rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.us
Interests | Me | OPINIONS| Works
Events | IDEAS| People | Things
CLIMATE| Computers | Dns | Economics | Internet | Language | Legal | Medicine | Music | Open minded | Pharma | Public | Rants | Myths
97 | Animals | Arctic | Climategate | Co2 | Cosmic | Env | Extinctions | Fraud | Glaciers |NO CONSENSUS| Oceans | Oil | Ozone | Poles | Pollution | Rhetoric | Scientists | Weather | Cool | Cooling | Dark uk | Data | Stalled | Upenn | Mast
Its over | Perception | 1000 | 2014-fake | 2014 not hottest | 800 | 8100 | 97 per cent | NASA | Dont panic | Duke | Error 75 | Failed model | Faked | Faked data | Greenpeace | Half | Lukewarmers | Manufactured consensus | Math | Ancient | Misinformatio | Nasa stalled | Rs1 | No warming | Rs2 | Scientists in opposition | Skeptic | Skeptic2
Debunking the myth of consensus on global warming.
No Consensus
"I can tolerate being called a skeptic because all scientists should be skeptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal." - Timothy Ball, climatology professor emeritus at the University of Winnipeg in Canada

"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists."


perception

Public confidence in the AGW hypothesis eroded in proportion to the error in the models. Amusingly, as that error went up so did the confidence factor in them expressed by te PCC in the media.


The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.



NOAA says 2014 was warmest year worldwide on record; state climatologist John Christy disagrees

"It wasn't the hottest," said Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville as well as the state's climatologist.

While the National Climatic Data Center in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) disagreed, it included climate research from UAH in its report.

According to NOAA, the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest since record keeping began in 1880. It surpassed the previous high marks by 0.07 of a degree Fahrenheit.

The average temperature across the globe in 2014 was 1.24 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average, according to NOAA.

The conflict is that UAH measures atmospheric temperatures, not surface temperatures. The UAH data focuses on the lowest troposphere - the area between the earth's surface and roughly five miles into the atmosphere.

The atmospheric temperatures, Christy said, indicated that it was the third-hottest year on record - topped by 1998 and 2010.

"2014 was in a cluster of warmish years," said Christy, long known to be skeptical of claims of dangerous global warming. "That cluster is distinctly cooler than the two hottest years - 1998 and 2010."

2015 was supposed to be warmer. Yet even in a hot place like Brazil, things died of cold not heat it got cold enough to kill tropical animals. "Some of the fish were imported from Africa, Asia and Oceania. An Anambi document said 80% of the fish died from a temperature drop as winter approached in Brazil."


800 peer reviewed papers skeptical of AGW.


An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures

The rate of warming in the 20th century was the same as the rate of warming in the 80 previous centuries.

There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.


97% of climate scientists believe AGW?

No, those statistics, like many others have been fraudulently manipulated, it's actually less than 1%. It's actually 75 people on climate grants, that's why they give the number as a percent. The thing to ask is percent of what?


NASA calls the whole thing off. Now can we please get back to worrying about pollution instead?


There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy. Opinion signed by sixteen scientists.


A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


September 2013 - A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.


PCC computer models have predicted the global temperatures will rise 1° per decade (Fig. 40A) for the next 10 decades and be 10° warmer by 2100. According to their models, global temperature should have warmed 1° from 2000 to 2011, but global climates have actually cooled, not warmed, since 1998 (Fig. 40B). Thus, the computer models have failed badly in predicting global climates and therefore must be considered unreliable.


A Consistent Pattern Of Data Tampering Posted on February 8, 2012 by Steven Goddard Global warming activists posing as scientists have engaged in a systematic pattern of altering data sets to prove global warming.


A Consistent Pattern Of Data Tampering Posted on February 8, 2012 by Steven Goddard Global warming activists posing as scientists have engaged in a systematic pattern of altering data sets to prove global warming.


Dr. Patrick Moore is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as president of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a director of Greenpeace International


"Linda Prokopy, a Professor of Natural Resource Social Science at Purdue University, surveyed more than six thousand farmers and scientists and found widespread disagreement on human contributions to climate change. While 90 percent of scientists and climatologists surveyed thought the climate was changing, only about 50.4 percent contended that humans were the primary cause of these changes. More shocking was that just 53 percent of climatologists surveyed thought “Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities.”

"This evidence is inconvenient to the many media outlets that have endlessly repeated that 97 percent of scientists endorse the global warming hypothesis. Prominent outlets like NBC and The New York Times, as well as countless others, have effectively shut down debate by asserting there is no scientific debate."


 So, should we worry or not about the warming climate? It is far too binary a question. The lesson of failed past predictions of ecological apocalypse is not that nothing was happening but that the middle-ground possibilities were too frequently excluded from consideration. In the climate debate, we hear a lot from those who think disaster is inexorable if not inevitable, and a lot from those who think it is all a hoax. We hardly ever allow the moderate “lukewarmers” a voice: those who suspect that the net positive feedbacks from water vapor in the atmosphere are low, so that we face only 1 to 2 degrees Celsius of warming this century; that the Greenland ice sheet may melt but no faster than its current rate of less than 1 percent per century; that net increases in rainfall (and carbon dioxide concentration) may improve agricultural productivity; that ecosystems have survived sudden temperature lurches before; and that adaptation to gradual change may be both cheaper and less ecologically damaging than a rapid and brutal decision to give up fossil fuels cold turkey.

 We’ve already seen some evidence that humans can forestall warming-related catastrophes. A good example is malaria, which was once widely predicted to get worse as a result of climate change. Yet in the 20th century, malaria retreated from large parts of the world, including North America and Russia, even as the world warmed. Malaria-specific mortality plummeted in the first decade of the current century by an astonishing 25 percent. The weather may well have grown more hospitable to mosquitoes during that time. But any effects of warming were more than counteracted by pesticides, new antimalarial drugs, better drainage, and economic development. Experts such as Peter Gething at Oxford argue that these trends will continue, whatever the weather.

 Just as policy can make the climate crisis worse—mandating biofuels has not only encouraged rain forest destruction, releasing carbon, but driven millions into poverty and hunger—technology can make it better. If plant breeders boost rice yields, then people may get richer and afford better protection against extreme weather. If nuclear engineers make fusion (or thorium fission) cost-effective, then carbon emissions may suddenly fall. If gas replaces coal because of horizontal drilling, then carbon emissions may rise more slowly. Humanity is a fast-moving target. We will combat our ecological threats in the future by innovating to meet them as they arise, not through the mass fear stoked by worst-case scenarios.


The difference between fact ("the earth is round"), consensus ("the earth is flat") and manufactured consensus (cherry picking data to produce a "consensus" for the benefit of a few).


A good laymans explanation of how you're being lied to about climate.


Big data finds medieval warming period.


A bit of signal in a world of noise.


http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2241

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2241/

February 23, 2015 - "The past year was the warmest year on record, though their analysis has 2014 in a virtual tie with 2005 and 2010. "

When several years all tie for the warmest year it means temperature isn't increasing. Or to put it another way, no year even reached 1998's temprature, let alone exceeded it.



Note two things about this graph:
  1. It's got more cold bits than warm bits
  2. It stops rising at the end.


Consider the fact it's part of a longer curve that looks like this:






Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world's leading scientific organisation by one of its Fellows

  • The Royal Society's motto is 'Nullius in verba' or don't take another's word
  • It is the world's first scientific organisation in the world Prof Michael Kelly fears that on climate change, it is ignoring the science
  • He accuses the organisation of becoming dogmatic about climate change

April 2014 - Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.


Royal Society issues new climate change guide that admits there are 'uncertainties' about the science

By NIALL FIRTH FOR MAILONLINE
UPDATED: 07:26 GMT, 7 October 2010


Wikipedia article about scientists who oppose the mainstream assessment of global warming.


A article raised a furor when it was billed as a climate skeptic finally understood the truth. But that's not what happened at all.


Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name.