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

It seems your partial vision missed this part in your cherrypicked newspaper article.

" ..." Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

His team's study, published in the journal Nature, concludes that between 443-629bn tonnes of meltwater overall are added to the world's oceans each year. This is raising sea level by about 1.5mm a year, the team reports, in addition to the 2mm a year caused by expansion of the warming ocean.

The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate... "

 

I'm not worried about your patience. I'm far more skeptical about your continued presence in this thread after I direct you to over 900 of them.

Just one little peer-reviewed tidbit precisely germane to this thread topic to get you started:

Holy crap, stop the presses. .07°C. Mountain...meet molehill.

Your ideology has failed to convince Quest. If you were honest, you'd admit that there is more than ample evidence to be highly skeptical of the AGW movement.

 

Because I just love to pile on, let's look at another peer-reviewed article:

Hold on. I thought that the science was settled!! Why, many of our own esteemed leftist geniuses told us so! How dis be, lefties????

Ruh roh, libs.

I just had to stop here to @ the leftists. This is peer-reviewed, fellas. And there are hundreds more like it. You haven't heard of these peer-reviewed studies?

And - having not heard a thing about these - you still don't think that there is an orchestrated leftist agenda to brainwash you into thinking that this is settled science?

Time to pull your heads out of your asses.

Gawd, I love crushing liberal arguments. I cannot wait for the next round of lefty goal post moving, once they realize that they - once again - have been stone cold refuted. Let me predict it: they'll try to claim that this isn't real peer-review. Of course, they'll find it impossible to avoid the same criticism of their own peer-reviewed reports, but that won't stop them. Just wait.

BHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

 

In further lending a helping hand to our truth-impaired leftist friends, let me now offer that database of 900+ peer reviewed articles - which support the AGW skeptics arguments - collated by author:

900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers by Scientists who are AGW Skeptics

You're welcome. May you have more luck discovering the real truth on this topic than you have on...

...well, just about any other topic.

 

Been there - debunked that

And to prove how lame the owner of that site is - his defence of the debunking is to link to some obscure posts on an obscure forum

 

In America we don't have to worry about rising oceans because we have our Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama to look after us and he promised to make the oceans go down doncha know.

 

Hold on.

You've debunked 900+ peer-reviewed papers that support the skeptics criticism of the AGW movement?

And you did it in two lines?

 

The lesson for liberals is that even media hype fails eventually when you're lying.

 

I invite all AGW skeptics to join me on my kayak expedition to the North Pole in September 2020. Non-swimmers discouraged.

RSVP @ skepticalscience.com

 

You gonna get around to answering my post, Johnny?

 

Am I taking this as a 'no'?

 

Come now, Colonel K.

Mod edit: Insult.

The authors have to say these things.

It they don't qualify and couch their statements, they will be punished, and their grant money will be cut off!

 

Do you think this is the first time that tripe has ever been posted?

So with one hand tied behind my back I will go through it all again

a) a vast number of the "peer reviewed" articles are from "energy and environment" the industry journal you have when you are not having an industry journal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_&_Environment

It's editor has an open agenda that is clearly past scepticism and into denialism

To openly admit such bias destroys any credibility of the journal what so ever

B) A substantial number of papers are authored by people with KNOWN and clear links to the oil and energy industries

C) an awful lot are over 10 years old

d) A great number of them only question minor aspects of the science and not the fundamental idea

E) They represent only 0.45% of the literature on climate change

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/poptart-gets-burned-again-900-times/
But mostly

NOT ONE SINGLE PAPER GIVES A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS CAUSING THE OBSERVED CLIMATE CHANGE

 

You are funny, Bowerbird.

You have never provided one iota of evidence that global warming is real.

All you ever do is attack the messenger; you never attack the message that global warming is junk science.

I repeat, an increase in global average surface temperature of 0.51 deg-C in over 50 years is not evidence of global warming. It is evidence that your foolish contentions of global warming are lost in the noise level of average temperature swings in the earth’s natural environment.

 

This is a very valid point Rapunzel.

Did man and his deliberate combustion of fossil fuels like bituminous coal, gasoline, aviation fuel and natural gas cause the earth to warm to much higher global temperatures at the conclusion of the Little Ice Age?

 

I will ask you again: How did you determine from the graph that "over 90% of the global warming that is observed and measured by our satillites exists in the northern hemisphhere." Did you eyeball it? Did you measure it? How? Or did you, as I am guessing" just make up a number?

When Svensmark presents evidence and data to back his hypothesis, hypothesis will be his incorporated into current theory. Until then, his work is an hypothesis and is not part of current theory.
I just noticed the article is from 2007. In 5 years he has been unable to gather evidence and data. How much time will you give hi before you accept his hypothesis is false?

 

This has been a great global warming winter in Wisconsin. I got to grill out and sit out on the patio comfortably Super Bowl Sunday, been able to work on my golf swing at the range, only ran my snow blower once, and with no snow have been able to keep up on the dog poo pickup. Not bad when I am used to freezing my nuts off this time of year.

 

Ha-Ha!

You are indeed correct, pocket aces.

In many cases, global warming is a GOOD thing!

By the way, I have challenged the most articulate and well versed global "alarmists” in our group to correctly and objectively answer the following scientific questions.

"Did man and his deliberate combustion of fossil fuels like bituminous coal, gasoline, aviation fuel and natural gas cause the earth to warm to much higher global temperatures at the first part of the Medieval Warm Period and the conclusion of the Little Ice Age?"

None of the usual unprovoked insults and accentuated "arm waving" please. We are looking for scientific answers to these very reasonable questions.

Please include your thoughtful response in the following thread.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...d-global-warming-scientific-manipulation.html

 

This thread is still dead and debunked, bucko, no matter how much you squirm and wiggle or try to link it to other equally fraudulent and retarded threads.

 

Actually, that's nonsense. Only a small percentage of the peer-reviewed papers in that link have any connection to "Energy and Environment" - as if even that connection is an issue.

Ooh. Is that because they object...alot?

As opposed to the credibility we're supposed to assume you have due to your strident support?

Define 'substantial'. In addition, wtf is "known and clear links" supposed to mean? That an industry which also thinks the dubious links to AGW are BS as well is supposed to remain docile and silent about it?

Define "an awful lot". You have yet to take on even one individual report.

Define "a great many". You have still not actually addressed anything with specificity, nor have you (obviously) applied your strident standard to anything you offered which is "peer-reviewed".

Cite?

Your cite is a blog? Didn't you just dismiss the credibility of blogs just a bit ago?

But - somehow - your blog is supposed to be credible?

So. Your argument relies on this 'mostly' you claim. Since about 220 of the 900+ peer-reviewed papers actually directly explain alternative reason for the variance in observed climate change (including reports which identify causes from cosmis rays to El Nino/La Nina variances), I'd say that your claim is identifiably false.

 

How masses of people believe there nothing wrong with the ecosystem/climate while a global elite suppresses the two big alternative energies there are right available, geothermical and tidal energy (most people have no idea that they excist, people are deceived and propagated in mass today, every news message from the msm and 'new' media is believed immidiatly)
There is a big reason why right these two big energies are never mentioned in the mass media and in the 'new' media not even by Greenpeace.
The number of cancers has never been so high, guess what this system is doing, not stop the cause of all these cancers, airpolution by burning toxic fossil fuels by the billions each day. What they do is attacking smokers (to have there army of anti smoke inspectors in dark uniforms in all pubs and everywhere), and even vacuum cleaners are now the cause of fine dust (while it is the massive on oil running very inefficient (less than twenty percent efficiency) transportation, trains, planes, automobiles, boats)
And biofuel is a deceptive term, there is nothing bio to burning fuels.
A global elite has brought the world population into their (new) world and is using mass deception on the masses via their mass media.
Their power is mainly based on oil that is why they don't want real change, defend their oil with propaganda.

 

So, all those plants that rely on cold, are adapted to cold - how are they?

 

Thread limit reached. Thread closed.