Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: "Not Reality... Totally Inconsistent With Cre

Yet you have fallen for mass hysteria and have no clue about the history of this mass hysteria you have fallen under. Have you ever taken the time to really investigate the alarmist claims (all of which have failed spectacularly so far)? If you did you would not be so arrogantly sure of yourself and repeat such nonsense.

 

learn how to think logically and stop being so ridiculous

i contribute facts, evidence and logic

"Global warming is happening now. The planet's temperature is rising. The trend is clear and unmistakable.

Every one of the past 40 years has been warmer than the 20th century average. 2016 was the hottest year on record. The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.

Globally, the average surface temperature has increased more than one degree Fahrenheit since the late 1800s. Most of that increase has occurred over just the past three decades.

We are the cause. We are overloading our atmosphere with carbon dioxide, which traps heat and steadily drives up the planet’s temperature. Where does all this carbon come from? The fossil fuels we burn for energy—coal, natural gas, and oil—plus the loss of forests due to deforestation, especially in the tropics.

The scientific evidence is clear. Within the scientific community, there is no debate. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is the primary cause."

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...E#.VH4LFU0tCHs?s_src=promo&s_subsrc=googleads

 

No CV=No Credibility to interpret the science.

 

And what percent of the scientist that believe in AGW get their funding from the Federal Government (the taxpayer)?????

 

Sweet hyperventilation.... Love it. So, again, the question isn't are we warming. Clearly, we have, (albeit by <1F) the standard of "within the last hundred years) is frankly laughable. It ignores historic data/evidence where the climates of the world were significantly warmer that we are today, and still supported a viable environment. The only thing overwhelming about this is the amount of incredible histrionics it produces from those who believe they have to right to force folks around the globe to slip into the yoke of servitude they wish to establish. Nothing more.

 

I'd say the salient part here is the willful use of tax payer funding to go off and produce the ridiculous. The standard for getting research approved in govt isn't very high these days....

 

Well, ZeroHedge is THE predominate distributor of scholarly articles related to science. You'd take the research of tens of thousands of actual scientists over a right-wing rag that reads at a 6th grade level?

 

what a bunch of malarkey

 

Ah, the limits.... Snark on the way out.. Love it.

 

There is no 97% consensus. That has been debunked long ago.

 

that's ridiculous

 

Yes the 97% is ridiculous. It came from a student survey of thousands where only a small fraction answered and those that did answer were "self certified" scientists. Even that fraction that answered was not 97% and the question in the survey was a "push question".

97% is a dishonest lie produced by leftists so they can gain more power and control of hard working people's lives and money. Notice EVERY solution involves spending MORE AND MORE AND MORE.

 

Global warming is like the whole racism thing.

Those of you who believe the world is ending or whatnot, you guys need to stop attacking, bullying and flat out making fun of people who disagree with you.

Those people (including myself) simply stop listening and see you as a quack.

It's like the racism calls going up everywhere no matter what, just because someone disagrees with you does not make them stuipd/evil/racist/whatever. The more you attack people like a high school kid the more people will simply dismiss you.

 

your baseless criticisms are what's ridiculous

"Studies of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming that are based on literature surveys give higher and more consistent results than opinion polls. Using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five literature surveys (11-15) agree closely (literature survey 10 did not use rejection alone). They comprise 54,195 articles from 1991-2015 and reveal an average consensus of 99.94%. I estimate that at least 150,000 individual authors wrote those articles and that number does not include all those who wrote about AGW during the period, only those found using specific search terms."

"I was born in Berea, Kentucky in 1936 and graduated from Berea College with a degree in Geology.

I hold a Ph.D. in Geochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and several honorary degrees, including Doctor of Science degrees from Berea College and from Oberlin College. I taught Geology at Oberlin College for over 20 years.

I served as Acting President of Oberlin, President of Franklin and Marshall College, President of Reed College, President of the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia, and President and Director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History.

President Reagan and later, President George H. W. Bush, appointed me to the National Science Board, where I served for 12 years. Asteroid 9739 Powell is named for me.

I have written eleven books, the most recent of which is 'Four Revolutions in the Earth Sciences: From Heresy to Truth', published by Columbia University Press. In 2015 I was elected a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)."

~ James L. Powell, Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium.

http://www.jamespowell.org

a stitch in time saves nine, they'll save more than they cost

 

Is this also malarkey?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/28/iceland-turns-winter-wonderland-record-snowfall/

Iceland turns into winter wonderland after record snowfall

 

Then there is that heat at Greenland, you remember? Where glaciers melted?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/02/g...adding-extraordinary-amounts-of-ice-and-snow/

Greenland Enters 2017 Adding Extraordinary Amounts Of Ice And Snow

 

Some of us, "deniers" as you love to call us, though we have long told you we accept the climate does change ....

Also informed you we may be headed into a cooling period

I showed Iceland and Greenland is getting record levels of snow.

Do you also think we humans solved the problem you say we created?

 

Not to mention the record snowfall in the Sierra's ending the CA drought that seems to also mysteriously have been solved. Gotta love the ingenuity of man to rapidly address the shortfalls of nature ending peril to our world.... Oh wait.. that was mother nature... Never mind...

 

HOLY BLOG OF PROPAGANDA!!!

Who believes these lies? This is insanity shopped to "useful idiots", so that they will repeat it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#5e2aa09b3f9f

Wow... after reading my link, I bet you feel really foolish. I did you a favor. You no longer have to go around with a Chicken Little belief. You're welcome.

 

that really is quite amusing

i posted science, facts and evidence from a well-respected scientist

and you posted a link to an article by a known koch-puppet, who gets paid to parrot lies

"The main vector for this line of argument is a book-length piece of sophistry, The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels, authored by Alex Epstein. Epstein is a full-time advocate for burning of oil, coal, and petroleum gas. He’s sponsored by the now-infamous petrochemical billionaires the Koch brothers.

He claims to be an energy policy expert, but his pedigree is that of an ideologue. After graduating in philosophy, Epstein spent 7 years at the Ayn Rand Insitute in California, before founding his own Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), which provides a superficially appealing spin on the beliefs of the most regressive quarters of the energy industry."

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...or-coal-in-australia-just-an-imported-pr-line

yes

 

Historically, those seeking control over others have often whipped up hysteria in order to get it.

 

that sounds like science-deniers

 

Establishment climate scientists have been "correcting" raw temperature data input to the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) models, which has had the effect of showing a rate of increase and eliminating the near 20-year lack of increased warming. A new study (On the Validity of NOAA, NASA, and Hadley GRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding) strongly suggests that all or almost all the warming for the last 20 years, and a significant amount for the last 50 years, is accounted for by "corrections." As a result, the study calls into question the EPA's "Endangerment Finding" for CO2, which justified the Obama administration's restrictive rules on carbon emissions issued just before the end of their term.

The temperature measurements are fed into a model, which includes "corrections". The difference between GAST and the predictions of GAST is becoming too big to ignore. Climate scientists then looked for reasons and added new corrections -- but some of them were controversial.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data 'adjustments', that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

The 'corrections' account for nearly all the recent warming. When your 'corrections' to the input data appear to provide all the evidence for a phenomenon, it's time to be suspicious.

More fudge than heat!

 

Please explain how this paper can be properly peer reviewed.

I can tell you it can not just like the rest of the papers with some or all of the people listed have attached their their names to.

This paper can not be reviewed. It lacks detailing the methodology used and just gives very general sources for the the data used. Which means this paper can not be properly peered reviewed.

If they are right they need to publish the full paper and not what appears to be an abridged version. General scientific consensus has been changed before. This happens by scientist releasing their very detailed findings, methodology and how they got the results they did.

I suspect there is a reason when a "paper" is released trying to debunk GW it lacks any real information allowing proper peer review. There is also probably a really good reason that the Heritage Foundation or similar are somehow involved with it. There is also probably a good reason that those supporting it always seem to be the same 7-10 scientist.

I could be wrong and these scientist just do not understand the peer review process and how important it is. Maybe they do not know they need to release more details in their papers.

 

political reasons