Mainstream scientists finally admit global warming has not occurred for 2 decades

This is the frankest admission yet that the Earth has not been warming for the last 2 decades, and they don't know why not.

Article

After rejecting its existence for years, climate scientists have in ­recent years proposed a wide range of factors to explain it,

The paper also suggests that decadal climate oscillations were not pushing heat into the deep oceans, another explanation for the “missing heat”

Im not saying we should just burn all the coal and oil on the planet, but I would like to say to global warming (climate change) proponents "you don't know everything and not everybody who disagrees with you is and idiot or a criminal"

a reply to: Cinrad

Would you have another source I am not keen on paying to read the article.

a reply to: Grimpachi

www.pressreader.com...

Here is what I got, take a read, think someone missed the point.

New Reports: There Is No Global Warming

According to NASA’s own data via Remote Sensing Systems(RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).

Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.

Mods , I hope this passes . If not , "pull it"

a reply to: Cinrad

You seem a little off on this....

The article says...

The near two-decade long "pause" in rising average global surface temperatures was a "distraction" that did not change long term model predictions of a much hotter world this century

www.pressreader.com...

a reply to: Cinrad

This article does not reject anything, merely says don't count you blessings with this two decade pause.

Its not warming!!!!!
But but but.....WHAT ABOUT THE CARBON TAXES!!!

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Grimpachi

www.pressreader.com...

Here is what I got, take a read, think someone missed the point.

Yeah, thanks that worked. If that is the exact article the OP is referring to then he definitely missed the point in spades.


It is like the article was skimmed for key phrases to present an entirely different narrative. I think that is called cherry picking I can now see why his link is what it is.

a reply to: VoidHawk

Precisely!
Gore was counting on $BILLIONS of
YOUR MONEY
in HIS pocket
for "carbon credits"

a reply to: Cinrad

Would love to hear from the people that think this article is backing what the title of the thread says.

They say there is no evidence, yet the scientist say there is: Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

They say global warming is not happening or stopped, yet the scientist disagree: Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010? and What has global warming done since 1998?

They try to tell us the science is not settled, and again the experts disagree: Is the science settled?

The crowd who denies humans are responsible for changing this planet's climate are running out of arguments.

a reply to: jrod

Don't worry about it.

If they didn't read the OPs article which I am sure 90% or more didn't before starring and flagging they certainly aren't going to read your links.

It is actually quite comical because it is probably representative of the intellectual honesty going on.


Just laugh it off as not worth it.

I don't know if there is anthropomorphic climate change or not, but I know the taxes will be man-made.

There is no global warming. It's also quite difficult to convince someone who lives up north who experiences record breaking lows that seem to break records each year that passes accompanied by long-term severe cold weather.
Also, I guess the massive snow storms on the east coast are most definitely signs of global warming.

Basically, the models predicted one thing - a catastrophic, unabated rise in global temperature and we are living in the real world test of that hypothesis.

For two decades, the real world has not justified those predictions, so at what point do we start to think maybe the models aren't all they're cracked up to be instead of continually looking down the road on the models' predictions and seeing ever more doom? Just because the models are computer generated doesn't mean the programmers aren't infallible. If you put garbage in, you are still going to get garbage out.

a reply to: Grimpachi

No, I looked at it, and saw an excuse. The models aren't right yet, but give them more time and they will be.

At what point do we admit that models aren't right because they are operating off an incomplete understanding of climate?

here4this's link will lead you to the Op's source, you can't link from here so far. Everyone needs to go to the bottom of the page and use the further link there. The reasoning is from John Casey, someone that Jesse Ventura used in a documentary on GW five years ago.
I could add look up Maurice Strong as well for more reading, as it's all connected.

In edit,
Mind you, despite the above docu, later stuff from Jesse is often a different tack. Linear or non-Linear Jesse?





In edit, the link is working
w3.newsmax.com...

a reply to: smurfy

No I already sourced the article, the news max one is not it at all.

originally posted by: here4this
New Reports: There Is No Global Warming

According to NASA’s own data via Remote Sensing Systems(RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).

Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.

Mods , I hope this passes . If not , "pull it"

RSS is not NASA's own data. It is a private company: Remote Sensing Systems.

RSS is flawed:

Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.

a reply to: Greven
See , thats what is driving this whole thing. Evidence can be posted for , and then someone will deny it and post something else.I go deeper on this subject than numbers or what someone "says". Numbers can be altered , people lie to get what they want. I want to know how "carbon tax credits" going to a company backed by politicians and ex-politicians (you know who I am talking about) is going to save the world ? Even our current President is a mega stock holder.Billions in cash to them ? From the lower and middle class families of the world . Now , who stands to gain all these billions? It isnt the GW Deniers' club. Does anyone stop and think about that ? If you had invested millions in an "investment" and stood to gain billions worldwide from it , would you continue to press the idea no matter what ? Yes. Didn't Al Gore state that the Ice Caps would be melted by last year ? The GW crowd is getting desperate as the data fails them. All they see is all that money going away.And as far as that goes , if I though for an instant (and I dont) they would actually utilize that money to improve the world in some way I would not be against it . But they wont . Not one penny. This is just their greed showing its face in one more way . The old saying goes (and it is an absolute must in this case) "Follow the money"
"Nuff Said"