Look like Global warming was a HOAX after all

[lilranch2001]

And faking science is an ok tactic for the GW/CC group......

 

[lilranch2001]

one of the things that bug me most about GW/CC'ers is their constant preaching, but just like algore, "jump into my jet and lets fly all over the world".

If you guys think it is so bad, when are you moving back to the caves?

 

[/pine]

The problem with that is, it's not true. Nature is proving that the effects of greenhouse gases cannot be escaped. If you care to read about the actual work being done, as opposed to reading twisted commentary about the results of that work, you will see a much different picture.

Scientist may differ on the degree of change, or the weight of the various mechanism of change, or the accuracy of a model, but they aren't by any means saying there is no change being caused by humans. And, for all practical purposes, they universally agree more is coming.

The thrust of much of the current research is not "is climate change caused by humans", it is now focusing on how to better predict and deal with the outcome of that change in areas such as agriculture, city planning, habitat preservation and forestry. In other words, global warming induced climate change is a given for those researchers and the commercial interests who fund much of their work.

Deniers have every opportunity to do the basic research that would support their claims. The Koch Bros. and others would gladly pay for it IF they thought there was anything to be found in the science. They aren't doing that because they aren't stupid. They are using the old tactic of when the science is not on your side, attack the science and scientists, and crank up the PR machine to full volume.

Attacking other people's work, and doing your own work that others may comment upon, are two different things entirely. Do you think big tobacco really cared that they were wrong and lied? They may have found or paid some goof ball to say tobacco is good for you, but they never produced any research that backed that up. They were managing a strategic retreat to prolong profit as long as possible. Same thing the fossil fuel people are doing today with climate change.

You alarmist warmers look more like "the black knight" from Monty Python's 'Search for the Holy Grail' with every gasping breath...!

 

[/pine]

Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating | New York Post

Mark Landsbaum: Climate alarmists' search for proof going cold | warming, global, temperature - Opinion - The Orange County Register

 

[k0ua]

Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating | New York Post

Mark Landsbaum: Climate alarmists' search for proof going cold | warming, global, temperature - Opinion - The Orange County Register

The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way.
Warmist claims of a severe increase in hurricane activity go back to 2005 and Hurricane Katrina. The cover of Al Gore’s 2009 book, “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis,” even features a satellite image of the globe with four major hurricanes superimposed.
Yet the evidence to the contrary was there all along. Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms — but no more frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence — then repeated their false claims after Hurricane Sandy last year


So which one of you Global Warming guys want to put forth a good explanation why your scientist's were WRONG about the Hurricane predictions? And not just wrong, but wrong in the other direction. Come on lets have it.

 

[dave1949]

Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating | New York Post

Mark Landsbaum: Climate alarmists' search for proof going cold | warming, global, temperature - Opinion - The Orange County Register

Hmmmm. So if a caveman noted that the Ice Age glaciers hadn't advanced much in the past 10-20 years half-way through the maximum glacial extent....he could write some dandy opinion pieces.

Global temperatures have plateaued in the past 150 years and then continued to rise. Here again, deniers have a golden science opportunity to prove that that pattern is not going to repeat. Where is their science?

 

[/pine]

Hmmmm. So if a caveman noted that the Ice Age glaciers hadn't advanced much in the past 10-20 years half-way through the maximum glacial extent....he could write some dandy opinion pieces.

Global temperatures have plateaued in the past 150 years and then continued to rise. Here again, deniers have a golden science opportunity to prove that that pattern is not going to repeat. Where is their science?

alarmists become deniers...too funny

it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all.

That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this “pause” could extend into the 2030s.

Mind you, the term “pause” is misleading in the extreme: Unless and until it resumes again, it’s just a “stop.” You don’t say a bullet-ridden body “paused” breathing.

Remarkably, that stoppage has practically been a state secret. Just five years ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, the group most associated with “proving” that global warming is man-made and has horrific potential consequences, told Congress that Earth is running a “fever” that’s “apt to get much worse.” Yet he and IPCC knew the warming had stopped a decade earlier.

 

[dave1949]

The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way.
Warmist claims of a severe increase in hurricane activity go back to 2005 and Hurricane Katrina. The cover of Al Gore’s 2009 book, “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis,” even features a satellite image of the globe with four major hurricanes superimposed.
Yet the evidence to the contrary was there all along. Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms — but no more frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence — then repeated their false claims after Hurricane Sandy last year


So which one of you Global Warming guys want to put forth a good explanation why your scientist's were WRONG about the Hurricane predictions? And not just wrong, but wrong in the other direction. Come on lets have it.

Which of you deniers wants to show the science that explains fewer hurricane occurrences? Come on, I know you can do it. If you folks understand everything about the climate, how about some predictions of your own that can be checked on? Oh, you don't have any because PR machines don't produce science. I forgot.

 

[JGinNC]

The problem with that is, it's not true. Nature is proving that the effects of greenhouse gases cannot be escaped. If you care to read about the actual work being done, as opposed to reading twisted commentary about the results of that work, you will see a much different picture.

Scientist may differ on the degree of change, or the weight of the various mechanism of change, or the accuracy of a model, but they aren't by any means saying there is no change being caused by humans. And, for all practical purposes, they universally agree more is coming.

The thrust of much of the current research is not "is climate change caused by humans", it is now focusing on how to better predict and deal with the outcome of that change in areas such as agriculture, city planning, habitat preservation and forestry. In other words, global warming induced climate change is a given for those researchers and the commercial interests who fund much of their work.

Deniers have every opportunity to do the basic research that would support their claims. The Koch Bros. and others would gladly pay for it IF they thought there was anything to be found in the science. They aren't doing that because they aren't stupid. They are using the old tactic of when the science is not on your side, attack the science and scientists, and crank up the PR machine to full volume.

Attacking other people's work, and doing your own work that others may comment upon, are two different things entirely. Do you think big tobacco really cared that they were wrong and lied? They may have found or paid some goof ball to say tobacco is good for you, but they never produced any research that backed that up. They were managing a strategic retreat to prolong profit as long as possible. Same thing the fossil fuel people are doing today with climate change.

We were supposed to have hurricanes too numerous to count. The opposite happened.
Snow was supposed to be a thing of the past. The opposite is happening.
The arctic was supposed to be ice free. The opposite is happening.
Each year was supposed to get hotter & hotter as the CO2 rose. Has not happened for > 15 years.
The Maldives were supposed to be under water. The levels have been unchanged for the last 50 years.

There ARE scientists who disagree with AGW. They are ignored... disregarded as "deniers". Denier, the left's new word for 'heretic".

 

[/pine]

Which of you deniers wants to show the science that explains fewer hurricane occurrences? Come on, I know you can do it. If you folks understand everything about the climate, how about some predictions of your own that can be checked on? Oh, you don't have any because PR machines don't produce science. I forgot.

Why are you trying to put the burden of proof on those that oppose your (misguided) beliefs?