Climate study confirms what skeptics scoffed at: global warming is real (BS!)

A new climate study shows that since the mid-1950s, global average temperatures over land have risen by 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit), confirming previous studies that have found a climate that has been warming – in fits and starts – since around 1900.

Most climate scientists attribute warming since the mid-1950, at least to some degree, to carbon dioxide emissions from human activities – burning coal, oil, and to a lesser extent gas, and from land-use changes.

The latest results mirror those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Britain, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

These previous efforts, however, came under fire from some climate-change skeptics who said they had detected serious flaws in the analytical methods and temperature records the three groups used.

The results of my own study that began yesterday are far worse. I have concluded that the planet is now entering a new ice age currently and within months all life on the planet will end. I am sure that my results can be duplicated by other scientists all over the world. Yesterday it was 65 degrees and this morning it is just 54 degrees. I have projected that by lunch time it will be in the 40s... by tonight it will be in the 30s... tomorrow it will be in the 20s. In a month or two we will reach absolute zero.

The climate is cyclic, just as our daily temperatures are. The starting point for this “study” was chosen intentionally during one of the coolest periods in the last century. Even so climate “scientists” have been hedging their bets by adjusting recorded temperatures in previous decades downward with various justifications. If the “scientists” had chosen the start point for this study in the early 1930s and used un-adjusted recorded temperatures, the study’s conclusions would show little if any warming.

As others have pointed out the earth has been on a warming trend for hundreds of years. We know for instance from important historical events that during the 1600s through the 1700s many major rivers froze solid in both North America and Europe. I can only imagine the hysteria that would have resulted if the same had happened during the 1970s when many environmental “scientists” were claiming that “pollution” was sending our planet into another ice age.

One fact that cannot be disputed even by the infamous (from the climategate emails) Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director is that the planet has experienced no statistically significant warming in the past decade despite rising CO2 levels. Those who originally came up with the “scientific theory” that increased levels of anthropogenic CO2 was causing the earth to warm also devised numerous “tests” that would prove or disprove their theory. In nearly every case these “tests” have disproven the theory.

Another study recently demonstrated that those who are skeptical of the theory that Anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming on average have far more knowledge of scientific education than those who are not skeptical. Scientists are in fact trained to be skeptical. Every theory must be tested or it is not a “scientific theory” at all. Name calling, arguing consensus, and all of the other tactics used by the alarmists are the very same tactics that have been used throughout the ages to thwart scientific method. In this supposed age of enlightenment there really should be no place for this type of nonsense. What we are witnessing is a shameful political struggle for power and money led by Charlatans which has nothing to do with science.

Yes but from the 1940’s to the 70’s the temps dropped which caused the Global Cooling spastic fit. When man-caused CO2 was pouring into the atmosphere the temps dropped! This was after WWII when the global industrial explosion really occurred. Oil and Coal were king - every continent was building and burning and still the temps dropped. TO me this means they cannot predict with their models, and CO2 has a much smaller contribution than what the Warmists have been saying.

If they are so right, then predict something with accuracy, consistently and then show us the models and data.

When you put a thermometer on a chimney - I think the data is invalid.

IF all the measuring takes place in heat sinks, the data is invalid.

This is more politics than science. Especially the way they demonize their opponents, in a complete Soviet style personal attack.

Climate study confirms what skeptics scoffed at: global warming is real (BS!)

Here's the bottom line. Muller and his BEST study try to say that they have now proved that there has been global warming and the critics are wrong. Muller and his bunch have said that global warming skeptics have denied that there has been an increase in the global temperature and that they, those promoting global warming, haven't even tried to say that the man-made component of this warming is what is threatening the earth.

Both claims are ludicrously untrue.

The warmists have always maintained that the warming that has been evident to all and denied by none has been the product of heating caused by the release of anthropogenic CO2.

The skeptics have maintained, among other things, 1. that the human component of CO2 is too small compared to the rest of nature to have had such an effect, 2. that increased rather than decreased levels of CO2 is a good rather than a bad thing, 3. that changes in CO2 levels don't correspond with changes in temperature except as an effect of increased temperatures (and that, after centuries), not a cause, 4. that there is a lot more to the causation of global warming and cooling cycles than man-made CO2.

The skeptics of man-made global warming are standing on far firmer science than the warmists and always have been.

Most climate scientists attribute warming since the mid-1950, at least to some degree, to carbon dioxide emissions from human activities.

This is a true statement even if the effect is .000...1%, so in real life I would regard it as a CYA throw-away. And then the rest just sort of collapses around this week reed.

I no longer argue that there may or may not be "global climate change" other than to say that it has been happening since the Earth began. What I choose to argue is that everything that these advocates desire has incredible cost for the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE for an equally incredible tiny / minute / miniscule effect on their perceived problem. Equally disheartening is the fact that their 'solutions' require ever more intrusive global measures that treat individual freedoms as required sacrifices to this "Global Good!"

Here is a tiny dart to help you prick their hot air balloon of righteousness, ask what would change their mind or even add a doubt, what fact, what statistic if any. Lacking that ability of open thought means you are talking to a closed mind and no further argument is possible.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.