It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released...

page: 1
60
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+38 more 
posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

The figures, from the UK's official Meteorological Office, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures

global temperature changes

While the temperature of the earth has increased by 0.75 degrees Celsius from 1880 to 1997, since 1997 it hasn't increased at all.


Flawed science costs us dearly

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

Daily Mail


The new data that discredits the global warming conspiracy was released quietly, in contrast to recent incomplete data sets which present a false picture of global warming.


The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Daily Mail


Yet, despite the lack of global warming over the last 16 years, we are bombard with stories by the scientific community of impending doom.

Both the EU, Australia and Japan have a carbon 'market' aimed at preventing non existent global warming, costing businesses and consumers billions. A tax by any other name.

For instance, the Australian carbon tax has been estimated to cost Australian families up to $540 a year

Carbon tax costs ACT families $540 a year

It has been suggested that UK household Electricity Bills will double due to the global warming hoax.

Carbon Tax Will Double U.K. Electricity Bills

A proposed carbon tax in the USA could cost US industry and ultimately US consumers $144 billion by 2020

U.S. carbon tax could halve deficit in 10 years: report

Factbox: Carbon taxes around the world


Yet there has been NO global warming over the last 16 year.

Global warming is a scam used to introduce another tax.





edit on 14-10-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Faced with the loss of industry from the West to Asian countries that show no respect for the environment, Western governments respond with a carbon tax designed to make manufacturing in the West even more expensive?

Carbon tax proposal will hobble our already challenged economy, stall growth


Even if a carbon tax could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, should it be implemented if it would undermine the economic recovery and stall short-term growth?

The hardest hit sectors of the U.S. economy from a carbon tax would be energy-intensive industries, particularly chemicals, automobile manufacturing, iron and steel, aluminum, cement, and mining and oil refining.

These large industries would be at a serious disadvantage in the world marketplace, and many companies would move production to countries without such a tax.


Of course politicians and climate change scientists won't be sacrificing their own standard of living.


edit on 14-10-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)


+15 more 
posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
It still astounds me that people believe in the man made global warming myth. It simply is not true. It’s just a tax grab, that’s it. If it’s all true, then why do those purporting it fly all over the world constantly, live in giant mansions and drive big gas guzzling cars?



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlindBastards
It still astounds me that people believe in the man made global warming myth. It simply is not true. It’s just a tax grab, that’s it. If it’s all true, then why do those purporting it fly all over the world constantly, live in giant mansions and drive big gas guzzling cars?


Because not only are they hypocrites, they think the rest of us are all too stupid to notice?

As you say, global warming is a tax grab and global climate scientists, in the form of very generous research grants, are in on the scam.


+17 more 
posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Oh and I am sure that this graph is just propaganda, right?



I cant believe people still believe global warming isn't happening. Anything to get that oil under the Arctic I guess.

Then again, there are people who believe the Holocaust was a hoax and that we didn't land on the moon. Its funny how something can slap you in the face and people still deny it.


+3 more 
posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283

I cant believe people still believe global warming isn't happening. Anything to get that oil under the Arctic I guess.

Then again, there are people who believe the Holocaust was a hoax and that we didn't land on the moon. Its funny how something can slap you in the face and people still deny it.



Your scientific vigor is somewhat questionable. You don't even include a link or explanation where your graph came from. Are you a climate change scientists by any chance?

Do you or do you not agree that the data presented by the UK Met office collected from 3,000 global sites shows there has been no global warming for the last 16 years?



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Oh and don't forget that global warming isn't the only repercussion of pollution. The build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere has an effect on everyone's health as well



Quit justifying the slow destruction of the planet!



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



Normally - as most of you will know - I am a pretty staunch supporter of science & engineering, but in this case, I thoroughly agree.

The climate scientists who have been supporting this man-made stance on climate change have all been rewarded with (bloody stupid) grants for supporting the government (most notably the Australian government) in spearheading a whole new tax. The grants mean diddle ....seriously, we have meteorologists who do the hard yards to collect this data and do the calculations. Giving a grant to some fool climate scientist because he/she will backup Gillard & Wong is just throwing money to the wind.



What has become of academia in Australia?


edit on 14/10/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)


+8 more 
posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283

data.giss.nasa.gov...

Happy?


Fascinated that you dismiss scientific data collected over the last 16 years from 3,000 sites globally, and presented by the UK's Met Office, that entirely contradicts you position.

That isn't very 'scientific' of you. It is however entirely consistent with the selective use of data employed by the global warming community.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Also there has been plenty of change in those 16 years. However, the graph you posted shows that the green programs we have implemented in the past decade or so has helped keep global warming in check but ONLY in respect to those 16 years. However, on a historical average standpoint, global warming is still very much a problem.

Also, I didnt claim to be a climatologist. Just a guy who knows how to use google.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Its NASA, not some liberal campaign office or something. Seems like the people who have the BEST capability to monitor this type of thing would be who I would trust. They only have the most sophisticated monitoring equipment available.


+3 more 
posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283


Its NASA, not some liberal campaign office or something.


Your graphs come from NASA?

NASA Scientists Rebel Against Global Warming Hysteria

NASA Global Warming Stance Blasted By 49 Astronauts, Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency

50 NASA Scientists Against Global Warming

It looks as if the wheels have fallen off of that particular NASA global warming bandwagon.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
It is however entirely consistent with the selective use of data employed by the global warming community.



How is using NASA as a source selective? Sure, I selected the most respectable source when it comes to weather monitoring. Is that wrong. Also, Your post doesn't use scientific method either. You just posted a graph and then based conclusions on that one piece of info.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


OK, now compare those "50" people to the amount that still support the global warming theory at NASA. Im sure the percentage will lean heavily in my favor. Jus sayin'.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Yay! Global Warming ended!

Drill baby drill!
time to pump out trillions of tons of smog into the atmosphere!




posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Its NASA, not some liberal campaign office or something. Seems like the people who have the BEST capability to monitor this type of thing would be who I would trust. They only have the most sophisticated monitoring equipment available.


The most sophisticated?

That is doubtful.

The USA has a woeful history with electronics.

If a company wants to put a satellite in orbit....Do they go to the USA? .....Nope.....The best equipment(meteorology etc) comes from Europe so thats where it is sourced.

As a classic example .....In Australia, when we purchase US fighter jets......the first thing they do is rip out the US electronics & avionics and replace them quality equipment.

I think if I was to trust anyones data.....it would be that of meteorologists first.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283
How is using NASA as a source selective? Sure, I selected the most respectable source when it comes to weather monitoring. Is that wrong. Also, Your post doesn't use scientific method either. You just posted a graph and then based conclusions on that one piece of info.


The article I liked to made it clear that my source was the UK's meteorological office.

You presented graphs with neither a source nor a link nor an explanation.

Not very scientific.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283
reply to post by ollncasino
 


OK, now compare those "50" people to the amount that still support the global warming theory at NASA. Im sure the percentage will lean heavily in my favor. Jus sayin'.


Yeah maybe if you include all the people working for NASA that have no place in the conversation.

Do you really want a janitor working at NASA to testify that the science is sound?



new topics

top topics



 
60
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join