http://isthereglobalcooling.com/ This is a good site, lot of stuff here that is a bit hard to ignore or dispute. No doubt the AGW cultists will go into overdrive trying to discredit the site, the author, the isp and anybody the site quotes. They will also try and put an AGW spin on everything and claim they predicted it all and it all supports AGW. Fact is the temperature is going down not up. A small decrease in temperature would be disastrous but a small increase would be beneficial. snow in Cairo first time in 112 years http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/another-year-of-global-cooling/
Still global war............. er, climate change, and the only way to fix it is for sticky little fingers to shuffle huge amounts of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ around.
Weather is one thing Climate is another thing Snowing in Cairo does indicates weather change because it almost never snows there.
Some wouldn't even know that difference. Despite melting ice caps, degenerating glaziers they won't give up, telling us their little secret thoughts they spun up in their little brains. Regards
Try pulling your head out of the sand and actually reading the link I provided. Then give use the benefit of the thoughts that your little brain spins up.
We recently had an elderly Swiss couple staying with us. The guy made it very clear, that during his life his alps have changed dramatically, with rock falls now being the norm. We can speak about information, I however rate unbiased knowledge/expirience 1 million times higher....... Regards
The link you provided is stupid even for non scientists , you can never have a 4 degree fluctuation without an extinction event.
Except when the weather trend supports AGW, then it becomes "climate". When it refutes AGW, then it is just weather.
And that is your considered, scientific opinion? So why didn't we have an extinction event during the Roman warming and then again during the mini ice age?
You're nearly there. a day or two isn't a trend, it's weather. A decade or two is beginning to show a trend and is climate. - - - Updated - - - Look up the difference between local and global events.
Religious zealots never accept negative points against their religion. Not the most open minded people.
A right wing American "newspaper" backed by a fringe religious group is more valid than the IPCC Yup! Got it!!! Remember the warning = Don't confuse bad journalism with good science?? Applies here
now we need to drive our cars to put more carbon in air to warm it back up?..make up your stupid minds...
Har, har, har, haaarr! Shoot the messanger straight up, just like I said you would! Then post one of your extremist propaganda pictures with a carefully selected range to give credence to your extremist agenda.
Hmmm, lets give you a better insight. In the past the rocks were covered with ice, which meant no rainwater would penetrate into cracks. The temperature below the ice was always about the same. Now as the ice is melting, those rocks are exposed to rain and very low temperatures in winter. The rainwater can now tickle into cracks and the falling temperatures in winter will cool the water down to minus degrees (Celsius that is in the modern world). The water will now transform from a liquid into a firm substance (ice), but most importantly increases its volume. This immense power will force the rocks to crack and fall down the mountain sides. It has actually become quite a problem in Switzerland, according to our guest. Hope that helps....
Thanks, very in-depth. But it's not news. It's been happening for millions of years. This guys lifetime is a mere blip on the timeline.
The only way the AGW cultists can get a temperature rise is if they manipulate the ranges in their graphs to short periods (decades) and very small variations (at the most 1.5 degrees or less). This gives a dramatic, steep graph of temperature rise. But if we graph temperature of a meaningfull geological time frame we get quit the opposite. When the tempersture stopped rising 16 or mor years ago the alarmists then said we have to ignore this and look at the 'trend' in their truncated graphs with ranges limited to times that give them the trend they want. But again if we look at the temperature trend of a meaningfull geological time period we again see quit the opposite.
I've always found it curious that climate deniers call proponents "cultists" when, ironically, it takes far more faith to believe that a small minority of scientists are correct and that the majority of scientists are part of some elaborate conspiracy.
