Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyly

of course you got this info form a NASA site and not from a journalist/denier who deliberately misreported and misquoted and spun the info, getting select quotes from professional denier shills like Benny Pieser?...:laughing:

now the truth what NASA website supports and not how some schlock denier from the daily mail spins it...


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...011-temps.html


at least pretend to be objective if you're going to make "claims" to what NASA supports at least have the honesty to use a NASA website....

---

You show you did not read the article. The article says Nasa says therre will be less solar activity

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...oaaprediction/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lepper

Find another argument. Yours ended when MET themselves refuted the OP.

---

You mean this Met office that has no credibility or integrity

http://www.climategate.com/british-c...-fraud-charges

Quote:

---

Now another senior British climate scientist–this time Professor John Mitchell, the Met Office’s Director of Climate Science, is about the face the full force of the blogosphere for contemptuous breaches of the UK’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Mitchell and the UK Meteorological Office have apparently been up to the same tricks as Professor Phil Jones of the now discredited UK Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

The Met Office is refusing to disclose Prof Mitchell’s working papers and correspondence with his IPCC colleagues in response to requests filed under the FOIA. The block has been endorsed in writing by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth –- whose department has responsibility for the Met Office. Professor John Mitchell was joint chief fabricator of the absurd headline in the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning IPCC report: that the Earth is now hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years. A claim totally at odds with the evidence presented in the IPCC’s First Report of 1990.

Documents obtained by The Daily Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a coordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders.

British climatologists have been at the heart of allegations of climate date fraud for several months since the Climategate scandal first broke. After it was announced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) that although the CRU had broken the law by refusing to comply with dozens of FOIA requests over several years, head scientist, Phil Jones was branded a criminal by climate skeptics around the world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ptif219

You show you did not read the article. The article says Nasa says therre will be less solar activity

---

Stop moving the goalposts after you get caught making crap up.

You said:

"It appears NASA says no warming for last 15 years and we are headed for a mini ice age"

Problem is, NASA claimed no such thing, period. You just made that all up.

NASA does say that minor fluctuations in solar activity have little effect on earth temperature, and that greenhouse gas effects dominate over it. So, when NASA says "less solar activity", that's all it means. It definitely does not mean "heading for a mini ice age."

Quote:

---

You mean this Met office that has no credibility or integrity

---

If the Met has no credibilty ... then why did you start out using them as your primary source?

You can't have it both ways, declaring the Met is credible when you thought they agreed with you, then flipflopping like a beached halibut the other way as soon as you learned they disagreed with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mamooth

Stop moving the goalposts after you get caught making crap up.

You said:

"It appears NASA says no warming for last 15 years and we are headed for a mini ice age"

Problem is, NASA claimed no such thing, period. You just made that all up.

NASA does say that minor fluctuations in solar activity have little effect on earth temperature, and that greenhouse gas effects dominate over it. So, when NASA says "less solar activity", that's all it means. It definitely does not mean "heading for a mini ice age."



If the Met has no credibilty ... then why did you start out using them as your primary source?

You can't have it both ways, declaring the Met is credible when you thought they agreed with you, then flipflopping like a beached halibut the other way as soon as you learned they disagreed with you.

---

You show you do not know what the article said about NASA.

I have shown that the GW community is trying to stop the release of information. This means they are hiding facts. The truth is the GW community is corrupt and has no credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ptif219

I have shown that the GW community is trying to stop the release of information..

---

Your link was nearly two years old. How'd those fraud prosecutions go?

Oh, that's right. None of them happened, because the accusations were proven to all be fabricated BS. The whole phony climategate non-scandal did a face plant into a cow patty. And now you arise, cowchips on your chin, to no doubt claim how that further proves the great conspiracy. In your mind, everything that happens proves the great conspiracy.

The old Soviets used to jail people for doing science that contradicted the party line. I don't see much difference between you and them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ptif219

The met is trying to stop truth. Just like Anglia saying there was no scandal because we investigated our own people. There is no credibility or integrity left in the GW community.

---

You are beyond reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mamooth

Your link was nearly two years old. How'd those fraud prosecutions go?

Oh, that's right. None of them happened, because the accusations were proven to all be fabricated BS. The whole phony climategate non-scandal did a face plant into a cow patty. And now you arise, cowchips on your chin, to no doubt claim how that further proves the great conspiracy. In your mind, everything that happens proves the great conspiracy.

The old Soviets used to jail people for doing science that contradicted the party line. I don't see much difference between you and them.

---

Shows the GW community will not release information. What are they hiding. The lack of transparency by these scientists shows they are not being honest or truthful.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...l-warming.html

http://epaabuse.com/4398/editorials/...st-phil-jones/

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...-of-documents/


http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lepper

You are beyond reason.

---

No you ignore that scientists refuse to release data even when the freedom of information act is used. The GW community is hiding information that does not fit their agenda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ptif219

No you ignore that scientists refuse to release data even when the freedom of information act is used. The GW community is hiding information that does not fit their agenda

---

This is paranoid nonsense. The American FOI act doesn't apply outside your borders. The requests (note meaning of "request") were a tactic to slow or even stop research as scientists spent ever more time responding to specious questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel K

This is paranoid nonsense. The American FOI act doesn't apply outside your borders. The requests (note meaning of "request") were a tactic to slow or even stop research as scientists spent ever more time responding to specious questions.

---

No, they fight releasing data which consumes much more time than releasing data. They are hiding data that goes against their false agenda