It is now official. No global warming of the earth's environment in 15 years.

This is a flat out lie.

 

Your graph is from the Daily Mail. The paper that published Rose's fabricated story.

 

Trembath is talking about the global energy budget. Not temperatures
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf

That is "a key argument of global warming sceptics"?!?!

Then you admit that "a key argument of global warming sceptics" is completely false.

Because there is considerable evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years

THe fabricated news story by David Rose does not change this

 

Good, then you should be happy with cap and trade, right? Since it would spend virtually no taxpayer dollars.

And as for your factoid of the week, I simply don't know or care, and frankly, I can't be bothered running down the truth behind it. Because it doesn't matter. Even when presented with conclusive evidence to the contrary, you'll simply restate what you said initially again and again. And then you'll simply come up with another irrelevant factoid and repeat the process. None of it changes the over all situation in the slightest. Even if one of your factoids turned out to be right, neither you nor I nor anyone else here (probably) have the background to tell just how significant that is, how it fits into the over all picture. The people who do are the AAAS, NAS, and other professional scientific associations. And they all say that climate change is real, that we're doing it, that it's going to be bad, and we'd better do something about it.

 

This is incorrect, has been proven incorrect and yet is repeatedly posted

Why do denialists embrace such blatant cherry picked lies?

 

You are mistaken, Bowerbird.

"Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the British Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997."

The truth of the matter is The Met Office got caught with their pants down. and now they are trying to crawfish out of their previous statement. Their original statment was analyzed and confirmed by an independent study conducted by the Univ. of California Berkeley.

In addition, the earlier announcemernt by the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit remains valid.

The data sets from the MET Office, GISS (Hansen's) and others were studied, critiqued and compared in the recent Univ. of California "BEST" study of the global surface temperature records. They are are all quite similar and show a rapid global average warming (on a consistent basis of computing the average) in the 1980's and 90's with some data scatter about a flat to slightly decreasing trend line since 1998. 1998 was the hottest in surface temperature records since 1880.

 

She is not mistaken, the repeated lie is entirely that of the denier cult.

 

Because that's the only way to provide any sort of support at all to the conclusions they reached before beginning, of course. I seriously am beginning to wonder if there are people around here who are simply being paid by certain political interests to keep the drumbeat of "It's not proven yet!" going, no matter what.

 

You realize that 1.) you are lying and 2.) you have provided no links to these alleged "studies" you are referring to.


It seems you are the one who was caught with your pants down posting a lie as the entire OP is a lie. Instead of owning up to it, you keep rehashing the same lies.


The last decade was the hottest on record. The years 2005 and 2010 are tied for hottest year on record. You post so many lies its hard to keep them straight.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html


Saying there has been no warming in the past 15 years is not at all true, and no one has yet to provide any evidence otherwise. The Met Office and University of East Anglia certainly never said anything of the sort.

 

Query! Which is worse, an alarmist who sees contrary evidence and refuses to consider it because it may refute and expose the AGW hoax for what it is? Or, the denier who has always seen the AGW hoax as a UN political ponzi scheme hoax because that is exactly what it is?

Humm, which is worse?

 

Now its a denier cult?

Seriously? Do you hear yourself?

 

Well since the only proven liar in this thread is the OP, maybe you want to rephrase your barely coherent post.

 

You are indeed correct, Never Left,

The global "alarmists" are typical Leftists.

This is a typical immature ploy often repeated and overused by the members of the far Left.

"When you can’t attack the message, you instead attack the messenger!"

 

What contrary evidence? There isn't any. The science has been settled for years. So I'd have to say that the person who lets a paranoid hatred of the UN blind them to reality is worse.

 

Just because its over your head and did not (can/could not) see the obvious duplicity of AGW does not mean that I am wrong, which is, of coarse, rediculous.

 

Its the same with leftist loser the world over, especially the "alarmist" climate exagerators.

 

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. The message has been attacked. Repeatedly. And shown to be wrong many,many times.


When the messenger continues to ignore this, he's bound to catch a lot of flack.

 

How ironic.

 

So you're saying the OP is not a lie? Perhaps you have some super secret evidence that all the scientists are wrong?

 

Because Al (rub right there, yeeaahhhh, riigghhtt, theeeeerrrrreeee, ohhhhh) Gore says so?

When has any ligitimate science in any field of study ever been 100% "settled"? None.

They have observed a phenomena, they have hypothesised about the phenomena, and called the hypothesis "settled". They can not repeat their observations in a lab, Computer models do not count because the model is as competent as the programmer, and their wild assed speculations are based on science 100 years (very generous) old, on a complex system that is far older.

In short, the only science involved with AGW is Bovine Scatology.

 

It is the person "alarmist" or "denier" who consistently refuses to read further and find the truth

2 seconds of googling and one second of thought should produce the question underpinning this assertion of "Why are we only talking about 15 years worth of data"

The answer of course is obvious - because it is cherry picked

 

Isn't that what Grockmaster was saying all along about the CO2 saturation point? LMAO! The *******s must bebeside themselves after this!

 

I don't care if the OP is wrong. The one and only point is that AGW is wrong and has never been right, and no "alarmist" has ever debated a "denier" ever and never will because its all BS.

 

There is no truth in AGW, because it is, and always has been, and always will be, a political fabrication.