"Global Warming" Advocates' Own Data Prove No Significant Warming!

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I often look at news and information sites and sources for views that are NOT the same as my own. I often find things that aren't available elsewhere, and which can be truly enlightening. I especially enjoy foreign sources who have no agenda on U. S. political or social issues.

Reviewing the latest information from pro-AGW advocates, I came across a "tool" that gave trends and staistical analysis of climate data. What a surprise!

Actually, the "no warming" is proven by several independent studies AND supported by the pro-AGW site "skeptical science." Here's what their own data reveal (recently acknowledged and cited by such AGW "luminaries" as Hansen, Pachauri, Trenberth and the MET Office) for land sea and satellite observations:

Satellite
For RSS, NO significant warming for 23 years.
Trend 0.130 ± 0.136 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990

For UAH, NO significant warming for 19 years.
Trend 0.143 ± 0.173 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

Land/ocean
For Hacrut3, NO significant warming for 19 years.
Trend 0.098 ±- 0.113 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hacrut4, NO significant warming for 18 years.
Trend 0.098 ± 0.111 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

For GISS, NO significant warming for 17 years.
Trend: 0.113 ± 0.122 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

For NOAA, NO significant warming for 18 years
Trend 0.090 ± 0.106 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

Land
For NOAA, NO significant warming for 16 years
Trend: 0.139 ± 0.203 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1997

For BEST, NO significant warming for 16 years
Trend: 0.182 ± 0.243 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1997
...
www.skepticalscience.com...

These guys are often cited as authority for "debunking" AGW skeptics, but their own figures support the lack of significant warming.

deny ignorance
indeed

jw
edit on 28-3-2013 by jdub297 because: bold




posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   
You know, I'm a little less concerned about the data than I am about the scientists themselves. Here's an unusually interesting article: AGW Scientist statements
Here are some excerpts:

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”
So, now we are at the point where Science itself can not be trusted but only used to further one's political and economic goals.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Star and flag op, be prepared to defend yourself, the agp religious nuts will be here to flame you enmass. Brow beating you with things like the world is burning, the sky is falling, and man is evil we only destroy thus we must make laws and rules that will result in the deaths of billions because a single bug is more important than any number of human lives etc....

To anyone who wants to have another climate debate.........please dont make me destroy your world view with facts.


I will, but dont enjoy doing so, lets just agree to disagree instead.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Question is your link broken? The page it takes me to is the Skeptical science calculator.

I am not even questioning if their calculator is bogus or not but is the OP based on your own assumptions or is their actually an article that backs up what you are saying?



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Science is a whore, selling itself to the highest bidder. It does not matter who the buyer is it is all the same.

Global warming / Global cooling / Climate change

Tobacco is not dangerous

We can't do without oil.

Many independent scientists that sell knowing their inventions will be shelved.

The list is endless.

P



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by jdub297
 


Question is your link broken? The page it takes me to is the Skeptical science calculator.

I am not even questioning if their calculator is bogus or not but is the OP based on your own assumptions or is their actually an article that backs up what you are saying?


I used skepticalscience's calculator to test the propositions that the "no warming" studies for the last 15 years were based upon false data. The site is the heart of AGW advocacy, and their calaculator inc;ludes explanations of the mechanics and statisitcal analysis. If it's good enough for the fearmongers, oit ought to be good enough for AGW skeptics to debunk their "debunking."

jw



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Dr. Jeff Masters' latest blog post addresses this exact argument: www.wunderground.com...

He is a very, very well respected meteorologist.

He refers to this argument as "a deliberate abuse of statistics".

I would highly recommend reading this blog post in detail, along with some of the other material on the site, such as www.wunderground.com...

You don't need to have a background in statistics or math to understand this material - it's written in lay terms.

"If one picks any year prior to 1998, or almost any year after 1998, a global warming trend does result. The choice of 1998 is a deliberate abuse of statistics in an attempt to manipulate people into drawing a false conclusion on global temperature trends."

Speaking as someone who also has a deep background in statistics, I happen to strongly agree with him.
edit on 29-3-2013 by PhysicsAlive because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Thanks for explaining so I typed in a simple 1990 to 2012 then checked every finding on the sight you linked and every one also shows a graph I don’t know if you missed that anyway the numbers certainly do not support your OP presumption. I do not know how you missed the graphs but they are self-evident IMO.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhysicsAlive
Dr. Jeff Masters' latest blog post addresses this exact argument: www.wunderground.com...

He refers to this argument as "a deliberate abuse of statistics".


What about the CO2 "forcing" part of the AGW theory? How convenient to leave that out!

What you and Masters seem to ignore is that the IPCC and many other warmists have "projected" an exponential increase in temperature correlative with the rise of CO2 (e.g., the "Hockey Stick" illusion).

This is clearly and undeniably NOT happening; the the alomst oracle-like "models" and "projections" are wrong.

What the AGW dogma ignores is that the temperature plateaued when it would have skyrocketed if their "climate science" was even a close approximation of reality.

You either deliberately ignore this, or you choose to misdirect with an incomplete comparison of trends.

CO2 levels are growing across the globe in "developing" countries and economies (while the US and some parts of the EU have seen declines). The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are far above what alarmists have contended would pass a "tipping point" beyond which average land and ocean temperatures would rise faster than ever before.

That is NOT happening.

Of course, one of the principal determinants of true science is "falsifiability;" and this incongruence of reality and predition renders the entire AGW alarmism FALSE. The hypothesis has been disporven,, as even Jim Hansen this week acknowledged.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
yay lets cherry pick time frames !

we can make it getting hotter
we can make it getting cooler
we can make it staying the same



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by PhysicsAlive
 


So basically you are saying is that he’s cherry-picking data to fit the narrative he wants? Kind of like comparing the warmest day on record in the winter to the coldest day on record in the summer then drawing the conclusion that the temperature has always been pleasantly mild?

I am no expert on the statistics by any means but when looking at the dates he picked they seemed very deliberate to me. I thought to myself why didn’t he just compare the same time span of dates then when I checked his link I simply picked the first year he used which was 1990 then punched 2012 which the data should be complete and checked for myself and his claim that there has been no significant warming was completely false. Like I said I am not an expert but it is pretty obvious that there is definitely some significant warming going on. The OP seems extremely disingenuous and the whole thing feels like a slimy car salesman tactic.

I think everyone should use the OP’s link then punch in a 10 or 15 year span for themselves it looks like any dates will work and it will show the opposite of what he claims.


When people talk about this being a hoax for monetary purposes it seems to go against logic because the ones saying it is a hoax are the ones with the most to gain monetarily from it IE Oil and Coal but this will remain polarized as long as people except positions such as the OP’s without looking for themselves.

Besides from everything I have read from credible sources the debate over whether or not the earth is warming or not has been settled even from many in the coal and oil biasness the only thing left to debate on the subject is how much influence man actually has on the phenomenon. I was hoping I would open this thread and read some good news like maybe the trend was revering however it seems this is merely propaganda.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Ah but they won't.
It's much easier to believe any old thing that fits with their group-think.
This guy will never understand why you're correct.
edit on 29-3-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
yay lets cherry pick time frames !
we can make it getting hotter
we can make it getting cooler
we can make it staying the same


Yay, let's ignore the failure of models that say there shouldn't be a plateau!!
It's the ignorance of AGW faithful that is now consider "denial" when they can't face the facts that the models never worked; that the assumptions, projections and alarmist predictions of 30, 20 and 210 years ago are continually proven FALSE!

YAY, indeed.

The ever-liberal Economist has for years toed the official UK political line that AGW is real. But, even now they acknowledge that the science is not settled.


Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”
. . .
The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. . . The IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are based partly on GCMs [Global Circulation Models]. Because these reflect scientists’ understanding of how the climate works, and that understanding has not changed much, the models have not changed either and do not reflect the recent hiatus in rising temperatures.

www.economist.com...

Here's the illustration the Economist uses to illustrate part of its recognition of the failure of AGW alarmisism:



And, what are some of the results of this ignorant denialism, according to the article?



Bad climate policies, such as backing renewable energy with no thought for the cost, or insisting on biofuels despite the damage they do, are bad whatever the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases.

www.economist.com...

It's so ironic and laughable to see the AGW faithful now assuming the role of "DENIERS" as their models fall apart before their eyes; and, as the predictions, assumptions and projections of 30, 20, and 10 years ago are time after time proven FALSE!

deny ignorance

jw




edit on 29-3-2013 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Ah but they won't.
It's much easier to believe any old thing that fits with their group-think.
This guy will never understand why you're correct.
edit on 29-3-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


Now that lomg-time AGW supporters of the MSM such as PBS, The Australian, The Economist and the The Telegraph start to recogize the data and reality, will you be name-calling and disparaging them, too?

Who's the "Denier" now?
I can't stop laughing at the irony and ignorance.

jw
edit on 29-3-2013 by jdub297 because: url



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
Science is a whore, selling itself to the highest bidder. It does not matter who the buyer is it is all the same.

Global warming / Global cooling / Climate change
Tobacco is not dangerous
We can't do without oil.
Many independent scientists that sell knowing their inventions will be shelved.
The list is endless.


Climate is alway changing.
These AGW acolytes seem to ignore the cycles:
like the “Great Medieval Warm Period” (800 to 1300), the “Little Ice Age” (1500 to 1850), and smaller trends like a cooling period between 1880 and 1915… a warming period from 1915 to 1945… a cooling period in the first half of the 20th Century!!

But they also ignore the fact that their models are absolutely unable to account for the plateau while CO2 SOARS.

They have used the epithet of "Denier" as if it proved that their views of science and climate are invariable and incapable of challenge.

deny ignorance

jw
edit on 29-3-2013 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Dr. Fred Singer is a long known denier, that isn't new or different.


He is an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a think tank on climate and environmental issues. Singer has been a leading skeptic of the scientific consensus on global warming. He points out that the scenarios are alarmist, computer models reflect real gaps in climate knowledge, and future warming will be inconsequential or modest at most.


He also used to deny that smoking cigarettes was bad for you, and he was paid by Phillip-Morris to say so. Credibility = zero. It's very worrisome that he's appearing on Frontline but of course that wasn't a transcript of the whole show so I'll hold off judgement and try to find the episode.

As far as other MSM outlets like ABC? You didn't read my thread did you? Anytime AGW was brought up, they had the two sided view point with opposition coming from the usual suspects that make the denial circuit. The MSM NEVER supported AGW and barely even talked about it. The echo chamber just claimed they did and repeated it so often that people believe it.

The assertion you make in your OP is completely untrue, as another poster pointed out and I myself confirmed, warming still shows.

I'd love for Fred Singer to be correct but one I don't trust him, two 97%-99% of scientists agree the earth is warming and we're the cause and three he's lied for money before... that leaves me very little reason to put any trust that he's telling the truth now.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


The assertion you make in your OP is completely untrue, as another poster pointed out and I myself confirmed, warming still shows.


You're going to call me a liar when you have the exact ramges and results I copied to check?

You couldn't possibly and honestly say that they are untrue unless you are a denier.
Those results are EXACTLY copied fron the skepticalscience calculator.

Typical warmist alarmist response, though.
Ignore the other part of the concept: Warmist modeling is WRONG.
CO2 is not causing the predicted responses.

It is so sad to see a believer's faith shattererd and backed by their own priests' data and spread by their former unquestioning acolytes. I truly feel sorry for you that your false god is dying before your eyes, if she's not already dead. You desperation should be recognized and what it must be doing to your beliefs.

What are you doing for the freezing elderly these past winters?
What did your religion do for them and their utility bills, or lack of utilities?
What have you done to reduce the true costs of "green" energy sources in resources, lost incomes, decimated landscapes, and the opportunities lost due to billions of wasted dollars and euros that could've been put to better use?

Deny all you must to help in your recovery and acceptance.
Time heals all wounds except, for those who froze to death because of your policies.

jw



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


"global warming" is all about UN world wide taxes so the elite can scam more money from the ignorant slaves.

Anyone with any intelligence knows that climate does change - has before man was around, and wil continue to change with man around - and that pollution is bad. We should not pollute the earth. Like China, Russia, Africa, and the other 3rd world countries do.

But - why should people pay taxes to the UN to "clean up" things, when everytime the UN is involved, it's just a skim for profit to nefarious people and gov't's?

Shouldn't the polluting countries be forced to clean up their own messes?

Why don't we rid the world of the UN hucksters instead?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 

Shouldn't the polluting countries be forced to clean up their own messes?


Who would you propose should "force" a country's people to do something?

It is a well-recognized phenomenon that as countries industrialize, they become cleaner and more conservative of precious resources. Look up "Kuznets Curve," and find an excellent examination in the NYT former green blog.

Even animals know not to defecate in their dens.

jw



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


The UN does not collect taxes, nor will they collect carbon taxes. If a nation implements carbon tax that tax would be collected and used by that nation.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join