Global Warming Is Dead - RIP AGW

Lucrum · May 14, 2013

Quote from futurecurrents:

A storm of recent reports, studies and measurements from scientists and trusted agencies worldwide is making it clear...
More...

You left out Myth Busters.

PHOENIX TRADING · May 14, 2013

Quote from Lucrum:

You left out Myth Busters.
More...

I like mythbusters but somehow I'm willing to bet they didn't prove what he thinks they did.

futurecurrents · May 14, 2013

Quote from pspr:

The last few years have seen much controversy over the question of whether the Earthâs climate is getting warmer and, if so, whether man is causing it. The issue has never been stated as a scientific question. The arguments for such man-made global warming have invariably been political in nature.

When you hear statements such as âthe debate is overâ or âthe science is settledâ or âa consensus of scientists agrees,â you can be assured that the speaker knows virtually nothing about science, what the scientific method is or how science is conducted. This I attribute to our faulty educational systems.

There are several questions involved with the subject of man-made global warming (after this, I will simply call it global warming). Is the average temperature of the Earth increasing? What definition of global warming is being used? What is the method being used to measure it? These important questions have never been answered. One would think that temperature data would be paramount in the discussion, but it has come to light that gross data manipulation, data editing, and selective data omission have taken place. I refer to the infamous âClimate Gate.â What data we have indicates that the Earthâs temperature has held steady or decreased a fraction of a degree Celsius over about the last ten years or more. Since the temperature data do not support global warming, the proponents have taken to calling their alleged effect âclimate changeâ and we see exploitation of those poor polar bears (whose estimated population has increased five-fold since the â70s) and are shown videos of calving glaciers (thatâs how ice bergs form) and are told, disingenuously, that it is because of global warming.

The choice of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the culprit in global warming was especially inept. It is a trace gas in Earthâs atmosphere. Even if the burning of fossil fuels doubled or trebled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would still be a trace gas and not capable of the large effects ascribed to it. The laws of chemistry say that the effect of a particular compound must be a function of its concentration.

The so-called greenhouse effect has been falsified and concluded to be fictional. Greenhouses are made of glass with well-known physics. No greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in any planetary atmosphere. In fact, such an alleged effect has been thoroughly falsified and shown to be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In science, falsifying does not mean disproving but, rather, showing that the subject effect is in violation of one or more of the fundamental laws of science.

The Earth, in the past, has been both colder and warmer than it is now. Even in historic times the Earth has seen extremes in climate. There was a warm period known as the Medieval Optimum where records show that Roman soldiers in England grew grapes and made wine. Greenland was named such by Viking explorers because it was green and the original name the Vikings gave to Nova Scotia was âVinelandâ because they found grapes growing wild there. Not too long after the Medieval Optimum, the Earth went through a period known as the âLittle Ice Ageâ in which there were several hundred years of colder than normal winters. In London, the Thames froze completely over. Both of these periods were ignored in generating the fictional âhockey stickâ graph used to support the idea of global warming in a now infamous so-called documentary film.

In science, the burden of proof is on those who make an assertion. Those that say the Earth is undergoing man-made global warming have the obligation to provide the scientific proof. They have not done so. Instead, they have reacted in not only unscientific ways but in anti-scientific ones as well. There is no place in science for personal attacks and character assassinations.

Al Miller is a chemist retired after a 40-plus-year career in research. He lives in Indio with his wife and their dog.

http://www.mydesert.com/article/201...nge-conclusion-goes-against-scientific-method
More...

Al Miller ? Retired chemist? LOL ........Thanks for once again showing us what a joke you and your sources are! I'll stick with sources like NOAA, NASA and the Met Office.

Al Miller!!!! Ha! Too funny. Thanks for the laugh !

pspr · May 14, 2013

Quote from futurecurrents:

Al Miller ? Retired chemist? LOL ........Thanks for once again showing us what a joke you and your sources are! I'll stick with sources like NOAA, NASA and the Met Office.

Al Miller!!!! Ha! Too funny. Thanks for the laugh !
More...

You're just an AGW fool who likes to ignore facts that don't support your global warming hoax. And, yes, it is a hoax.

<img src=http://cecaust.com.au/images/front/Global_Warming.png>

pspr · May 14, 2013

Remember the 'Hockey Stick' graph Mann made to prove unprecedented warming. It seems he manipulated some data to draw his chart.

This is the lengths those promoting AGW will go to keep the billions of wasted government dollars flowing into their pockets.

<img src=http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/hope-it-lasts.jpg>

futurecurrents · May 14, 2013

Quote from pspr:

Remember the 'Hockey Stick' graph Mann made to prove unprecedented warming. It seems he manipulated some data to draw his chart.

This is the lengths those promoting AGW will go to keep the billions of wasted government dollars flowing into their pockets.

<img src=http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/hope-it-lasts.jpg>
More...

You're insane. The hockey stick chart has been proven true multiple times over by multiple studies and authors and data sets. There has been no fraudulent manipulation of data by any of the mainstream climate scientists. There HAS been fraud from the denier machine some of which I exposed on this forum.

Take your meds.

futurecurrents · May 14, 2013

from a reliable source...NOAA

nutmeg · May 14, 2013

The more the Obama administrations talks about various situations happening currently the higher the CO2 levels...

pspr · May 14, 2013

NOAA is a manipulator of temperature data. This has been proven. They are not a trusted source of data without scrutiny.

The data now shows odds favor a prolonged cooling period. Possibly an extreme cooling period.

Even NASA felt the need to make this statement this year:

Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

futurecurrents · May 14, 2013

Quote from pspr:

NOAA is a manipulator of temperature data. This has been proven. They are not a trusted source of data without scrutiny.

The data now shows odds favor a prolonged cooling period. Possibly an extreme cooling period.

Even NASA felt the need to make this statement this year:

Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
More...

No they are not. No it hasn't. The data is robust and is from many different sources. They all concur. Satellites, thermometers, tree rings, ice cores, buoys. We are nowhere near calling the warming trend over.