Note: In 2001 the method for calculating wind chill warmed temps by 10 degrees.
Ping!
I like to ask the “warmers” how do we know when we’ve won the war on warming and what if we over-correct?
I never get an answer.
bump
Note: In 2001 the method for calculating wind chill warmed temps by 10 degrees.
Climate Research NewsClick on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Calling algore! I live 12 miles from Helena, Mt. in the plains and the temperature is now -12F. Thank goodness there is no wind.
You just met a genuine moron. The young man is clearly a Neo Marxist Democrat because he has a disordered mind. It is a little shocking to see how many college age children are brainwashed and unable to think for themselves.
This situation poses an overwhelming challenge to abstract thinking because many of these activists have no science background and no ability to understand scientific arguments.
“that he had never witnessed so much hypocrisy.”
The head “warmer”, the Prince of Wales, is on his private jet globe trotting and he says a panel discussing the issue is hypocrisy.
You can’t stop being stuck on stupid.
Crap and trade == junk science
Dr. David Evans
Read this and send it out before spending a trillion on C&T....
Article here:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8383&page=0
AGW: Anthropogenic Global Warming
“....There are two central lies in the political promotion of AGW.
The first appears in Gore’s movie. He gave the old ice core data as the sole reason for believing AGW (the rest of the movie presents evidence that global warming occurred, a separate issue). He said that increases in carbon caused increases in temperature in the past warming events. But Gore made his movie in 2005, two years after the new ice core data had established the opposite! Gore’s weasel words when he introduced that segment show he knew what he was about to say was false. Who would have believed his pitch if he added “and each temperature rise occurred 800 years before the corresponding rise in carbon that caused it”? [8]
The second lie is the hockey stick graph, which presented the last thousand years of global temperature as the flat handle of a hockey stick and the next hundred as the sharply rising blade [9]. The hockey stick graph was heavily promoted by the IPCC in 2001, and the IPCC even adopted it as its logo before it got discredited. It is significant because most non-scientist AGW supporters seem to believe some version of the hockey stick. When the IPCC “scientists” who produced the graph were asked to show their data for past temperatures, they refused (true scientists share data). But one of those scientists was a British academic and subject to the British Freedom of Information Act, and after two years of stonewalling all was revealed. It showed they had grossly skewed the data (even omitting inconvenient data to a folder labeled “Censored”), and that the computer program used to process the data had the hockey stick shape built into it - you could feed it stock market data instead of tree ring data and you would still get a hockey stick! In reality it was warmer in the Middle Ages than today, and there was a mini ice age around 1700 from which we have since been warming ever since. [10] Finally, the sharply rising blade of the hockey stick is contradicted so far by actual temperatures, which from 2001 to 2008 have been flat - something all of the climate models got wrong.”