Americas Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend

This UN officials calls global warming a scam:


At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3dMaCLIYR
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

 

Man made atmospheric CO2 has been increasing since around 1800 as the industrial revolution was gearing up. When looking at the long range data; warming always trails increases in CO2 - cause and effect.

 

This isn't what she said at all. Why is it that no matter what the subject conservatives repeatedly rely on out and out lies?

 

So the IPCC is wrong then eh? Temperatures have been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age or around the late 1600's.

There is a reason they chose 1880 or so and not earlier. That is because they did not record many temperatures before then except for the Central England Temperature record, the longest measured temperatures in existence.

 

No, your understanding is.

 

You, you specifically have pointed out that the IPCC is wrong about CO2 and you can't explain the warming before 1880.

The IPCC claims that since 1950 global temperatures have been driven by human CO2 emissions which increased significantly, yet the temperature rise from the 1900s to the 40's was just as fast as from the 70's to the late 90's. Dang that observed science thought, no increase since the end of the 90's.

 

Well seeing how that never happened....




http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

I can't believe people still drag out that ridiculous myth.

 

Can you post the direct quote of where the IPCC said that?

 

That's the interesting bit though isn't it? It looks like it is option one or two. Brilliant!

 

Just as I thought, most of you don't read the science but carry on the media meme.

 

"Warming" pays in the form of research grants. "Cooling" pays nothing right now. If they were smart, they'd be pushing "Global Balance". This way they'd get money for nothing regardless of whether it's warming OR cooling.

 

The Ice Cores tell us so. From the Minoan Warm Period 3500 years ago to the end of the little Ice Age about 1065 years ago, CO2 steadily rose as the temperature continued to fall for a span of 2435 years. I'm sure you can explain that with citations. As you can see the modern Warm Period" is rivaling the Medieval Warm period, but doesn't even come close to previous warm periods with substantially lower CO2.

 

I give them full credit for creativity. I mean scamming a nation is one thing, but scamming the entire world into buying into their doom and gloom scenarios, while using as the foundation for it science that wasn't advanced enough to begin with in that specialty field to produce reliable data for meaningful predictions? Awesome!

 

I guess you hadn't noticed. Here in the NE, we didn't have spring. It went right from winter to summer. I guess you also hadn't noticed the absolutely preposterous weather, no rain, all rain, drought, flood all within a week. Or, the absurd amount of snow and bitter cold. Or the freak hurricanes that come through and wipe out entire communities.

But yeah, climate change, global warming, global cooling, whatever t-shirt slogan of the week you want to call it, doesn't exist, because it's a giant government conspiracy to do... what, exactly? Levy a carbon tax? This idiocy has one major flaw - they have NOTHING to gain from inventing a scenario that is playing out every single day.

SOMETHING has changed, I don't care what you want to call it. But it has. And idiots like the republican elite, politicizing this very measurable issue, are the root cause of our inability to address it in any real way.

And anyone who denies that something has changed has clearly NOT left their home in the past two years.

 

The reason you can't recall it is because it never happened. There has never been a point in history when there has been only 10 years of global temperature data. By the time they began collecting temperature data on a global scale (in the 1980's) they already had a century's worth of data available.

Oh, and I'm sure you can provide citations to even a single scientific announcement that was etched in stone for all eternity. What's that? You can't? You mean your rhetoric is just ... rhetoric? I'm not surprised. Be sure and wake me up when you establish communication with reality.

 

Ocean data here.

Land data here.

 

Whats ridiculous is warmists still trot out the "science by popularity" argument. The recent "98% of scientist believe AGW" is so totally discredited that that entire approach is a complete fail. Just making that type of claim whether for today or the 1970's is an automatic fail.

 

I don't think you understand what I posted. You claimed in the 1970s that scientists were predicting "catastrophic global cooling". What I posted was a summary of papers that were posted during the 1970s. The vast majority of them predicted warming, which you can see from the published scientific study that gathered and reviewed all of the scientific literature at the time.

These are absolute facts.

- - - Updated - - -

So you don't have the quote backing up your claims?

 

Luckily for you I addressed this in the other thread.

However, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked for from Hoosier regarding an alleged IPCC quote.

 

Climate models have shown themselves to be wrong a lot. The Ice Cores samples don't rely on some idiots flawed programming.

 

No, not "science by popularity" but consensus and that comes about after a lot of study in diverse fields of a lot of data and number crunching. So, when scientist 'A' looks at what scientist 'B' said, reviews the data, expands on the finding with additional information and confirms the what 'A' wrote, then you have the beginning of a consensus. And that's where climate change science is now. There are still dissenting voices, but far too many of them have sold their credentials and future credibility for a few pieces of silver.

 

I need a quote to show what people post?

 

No. Contrary to popular ( at least among the ignorant) belief the United States is not the entire world.

 

I understood exactly what you were posting.

Over the past few years, warmists have trotted out the claim that a vast overwhelming majority of scientists support AGW, and that claim has been totally discredited particularly the Cook paper which through an "analysis" of peer reviewed technical literature claimed 97% of scientists agreed in AGW. Cook was so flawed it went beyond a joke to bordering on deliberate fasification.

The entire concept of reviewing the literature to claim some percentage supports warming is so discredited few bother to even read the claim anymore, it doesn't matter if its over AGW today or warming in the 1970's.

And catastrophic global cooling was taught in high schools in 1970's, including the idea of nuclear winter. That's why so many people point out the hypocrisy - they remember being taught global cooling.

 

Still doesnt stop them from making claims such as "Climate change's heat intensifies drought in the USA", even though ": America’s Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend"