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

Woah woah woah. Hold your horses buddy. Science never prooves anything.


Perhaps you can tell us what is wrong with NOAA's testing methods and results.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/global_means.html

 

Just another way for the liberal side of gevernment to lie and steal money from it's people....

 

No, unfortunately like the majority of the Denialist crowd many want you to do the homework for them.

You know I started answering these threads by researching carefully, finding sites for people to learn BASICS just the BASICS and got nowhere.

I did get a lot of accusations about "not listening to the truth" when they would repeat some unreferenced blather from some conspiracy site like "Prison Planet" while they were accusing me of being a "close minded religious bigot pushing the religion of global warming"

I would like ONE, just ONE of these idiots who line up on these threads just to repeat the same old partisan crap, to actually have a REAL debate on the subject.

 

Are you going to admit you lied about there being no warming in the past 15 years?

 

Oh! Dear GM!

You are not attempting math with Co2 concentrations again are you? Last time you tried that I proved that you had moved the decimal point as you seem to have this time, although it is hard to tell as you are not giving us units of measurement - you know something a scientist WOULD do


Is that bogus number you are flopping around supposed to be the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?

As for the rest - do you want a chemical test for what? If you are talking about the "greenhouse effect" that falls into the realms of physics not chemistry

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

And the original experiment was done in the 1800's

 

Any guess what, Bowerbird.

The larger the drop, the more the water changes color provided its volume remains constant.

Every four year old in pre-school understand this fact. What is your point?

Or do you even have a point?

Ha-Ha!

 

Yes I do and you just missed it

BTW your math on Co2 shows that you do NOT understand the basics - try looking at Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

 

Ha-Ha!

Come now, Bowerbird.

You are blowing smoke and you know it!

Nice try, but no cigar!

 

Blowing smoke...like how you lied about there being no warming for 15 years, but have still yet to fess up to it?


Unlike you, Bowerbird is using, gasp!, science!

 

Bowerbird,

We are anxiously awating an explanation of the point you were attempting to make with these very obvious comments.

 

Great question, Never Left!

The global alarmists consider global warming their "Raison d'être"!



The crux of the global warming debate! Carbon Credits are intended to make Albert Gore a very, very wealthy man!

 

And yet, you are the one caught lying in this thread.

 

Ha-Ha!

You are funny, LB.

It is you who is in denial.

***MOD EDIT - personal attack deleted***


There is no anthropogenic global warming!

All global warming we have witnesses in this decade and the last is natural in organ.

Case closed! … Problem solved!

 

No, he got you. Read your thread title again.

 

Oh Cessna, you still haven't fessed up to your original lie. You claimed that there was no warming in the last 15 years. You said it was "official". This was a lie.

How can we believe anything you say when you have already been caught in a major lie?

 

You are mistaken WatcherOfTheGate.

No one “got” me and here is why.

The problem with most liberals is they are very bad at math.

"All global warming we have witnesses in this decade and the last is natural in origin."

By the way, if you count correctly, two decades in my statement takes us back to 1999.

There indeed was global warming from 1999 until 2007, but it was natural in origin.

However, from 2007 until 2012 (15 years) there has been was no global warming!

Therefore, my original statement is indeed correct.

Case closed. Problem solved!

By the way, how can the “global alarmist" crowd understand the science behind global warming when they can't understand simple math?

Correct Answer: they cannot!

 

Reread your thread title. It is not true.

 

Now if we can get the Great Pacific Garbage Patch cleaned up, that'll be great!

 

I'm sure you have some credible studies to back this up.

This is a flat out lie. Not only because the time span between 2007 and 2012 is definitely not 15 years, but because 2010 was tied for warmest year on record.

Incredibly ironic since you think that the timespan between 2007 and 2012 is 15 years.

 

No, it's not. There has indeed been warming in the past 15 years. This has been shown to you about 2135633213521456 times.

mmmhmmm

 

You are mistaken, WG.

My original analysis is correct.

Learn how to do simple math and then we can talk.

 

You failed to answer the question. Why don't you explain to me where I am wrong.
Could you do that?


Am I wrong about what greenhouse gasses do?
Am I wrong about the evidence that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased over the past century or so?
Am I wrong about the evidence that the majority of this increase in atmospheric CO2 has been anthropogenic?
Am I wrong about the evidence that the surface temperature of the planet has been increasing?
Am I wrong about the evidence that the ocean temperatures have been increasing?
Am I wrong about the evidence that sea levels have been increasing?
Am I wrong about the evidence that glacial mass balance is decreasing?
Am I wrong about the evidence that stratospheric temperature is decreasing?
Am I wrong about the evidence downward radiation in the frequency bands re-emitted by CO2 is decreasing?

We know there have been greater concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past than we have now. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the observed warming of the planet in recent decades due to increased atmospheric CO2 from anthropogenic sources

We know CO2 that came from natural sources and did not burn the planet to a cinder. Nobody has ever said id did or that it will.

You say "In fact if you raise CO2 it will actually increase food production" - which is not a "fact" at all - just your unsupported opinion. Given the change in hydrology due to warming it is indeed very unlikely.

And while climate change is indeed natural - no one has said it isn't - the observed warming of the planet in recent decades is clearly due to increased atmospheric CO2 from anthropogenic sources.

Now - how about you try to answer my initial question?

 

Read my post again. It shows very clearly tha the article in the OP was untrue.


The article says:
The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.


That leading member of Prof Muller’s team was identified in the article Prof Curry.

It also claimed:
In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties

These are lies

She did not say in any way whatsoever that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped. She said the exact opposite:

Curry ACTUALLY said:
The Muller “results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960,” Curry wrote Sunday.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-now-agrees-global-warming-is-real/?page=all

She also said on her blog:
With regard to the Rose article. The article spun my comments in ways that I never intended.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#comment-130147


What Curry also ACTUALLY said
The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues “are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-now-agrees-global-warming-is-real/?page=all

She also wrote on her blog:
The whole issue of Muller having done something inappropriate in terms of scientific ethics, which is implied by the Rose article, will not stand up to scrutiny.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/

The OP arcticle is bogus. Warming HAS NOT stopped. Muller didn't say it had stopped. Curry didn't say it had stopped. Rose fabricated the story

How many times does this have to be explained?

 

You are indeed correct, Mac.

In fact we know from reliable scientific records that the global CO2 concentrations were much greater in the days of the dinosaurs than they are today.

In fact, the high CO2 concentrations were responsible for the lush vegetation that grew at mid-latitudes 65 million years ago!

The liberals in this group know absolutely nothing about history and how the earth existed 25 million years ago!

 

To the the person making $1 an hour it makes a huge difference. It $16 / week more; $832 / year more.
If 40% is not very much money, then why do Republicans always think it is the end of capitalism when the minimum wage is raised 10%?