There has been no global warming since 1995

There has been no global warming since 1995

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... xzz0fTn6ysZr


African crops yield another catastrophe for the IPCC
One more alarming claim in the IPCC's 2007 report is disintegrating under closer examination, says Christopher Booker
www.telegraph.co.uk...

U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw

www.reuters.com...

and,

World may not be warming, say scientists
www.timesonline.co.uk...

Do world leaders read?

disinfo much?

even if the science is bogus, why not improve our energy systems and decrease pollution anyways? Even if a world catastrophe isn't imminent, is it not still worth it to cut the impact of oil companies and build a new energy infrastructure. Honestly, what do people have to lose from the global warming hype other than oil stock money? If you really think the NWO is going to use global warming as its platform I think you are wasting your time.

reply to post by Vipassana


I don't have a problem with environmentalism, just governments pushing agendas.

reply to post by SaturnFX



I am not a disinfo agent, I am just trying to get to the truth.

I think Mr Jones has earned his pay in carbon credits

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I am not a disinfo agent, I am just trying to get to the truth.

oh, didn't say agent...simply disinfo.
timesonline is a conservative slanted news agency, and dailymail is tripe. reuters is solid yet with no context.

the topic states no global warming since 1995, but according to NASA, that is catagorically untrue...therefore spreading false info only serves to further a blind agenda.

The scientists might be morons, some fudging data to blow up the impact faster than what is already happening, but the statement of no global warming is either a absolute lie, or blind faith beyond the facts...I would venture to say for you and most of the non-change types its blind faith verses a absolute lie...but the people really pushing this (corps and the politicians they have purchased) are the true liars.

personally I have no problem with you...you provide a good fight for..like everything I oppose, but you do it respectfully and that I give kudos for...but will also be posting the opposition to your threads when there is facts to disprove

OOPS I forgot this one,

'Climategate' expert Jones says data not well organised

news.bbc.co.uk...

Phil Jones, the professor behind the "Climategate" affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.


he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.

yes, there was a very long and catastrophic time in recent history of a planet warming trend after out mini-ice age...there was much famine and death across the world. There is still alot of heated speculation as to what caused the sudden and extended heating period.

neat little graph

Many meteorologists break with science of global warming

Read more: Many meteorologists break with science of global warming - KansasCity.com

What did surprise Wilson was that 29 percent of meteorologists in a modest survey he conducted took Coleman’s side — “a scam,” they called the scare.

And a clear majority of 121 weathercasters polled — 62 percent — said they thought climate models were unreliable for predicting temperatures and sea levels to come.

Read more: Many meteorologists break with science of global warming - KansasCity.com

“By no means do I consider myself an expert on long-term forecasting,” said KMBC chief meteorologist Bryan Busby. “At St. Louis University, I took one course in climatology.”

But what he and other certified meteorologists know too well is that computer models used in predicting highs and lows fail all the time. Purporting to be certain of the weather next week, much less climate patterns by century’s end, strikes Busby as a bit arrogant: “I suspect somewhere in the middle of both camps lies the truth.”

True, climatologists use similar computer models. But they do so in different ways and for different purposes.

“The models used for predicting weather are inherently volatile,” said Wilson, a scientist and member of the journalism faculty in Austin. “The climate models are not like that. They’re inherently stable.”

WDAF’s Thompson laid into Al Gore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and “cap-and-trade” proposals in a KCMO radio interview in December: “Our kids and our kids’ kids are going to be paying for this mess for a long time.”

Read more: Many meteorologists break with science of global warming - KansasCity.com

The rhetoric does get heated. Citing the “gravy train of grants” available to climate “alarmists,” meteorologist D’Aleo said network affiliates pressured some weathercasters to keep their skepticism to themselves “because they might lose advertising. There’s a lot of green money out there.”

Read more: Many meteorologists break with science of global warming - KansasCity.com

Thanks for posting Saturn.

Here's my two cents, I think the bad Weather in an along the East Coast is a Weather Weapon! its a well know fact that a few countries have the Technology to produce such an attack, it brought everything to a standstill!
nothing moving, I also think the Earth quake in Haiti was HAAARP!

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown

www.guardian.co.uk...

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.