Global Quackery: Earth Has Not Warmed For Past 19 Years, New Study Finds

Did you even bother to read the link in your OP? The clue is in the sentence "The Telegraph newspaper in the UK has published a fascinating article detailing data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI). " which is the basis for your link. Notice the source of the data? - DMI !

ANOTHER THREAD FAIL!!

Directly from the DMI addressing the article:
Danish Meteorological Institute
(with contributions from Mads Ribergaard and Gorm Dybkjær)
The articles in The Telegraph and The Daily Wire fundamentally misrepresent both our research and the operational data products we provide freely to the public. Below are the details of where the Telegraph and the Daily Wire stories are misleading or simply wrong based on our data.:

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...res-plummet-the-telegraph-christopher-booker/

So in conclusion, the source of the data DMI, produced by meteorological scientists used in your OP written by a blogger, states that your link is a ANOTHER THREAD FAIL

 

"Natural news"? REally???

I mean - "really???

Epic fail

Natural news has even less truth per letter than a Trump Tweet!!!

 

How did I make crapola up when I pointed that scientists use quackery science to compensate for what cannot be compensated without quackery and shamanism?

Thank you for the confirmation.

 

I am not asking anybody someone who has spent a lifetime studying the subject for his money.

But those who have spent a lifetime studying the subject are asking for my money.

Because they cannot earn money buy doing anything useful.

I can.

 

Those who don’t have a research paper get data from youtube?

Is this the only choice you have?

Do you need a research paper that the Earth is spinning around the Sun?

I said all one needs is some education, some idea about thermometers, technological measurements and instrumentation and thermometers used in weather stations in the given period of time.

You have no such idea, do you?

How a research paper would help you then?

Do you know that a liquid in glass thermometer with 1C divisions (used in the most stations) has -+.25C allowed accuracy in a process of calibration by a naked eye in laboratory conditions?

Not in a weather station condition, but in laboratory conditions.

Not after a few months of work in desert/artic conditions, but in laboratory conditions.

Have you ever google “weather” before going for a picnic for a day?

Have you ever understood what do results say?

.008C?

How a research paper would help you then?

 

Maaaate I am not the one who uses you tube instead of academic referenced works based on observable facts

Like the above - where is your references or have you just pulled it all out of "Uncle Bob's Blathering Bullshit Blog"

 

Prove it

 

Do I really need to prove that:

I am not asking anybody someone who has spent a lifetime studying the subject for his money.

But those who have spent a lifetime studying the subject are asking for my money.

?

And that I am not a camel?

ROFL

I guess I should take the graph above as you not using youtube but an academic referenced work.

ROFL

 

Then you admit that it is only YOUR opinion and therefore insignificant in the debate on climate science

 

We are talking about the temperature of the earth Genius not the temperature in your back yard.

Now its time to expose the lie of that graph.


Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.





1520-0493(197106<0755:GTVSMA>2.0.CO;2

I combined the two graphs at the same scale below, and put a horizontal red reference line in, which shows that the earth’s atmosphere has not warmed at all since the late 1950’s



The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years. But it gets worse. The graph in the NOAA report shows about 0.5C warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original published data shows little warming during that period.



They are lying to you Genius. Wake up and don't be a sucker to people whose very lives depend on funding for their theory.

https://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/

 

This is why looking at 30 40 50 or even 100 years is beyond stupid.

Let's look at the last 10,000



More pretty pictures.

Even the last near 1000 years shows warming and cooling on a regular basis.




Here's a hint Climate nutjobs. Cars weren't around when the hottest periods over that time came to pass on this earth. For God's sake wake up.


From an actual scientist. Not one that pretends to be one on tv



He also exposes the fabrication of numbers by NOAA

For liberals who simply cannot listen to actual science for that long you can start at 12 minutes when he starts to expose the temperature fraud and owns the climate nutjobs.

 

You conclusion is as close to logic as your graph to science .

ROFL

 

June 1978?????

Honestly - that paper is older than most of the members on this board!!!!

 

Science by yountube : roll:

Since we are at that level this just might explain it to people struggling with big words

 

Leftists prefer to believe Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School.
Who better to *teach* the Left *science*.

 

Isn't that what Micheal Mann was saying in his email exchange regarding AR4

Its all a bit reminiscent of the Mann, Christy, Curry and Pielke exchange all over again... sad really

 

You'll notice she also wasn't brave enough to give us the bullshit leak she got the graph from.

Since cars have been around for about 100 years how did we continue to go up for the other 19,900 years if humans are the cause?

How about it @Bowerbird ? I dare you to answer it.

How about 400,000 years?




How did we continue to go up and down without evil mankind for hundreds of thousands of years?

 

And I am the first to agree that there are academics who think that they have all the brains in the world but I still would rather someone who knows what he is talking about over some idiot who does not understand basic chemistry and physics

 

I have already explained this

Milankovitch cycles and variable solar output and neither have you given us the link for your graph

Btw you can do what I am forced to do all the time. Use Google image

Oh and it is a CARTOON.

 

Al Gore is irrelevant to the discussion

 

No you haven't because you can't.

That's the only one I haven't and I'll provide it now.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Where is yours?

And if that's your explanation for the past why isn't it the same for the present?

Exactly. Just like your argument.

Its why you never gave a link because you know you've got nothing.

 

Complete BS. He's one of the morons of your cult who can't get a single long term prediction right just like the rest of your cult leaders.

 

Hi, I think that really encapsulates the problem with the climate debate. I agree people do not understand the nuances of the science and modelling or its conclusions or trends basically because of the sheer complexity of the systems involved and their interactions. However, some of those people take decisions which cost taxpayers huge amounts of money based on a group dynamic. Look at the likes of Mann and the level of vitriol he exudes at people who do not think that he is just so absolutely right! Look at how the likes of Christy, Curry etal have been vilified for their views by the likes of him and politicians and EPA because they don’t blindly follow the herd – the amount of times the 97% bomb keeps being lofted in without knowing where that figure comes from or how it was arrived at!

There is good science being done which is contradicting the group think - science needs to be rigorously debated and all views considered and just discarding results which the group don’t like is dangerous. Especially when most of the science being done cannot agree on some of the basic questions or facts. Everyone (well mostly) accepts that the planet has warmed over the last 100+ years but not why. Everyone knows that CO2 has been introduced into the atmosphere by man but don’t really know its effects other than it has an infrared emission spectra and that’s about it.

Sorry, I Just want to make it clear I'm not pointing out any issue with your posts or playing games - just making general comments.

 

Bull.

Gore wasn't a scientist.

Those interested in science do NOT use Gore as a reference for science.

Why would they???

If you ever had any credibility, so much for THAT!

 

No, you too fail to note that Gore is not a scientist.

The issue is science.

There are gigantic numbers of sources for science, since climatology is being studied in pretty much every college and university around the world as well as in the private and governmental science organizations doing climate research in all countries.

If you want to discuss science, you need to cite some science.