Beam me to Planet Gore !
Reading the sage comments I stumbled upon this, “.Don’t use record cold temperatures for your bench mark...take a look at the shorter winter seasons and longer summers...these are a more accurate measure of climate change....”.
Hell, if you can’t bully us peons into believing this BS then try the approach of dazzling us with your incomprehensible babble and bloated verbiage.
This guy speaks of consensus, when there is none.
For every scientist saying there is global warming , there is another saying there isnt.
This clown is only listening to the consensus he wants to hear and telling us we are stupid for listening to the opposite side.
Nahhhh, doesn't impress me. They literally hand those awards out these days.
Demonstrate it.
Huh? Looks like an untested theory substituting for a conclusion.
Absolutely ridiculous. The Little Ice Age ended in about 1850. Since then, temperatures have edged up -- what else would you expect after an Ice Age ends?
Temperatures were higher 1000 years ago than they are now. Claiming that "only" human contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide can explain such changes is bald-faced lying.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Rom.1:22
But what an arrogant fool to pick a “Dr Strangelove” title.
Propaganda masquerading as science. All this proves is that a PhD isn't worth much. Years of education and still no common sense.
I didn't read past the first paragraph, but skimmed to the bottom and saw this. No surprise. You will not find a more wretched hive of Commie scum and villainy in Portland.
We are on the verge of one of the worse winters many of us have ever seen, and one of the scientists who could have predicted it, is instead talking about loving computer models and stopping global warming ? This is simply negligence.
STOP RIGHT HERE. No need to go on reading this article. This is the basic lie that has been repeated over and over and is now being taught in our schools. It is simply not true and we cannot allow it to go unchallenged. Real scientists know it's a scam. UN scientists will believe anything they are told as long as the grant money keeps flowing, and it only flows to the true believers who are willing to deny the scientific fact that global warming is NOT MAN MADE>
“Apparently, we scientists have failed to explain to the entire public how we have come to understand the climate system”
Oh really? Juliann Fry is not a scientist, since she’s not looking at all of the data. I don’t care what her bloated credentials are. The earth is in a cooling trend, that’s been proven. Arctic Ice pack increased significantly this past year.
Co2 levels haven’t dropped, yet the world is cooling.
How do you explain that, wing-nut? Screw your models.
They can’t even get tomorrow’s weather correct and they expect me to believe they know what’s going to happen to the climate 20 years from now? Give me a break.
The acceleration of an object due to earth's gravity was predicted by Newton long before scientists even contemplated calculating the earth's mass. And in fact the calculation of an object in earth's gravitational field is independent of the earth's mass. And it was the observation of the motion that lead to the calculation of the earth's mass, not the other way around.
Excellent debunking of the global warming “consensus” can be found in Chill: A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory, Does Climate Change Mean the World Is Cooling, and If So What Should We Do About It? by Peter Taylor.
From amazon:
“Although the world’s climate has undergone many cyclical changes, the phrase ‘climate change’ has taken on a sinister meaning, implying catastrophe for humanity, ecology and the environment. We are told that we are responsible for this threat, and that we should act immediately to prevent it. But the apparent scientific consensus over the causes and effects of climate change is not what it appears. “Chill” is a critical survey of the subject by a committed environmentalist and scientist. Based on extensive research, it reveals a disturbing collusion of interests responsible for creating a distorted understanding of changes in global climate. Scientific institutions, basing their work on critically flawed computer simulations and models, have gained influence and funding. In return they have allowed themselves to be directed by the needs of politicians and lobbyists for simple answers, slogans and targets. The resulting policy - a 60 percent reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 - would have a huge, almost unimaginable, impact upon landscape, community and biodiversity. On the basis of his studies of satellite data, cloud cover, ocean and solar cycles, Peter Taylor concludes that the main driver of recent global warming has been an unprecedented combination of natural events. His investigations indicate that the current threat facing humanity is a period of cooling, as the cycle turns, comparable in severity to the Little Ice Age of 1400-1700 AD. The risks of such cooling are potentially greater than global warming and on a more immediate time scale, with the possibility of failing harvests leaving hundreds of millions vulnerable to famine. Drawing on his experience of energy policy and sustainability, Taylor suggests practical steps that should be taken now. He urges a shift away from mistaken policies that attempt to avert inevitable natural changes, to an adaptation to a climate that may turn significantly cooler.”
Bottom line: Changes in cloud cover explain the warming to 1998 and the cooling since that time.