Which scientist won the nobel prize for showing man made co2 causes warming? Why not? could it be .... There is no science and recent polls show there is no consensus. Meanwhile even San Diego is going down to the 50 and 60s tomorrow.
Al Gore and the IPCC already won that and the consensus is more like 99%. Essentially unanimous. Too bad the right has to look so dumb here. Actually though, they ARE dumb.
Which SCIENTIFIC Nobel prize did Al Gore and the IPCC win? Answer: NONE Their Nobel peace prize was a complete joke and people around the world have demanded they give it back. There are far more worthy candidates then a financial scam run by Al Gore.
And you are the clown that does not know the difference between a peace prize and a scientific prize.
Yes, Al Gore and the IPCC won a Noble Prize. They deserved it. And you need to wear an upside down name tag so you can tell people what your name is.
100 reasons why climate change is natural 1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. 2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high. 6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. 7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited. more... http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural
Ha ha ha....The Express !! What's next, the comic from a bazooka bubble gum? Jem, did you take your medication today? Paleoclimatic data are critical for enabling us to extend our knowledge of climatic variability beyond what is measured by modern instruments. Many natural phenomena are climate dependent (such as the growth rate of a tree for example), and as such, provide natural 'archives' of climate information. Some useful paleoclimate data can be found in sources as diverse as tree rings, ice cores, corals, lake sediments (including fossil insects and pollen data), speleothems (stalactites etc), and ocean sediments. Some of these, including ice cores and tree rings provide us also with a chronology due to the nature of how they are formed, and so high resolution climate reconstruction is possible in these cases. However, there is not a comprehensive 'network' of paleoclimate data as there is with instrumental coverage, so global climate reconstructions are often difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, combining different types of paleoclimate records enables us to gain a near-global picture of climate changes in the distant past. For Northern Hemisphere temperature, recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000AD, and the warming since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1000 years. Older data are insufficient to provide reliable hemispheric temperature estimates. Ice core data suggest that the 20th century has been warm in many parts of the globe, but also that the significance of the warming varies geographically, when viewed in the context of climate variations of the last millennium. Large and rapid climatic changes affecting the atmospheric and oceanic circulation and temperature, and the hydrological cycle, occurred during the last ice age and during the transition towards the present Holocene period (which began about 10,000 years ago). Based on the incomplete evidence available, the projected change of 3 to 7°F (1.5 - 4°C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php
The global warming idiots claim the number and strength of hurricanes is correlated to warmer temps. So if your claim is correct that 2014 is warmest on record then your theory is debunked because it was a quiet hurricane season. Just keep lobbing those pitches to me FecalContents, so I can hit them out of the park. Quiet 2014 Atlantic Hurricane Season Comes to a Close http://news.yahoo.com/quiet-2014-at...8x?date202207062012-08-08.html2012-08-03.html