Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You are such an idiot FC. I can't believe you are even trying to make the claim. What a dipshit, idiot. These are your buddies who advocate AGW, FC. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who for some reason chairs the IPCCâs climate âscienceâ panel, has been compelled to admit there has been no global warming for 17 years. âUnlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britainâs Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.â Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...n-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134
IPCC is increasingly acting in a wholly unscientific manner President Obama is determined to do something about global warming, telling Congress in his State of the Union address that if they won't act on it, he will. The president's refrain is familiar, but unfortunate. Obama continues to ignore new science suggesting that the threat posed by human-caused climate change is substantially less than previously thought. Obama's brand-new pick to head the EPA, Gina McCarthy, is a fresh signal that the administration favors knee-jerk policies to restrict emissions, even when they are unsupported by available data and would hamper the economic recovery. Congress, with its wait-and-see attitude, has taken the right approach. Now, if only the president and his EPA would see the light. A good place to start is a just-published study by a research team led by Dr. Peter Stott, a climate expert from the U.K.'s Met Office Hadley Center, which finds that climate model projections of an alarming temperature rise are inconsistent with past observations. When Stott and his colleagues forced the amount of global warming predicted by climate models to equal the amount of warming that has actually been observed, the future temperature rise projected to accompany human greenhouse gas emissions dropped rather substantially. In other words, the better climate models match the past, the less scary the future looks. Big surprise: My colleagues and I published the same thing in the scientific literature more than 10 years ago. What makes the new findings particularly interesting is that Dr. Stott was an author of the most recent climate assessment report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Stott specifically contributed to the chapter on global climate projections, which included the possibility that human greenhouse gas emissions could lead to rapid increases in global temperatures. His new work now indicates that the IPCC climate projections have been exaggerated on the high side. Stott is not alone in his findings. Within just the past two years, no fewer than seven peer-reviewed studies have been published in the scientific literature that have concluded that the earth's climate sensitivityâthat is, how much warming that will accompany a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration â is likely to be substantially lower than the IPCC's determination. All of these studies have largely ruled out entirely the IPCC's high-end values. James Annan, a leading researcher into constraints on estimates of climate sensitivity, and author of several of the new studies on the topic, has long thought that the IPCC high-end climate sensitivity values were unjustified. Annan suggests that the IPCC is increasingly acting in a wholly unscientific manner, accusing the IPCC of "having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing 'la la la I can't hear you.'" This would perhaps be amusing if the IPCC were not considered by many â including the president and the EPA â to be the leading authority of climate change, past, present and future. To base its findings that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations" and to justify regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA relies strongly on the IPCC reports. When the president says that it is "the overwhelming judgment of science" that our greenhouse gas emissions are making all manner of extreme weather worse, he is referring largely to the IPCC reports. Since the IPCC is erring on the high side of things, so too must be the EPA and the president. This situation is unacceptable. It is time to step back and take stock, not rush into action. The earth's average temperature has largely remained unchanged over the past 16 years. During this same period, the annual global emissions of greenhouse gases have increased by nearly 50%. Together, this combination is straining the credibility of climate change alarmism predicated on the idea that the earth's climate is extremely sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels to produce our primary energy supply. Increasingly, both Mother Nature and the science of her behavior are telling us that climate change and its impacts will be moderate, making global "lukewarming" the more apt description. Adaptation is a more preferable course than mitigation. The more time we give climate science the chance to explain climate observations, the better and more accurately informed we become. New science is telling us that the old science was unjustifiable and overly extreme. We should make sure that any attempts at climate action don't prove to be the same. ⢠Knappenberger is the assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...d-climate-change-less-than-thought.htm?p=full
'Something unexpected' is happening on the Sun, Nasa has warned. This year was supposed to be the year of 'solar maximum,' the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle. But solar activity is relatively low. ----- Further evidence from NASA that we may be heading into weakening solar output and the onset of a sustained cooling period. A weak solar maximum is very troubling. Some at NASA speculate that we will see a double maximum which is possible but this if we don't get a resumption of the maximum by 2014 we could be in for a major cooling event. The OP provides information from NASA that the sun may indeed be heading into a prolonged cooling cycle. If it turns out to be as weak as the one that occurred in the 1600-1700 period it could lead us to world famine! This would not be good at all for humans. The news from NASA is disturbing to say the least.
Ha ha Cato Institute. Why don't you just tell us what the Koch bros think? Why can't you use ever use a credible source? He repeats the 16 year bullshit? You are an idiot.
Unlike the AP crap you post? LOL You are too closed minded to have a clue what is happening with the climate. You probably didn't even read the OP. Here's just one line. See if you can read it. This week, scientists from the US Solar Observatory and the US Air Force Research Laboratory have discovered â to their great surprise â that the sunâs activity is declining, and that we might experience the lowest solar output weâve seen since 1645-1715. That's the little ice age dumbass. So why don't you go away and STFU. Everybody in the P&R would appreciate it.
Yes there is the possibility that the solar output may slowly start to go down and in five hundred to a thousand years it will at a minimum. However the forcing effects of CO2 is far more powerful than this small decrease. Solar output has gone down over the last fifty years and temps are still going up and accelerating. We are now the dominant climate changer. Also, separate from thermal effects of CO2 there is the acidification of the oceans that needs to be considered.. I repeat, anyone who still denies AGW these days is a fool. Fool.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. You are such a stupid person. If it doesn't fit with your preconceived belief you either don't read it or it's a lie. It's not me saying it asshole. It's one of your favorite sources, NASA. You're brilliant Watson. In an idiot sort of way. You shouldn't even be discussing this subject. After all, you just have a BA degree and you install air conditioners. Hell, my dog could do that, you moron.
You're such a stupid right-wing redneck that you don't even know what it is saying or what the significance of it is to AGW. Little to none. Anyone denying AGW is fool. And you are top fool on this board.