water and anomalous fluxes of sensible and latent heat at the atmosphere–ocean interface. This has produced a cooling trend since 1979.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0408.1
The Antarctic sea ice extent has been slowly increasing contrary to expected trends due to global warming and results from coupled climate models. After a record high extent in 2012 the extent was even higher in 2014 when the magnitude exceeded 20 × 106 km2 for the first time during the satellite era. … [T]he trend in sea ice cover is strongly influenced by the trend in surface temperature [cooling]. … A case study comparing the record high in 2014 with a relatively low ice extent in 2015 also shows strong sensitivity to changes in surface temperature. The results suggest that the positive trend is a consequence of the spatial variability of global trends in surface temperature and that the ability of current climate models to forecast sea ice trend can be improved through better performance in reproducing observed surface temperatures in the Antarctic region.
Recent hiatus caused by varying heat sink and the salinity anomalies in the North Atlantic
In the Southern Ocean, the increasing trend of the total OHC slowed down and started to decrease from 1980, and it started to increase again after 1995. In the warming context over the whole period [1970-2009], the Pacific was losing heat, especially in the deep water below 1000 m and in the upper layer above 300 m, excluding the surface 20 m layer in which the OHC kept increasing through the time.
https://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2017-61/tc-2017-61.pdf
Ice rises are a useful resource to investigate evolution and past climate of the DML coastal region. We investigate Blåskimen Island ice rise, one of the larger isle-type ice rises at the calving front of the intersection of Fimbul and Jelbart Ice Shelves, using geophysical methods. … Using the Input-Output method for a range of parameters and column setups, we conclude that Blåskimen Island has been thickening over the past nine years [2005-2014]. Thickening rates cannot be determined precisely, but ensemble results show that thickening rate averaged over the ice rise varies between 0.07 m a−1 and 0.35 m a−1 [per year]. On longer timescales, we speculate that the summit of Blåskimen Island has been stable within several kilometers at least in the past ∼600 years but no longer than several millennia.
East Antarctic ice sheet stability recorded in a high-elevation ice-cored moraine
Rather than reflecting major changes in ice flow path over time, the provenance changes are interpreted to indicate relative stability of the East Antarctic ice sheet.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/stor...g1&s=8ba3dc5efce30d2171e98683807ada43d6048da1
We investigate the mass balance of East Antarctica for 2003–2013 using a Bayesian statistical framework. … We apportion mass trends to SMB and ice dynamics for the EAIS, based on two different assumptions, different remote sensing data and two RCMs. In the first experiment, the model apportions about a third of the mass trend to ice dynamics, +17 Gt/yr, and two thirds, +40 Gt yr−1 to SMB, resulting in a total mass trend for the EAIS [East Antarctic Ice Sheet] of +57 ± 20 Gt yr−1.
https://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/531/2017/tc-11-531-2017.pdf
Previous geodetic estimates of mass changes in the Karakoram revealed balanced budgets or a possible slight mass gain since ∼ 2000. Indications of longer-term stability exist but only very few mass budget analyses are available before 2000. Here, based on 1973 Hexagon KH-9, ∼ 2009 ASTER and the SRTM DTM, we show that glaciers in the Hunza River basin (central Karakoram) were on average in balance or showed slight insignificant mass loss within the period ∼ 1973–2009.
Skillful prediction of northern climate provided by the ocean
Statistical regression models show that a significant part of northern climate variability thus can be skillfully predicted up to a decade in advance based on the state of the ocean. Particularly, we predict that Norwegian air temperature will decrease over the coming years, although staying above the long-term (1981–2010) average. Winter Arctic sea ice extent will remain low but with a general increase towards 2020.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL073486/abstract
We suggest the Lambert-Amery glacial system will remain stable, or gain ice mass and mitigate a portion of potential future sea level rise over the next 500 years, with a range of +3.6 to -117.5 mm GMSL-equivalent.
FAKE ocean heat content above. (not even labeled properly in Joules)
That's a lie. The models have been surisingly accurate. 0.5degC per doubling? Another lie."3 days out"...? Only somebody who knows less than nothing about this topic would say something so dumb. Go waste somebody else's time.I directly answered all of your questions. Of course you ignore "IPCC data" ( a nonsensical phrase). You have to ignore mountains of evidence to believe what you believe.Correct, I ignored the goofy, tinfoil hat video. Mea culpa.So you obvious didn't watch the video that produces government documents and the history of weather modification.
You are not rational because you belong to this "Global Warming...oops "Climate Change" U.N agenda cult where the IPCC (that works at the leisure of the U.N) produces data (by hook or crook) that claims that man is the enemy of nature.
Allow me to sum it all up, you are woefully uninformed with no knowledge of the history of this false flag "panic " agenda that was thought up by a think tank group in 1967. Your arguments are weak and you lack basic education while spewing U.N talking points. You have never bothered to address one point that I have so saliently made....and why is that? Because you only regurgitate shit that the fabian socialist leftists throw out there and that is a FACT.
I ignore the U.N/IPCC data since I know that not all factors are put into the equation.....your spew IS the quintessential tripe of one that belongs to a cult and simply nods in agreement while choking down the bullshit you have been fed.
As I have stated before? You don't ever answer the questions put forth to you....
The IPCC has used modeling, which has been shown to be significantly incorrect. The models are incapable of predicting just three days out.. The Climate Sensitivity estimates have gone from 6 deg C per doubling of CO2 to just 0.5 deg C per doubling which is just 1/2 of what CO2 by LOG shows it should be capable of BY ITSELF..
The IPCC is a bunch of worthless modeling that has no predictive powers. NONE!
Fascinating. And when can we expect to read the thousands of journal--published scientific articles on this fascinating topic?That's a lie. The models have been surisingly accurate. 0.5degC per doubling? Another lie."3 days out"...? Only somebody who knows less than nothing about this topic would say something so dumb. Go waste somebody else's time.I directly answered all of your questions. Of course you ignore "IPCC data" ( a nonsensical phrase). You have to ignore mountains of evidence to believe what you believe.Correct, I ignored the goofy, tinfoil hat video. Mea culpa.
I ignore the U.N/IPCC data since I know that not all factors are put into the equation.....your spew IS the quintessential tripe of one that belongs to a cult and simply nods in agreement while choking down the bullshit you have been fed.
As I have stated before? You don't ever answer the questions put forth to you....
The IPCC has used modeling, which has been shown to be significantly incorrect. The models are incapable of predicting just three days out.. The Climate Sensitivity estimates have gone from 6 deg C per doubling of CO2 to just 0.5 deg C per doubling which is just 1/2 of what CO2 by LOG shows it should be capable of BY ITSELF..
The IPCC is a bunch of worthless modeling that has no predictive powers. NONE!
The models only give back the information that has been fed into them......so if the information is "suspect"? (which it is because stratospheric aerosol spraying of heavy metal nano-particulates are not figured into the equation) Then the results of said "model" are totally invalid, without merit and that is a fact and not one that can be disputed.
Fascinating. And when can we expect to read the thousands of journal--published scientific articles on this fascinating topic?That's a lie. The models have been surisingly accurate. 0.5degC per doubling? Another lie."3 days out"...? Only somebody who knows less than nothing about this topic would say something so dumb. Go waste somebody else's time.I directly answered all of your questions. Of course you ignore "IPCC data" ( a nonsensical phrase). You have to ignore mountains of evidence to believe what you believe.I ignore the U.N/IPCC data since I know that not all factors are put into the equation.....your spew IS the quintessential tripe of one that belongs to a cult and simply nods in agreement while choking down the bullshit you have been fed.
As I have stated before? You don't ever answer the questions put forth to you....
The IPCC has used modeling, which has been shown to be significantly incorrect. The models are incapable of predicting just three days out.. The Climate Sensitivity estimates have gone from 6 deg C per doubling of CO2 to just 0.5 deg C per doubling which is just 1/2 of what CO2 by LOG shows it should be capable of BY ITSELF..
The IPCC is a bunch of worthless modeling that has no predictive powers. NONE!
The models only give back the information that has been fed into them......so if the information is "suspect"? (which it is because stratospheric aerosol spraying of heavy metal nano-particulates are not figured into the equation) Then the results of said "model" are totally invalid, without merit and that is a fact and not one that can be disputed.
You Moron...FAKE ocean heat content above. (not even labeled properly in Joules)
REAL ocean heat content below.
Bull shitThat's a lie. The models have been surisingly accurate. 0.5degC per doubling? Another lie."3 days out"...? Only somebody who knows less than nothing about this topic would say something so dumb. Go waste somebody else's time.I directly answered all of your questions. Of course you ignore "IPCC data" ( a nonsensical phrase). You have to ignore mountains of evidence to believe what you believe.Correct, I ignored the goofy, tinfoil hat video. Mea culpa.So you obvious didn't watch the video that produces government documents and the history of weather modification.
You are not rational because you belong to this "Global Warming...oops "Climate Change" U.N agenda cult where the IPCC (that works at the leisure of the U.N) produces data (by hook or crook) that claims that man is the enemy of nature.
Allow me to sum it all up, you are woefully uninformed with no knowledge of the history of this false flag "panic " agenda that was thought up by a think tank group in 1967. Your arguments are weak and you lack basic education while spewing U.N talking points. You have never bothered to address one point that I have so saliently made....and why is that? Because you only regurgitate shit that the fabian socialist leftists throw out there and that is a FACT.
I ignore the U.N/IPCC data since I know that not all factors are put into the equation.....your spew IS the quintessential tripe of one that belongs to a cult and simply nods in agreement while choking down the bullshit you have been fed.
As I have stated before? You don't ever answer the questions put forth to you....
The IPCC has used modeling, which has been shown to be significantly incorrect. The models are incapable of predicting just three days out.. The Climate Sensitivity estimates have gone from 6 deg C per doubling of CO2 to just 0.5 deg C per doubling which is just 1/2 of what CO2 by LOG shows it should be capable of BY ITSELF..
The IPCC is a bunch of worthless modeling that has no predictive powers. NONE!
FAKE ocean heat content above. (not even labeled properly in Joules)
REAL ocean heat content below.
Only a "fact" after you cook the numbersThe fact that we have cooled a full 2 deg C in the 0-700 meter region of the earth shows we are losing massive amounts of ocean heat over the last 20 years..
The Raw Buoy data says no... The only ones 'cooking' the books are the alarmistsOnly a "fact" after you cook the numbersThe fact that we have cooled a full 2 deg C in the 0-700 meter region of the earth shows we are losing massive amounts of ocean heat over the last 20 years..
The only people actually caught cooking the data were deniers Christy and Spencer. To counter that FACT the deniers have been mudding the waters by falsely accusing everyone else of cooking the books.The Raw Buoy data says no... The only ones 'cooking' the books are the alarmistsOnly a "fact" after you cook the numbersThe fact that we have cooled a full 2 deg C in the 0-700 meter region of the earth shows we are losing massive amounts of ocean heat over the last 20 years..
