Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

Recommended Posts

Add in that most of the places taking readings are now far more urbanised and it's clear the sudden interest in part of Australia being hot is agenda driven hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BFTV. Michael Mann refuses to engage in a public debate so maybe he can lead the way and enlighten us all on such things as proxies, tree rings and the use of past temperature data from selected weather stations. He's refused so far, so maybe this could be his chance to fight the fight then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New climate data rigging  in USA http://t.co/UsmvnHycm1

KL......

 

This does look big..........

 

If goddard is correct and he claims his datasets are official, it will blow the whole warming setup into the air iin the USA.

 

 

MIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KL...... This does look big.......... If goddard is correct and he claims his datasets are official, it will blow the whole warming setup into the air iin the USA.  MIA

I'll await further confirmation before passing comment but if true then the implications could be far reaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll await further confirmation before passing comment but if true then the implications could be far reaching.

 

1989 : NOAA Said No Evidence Of US Warming

 

NOAA now shows 1.3 degrees of warming during that same time period. They have rewritten their own history.

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times Published: January 26, 1989

After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987. They have rewritten there own charts.Posted Image

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – New York Times

Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to be careful as they are fond of confusing US temperatures with global.There's no doubt the past has been incrementally made cooler while recent years have been pushed up. 

There probably is a case for some adjustments but it seems a remarkable coincidence practically all the adjustments make the past cooler and the present warmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cfact.org/2013/02/06/global-warming-was-never-about-climate-change/Lots of interesting stuff gathered together here.There will no doubt be a ready to quote dossier about why the author is a despicable misleader/denier(i.e. they don't want anyone to read it)About the Author: Larry Bell

Larry BellCFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston. He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He is also the author of "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Streisand effect demonstrated.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/breaking-pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed-by-copernicus/

 

So - evidence that there is little need for alarm is so alarming that they closed down the journal which published it! Posted Image

True don"t disagree with the IPPC or we sack you!

JoAnne Nova has an important story about a journal being shutdown just because it had the temerity to publish a paper questioning the IPCC conclusions.

“… the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project†“

“We at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRPâ€

Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76585-manmade-climate-change-discussion/page-80#entry2901467

Michael Mann claiming the science is settled again, 

"Only 15 years to save the earth"

Didn't they say that before - when they extrapolated warming before 1998 as if it would carry on for decades.

Posted Image

Yes Global Warming special Headline Grabber (daily express beat this headline)

Wash. Post Warns of 216 Foot Sea Level Rise!: ‘The entire Atlantic seaboard would vanish’ – ‘It’s not clear precisely when the polar ice caps will melt completely. But if and when they do, sea levels will rise by 216 feet’ Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The beginning of the end.http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html

 

now it seems that the climate is no longer of much importance to the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, either. Commission sources have long been hinting that the body intends to move away from ambitious climate protection goals. On Tuesday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/20/the-case-of-the-missing-heat/Judith Curry on the Nature pause article.

 

The competing explanation (the ‘denier’ one, I guess since I don’t hear mainstream climate scientists mentioning this) is that the heat never made it into the system, possibly related to changing cloud patterns or properties that reflected more solar radiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff four, I've always detested the way Skeptical science operates as it takes the stance that it's actually open to honest scientific debate, even when the actual truth is far removed from there mission statement, and what makes it even more amusing is the number of posters on here who use it as a reference for scientific facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...