rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.us
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

Seriously?: What's to deny?

You ignore the fact thus stuff has never been proven.

You Ask people to trust and believe you on this yet you offer no evidence? That's the basis for religions and not how science works.

1) Anybody can look at page 19 of the 2012 IPCC Final Report and see the 75% error bars in the sole proof CO2 affects climate.

2) Anybody can look up the temperature readings in the NOAA site and verfy for themselves it has not warmed this century.

3) Anybody can read Jouzel 2007 and see that's it's warmed 3X as fast as this in the recent past.

4) Anybody can read Beck 2007 and see CO2 was twice as high as it is now in the 1930s.

I know you think you're right and tryng to help, but, and I know this may come as a shock, but #MediaLies and it's called #Greenwashig

"I hope you're sitting down: Journalism doesn't exist anymore. It hasn't for at least ten years now. The closest thing we have to journalism now is agenda-driven propaganda dressed up as "objective, hard-hitting news." Yes, this includes your favorite muckraking work over at Mother Jones or whatever. Journalism died a pretty sad death, and yeah, we're all kind of bummed about it." - Nicholas Pell

Adam Curtis - The Rise and Fall of the TV Journalist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9FaIyc4vpU


800 peer reviewed papers skeptical of AGW.


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.


New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

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


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years

But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.

Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed its tune after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.

The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.

The last IPCC ‘assessment report’ was published in 2007 and has been the subject of huge controversy after it had to correct the embarrassing claim that the Himalayas would melt by 2035.

It was then engulfed in the ‘Climategate’ scandal surrounding leaked emails allegedly showing scientists involved in it trying to manipulate their data to make it look more convincing – although several inquiries found no wrongdoing.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.


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."


https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models

Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models

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).

CITATION: “Comparing the Model-Simulated Global Warming Signal to Observations Using Empirical Estimates of Unforced Noise,” Patrick T. Brown, Wenhong Li, Eugene C. Cordero and Steven A. Mauget; Scientific Reports, April 21, 2015. DOI: 10.1038/srep09957


NY sued Exxon for "knowing climate change was real"... and lost. Because it's not.

Australia will no longer contribute to major UN climate change fund

Australia will no longer contribute to a major United Nations fund used to combat climate change. Following previous promises by Prime Minister Scott Morrison to no longer “tip money into that big climate fund,” the country made its final $19 million contribution in December, according to budget documents released today and reviewed by Climate Home News. The climate fund Morrison was referring to, the Green Climate Fund, was a basis for the Paris Climate Accord, with wealthier countries agreeing to contribute to projects that help developing nations lower their greenhouse gas emissions.


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?


Big data finds medieval warming period.


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


Evidence-Based Climate Science 2nd Edition 2016

Table of Contents List of Contributors Preface Part I. Climatic Perspectives Chapter 1. Climate Perspectives 1. Introduction 2. The “97%” Myth 3. The Scientific Method Versus Dogma 4. Comparison of Computer Modeling of Climate With Measured Temperatures 5. No Global Warming for 18 Years and 8 Months 6. Hottest-Year-Ever Claims 7. Data Corruption 8. The Past Is the Key to the Future Part II. Temperature Measurements Chapter 2. A Critical Look at Surface Temperature Records 1. Introduction 2. The Global Data Centers 3. The Golden Age of Surface Observation 4. Vanishing Stations 5. See for Yourself: The Data Are a Mess 6. Station Dropout Was Not Totally Random 7. Instrument Changes and Siting 8. Along Comes “Modernization” 9. Adjustments Not Made, or Made Badly 10. Heat From Population Growth and Land-Use Changes 11. U.S. Climate Data 12. U.S. State Heat Records Suggest Recent Decades Are Not the Warmest 13. Major Changes to USHCN in 2007 14. Hadley and NOAA 15. Final Adjustments: Homogenization 16. Problems With Sea Surface Temperature Measurements 17. Long-Term Trends 18. Summary Chapter 3. Is the NASA Surface Temperature Record an Accurate Representation? Chapter 4. In the Climate Debate, Hear Both Sides 1. Are Today's Temperature Changes Unprecedented? 2. Was the Glacial-to-Interglacial Global Warming as Little as 3°C? 3. Was 2014 “The Warmest Year on Record”? and Does It Matter? 4. What Is the Ideal United Kingdom and Global Temperature? 5. Stretching the Vertical Axis of the Temperature Graph 6. Imagined Effects of Global Warming 7. Is Sea Ice Really Declining Rapidly? 8. Rising CO2 Concentration and Its Effect on Global Temperature 9. Are the Computer Models of Climate Reliable? 10. Has Climate Science Become Dishonest? 11. Are Floods and Droughts Worsening and Crops Failing as Predicted? 12. Conclusions Chapter 5. Southeast Australian Maximum Temperature Trends, 1887–2013: An Evidence-Based Reappraisal 1. Introduction 2. Materials and Methods 3. Results and Discussion 4. Conclusions Part III. Extreme Weather Events Chapter 6. Weather Extremes 1. Introduction 2. Extreme Weather Events and the Earth's Climate 3. Heat Extremes 4. Cold Extremes 5. Floods and Droughts 6. Tropical Cyclones and Tornadoes 7. Economic Losses Due to Extreme Weather 8. Human Fatalities and Heat and Cold Extremes 9. Summary and Conclusions Part IV. Polar Ice Chapter 7. Evidence That Antarctica Is Cooling, Not Warming 1. Introduction 2. Are Antarctic Glaciers Melting at an Accelerating Rate? 3. Is Antarctica Warming or Cooling? 4. Physical Data Show Lack of Antarctic Warming 5. Cooling of the Southern Ocean Around Antarctica 6. West Antarctic Ice Sheet 7. Conclusions 8. Evidence of Stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet 9. Credibility of the “Unstoppable Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet” 10. Isostatic Rebound 11. Conclusions Chapter 8. Temperature Fluctuations in Greenland and the Arctic 1. Greenland 2. The Arctic Part V. Carbon Dioxide Chapter 9. Greenhouse Gases 1. Role of Water Vapor 2. Carbon Dioxide 3. Global Warming and CO2 During the Past Century 4. Geologic Evidence That Global Warming Causes Increased Atmospheric CO2—CO2 Does Not Cause Global Warming 5. CO2 Lags Warming Over Short Time Spans Chapter 10. Is CO2 Mitigation Cost Effective? 1. Introduction 2. Projected 21st-Century CO2-Driven Warming 3. Method 4. Other Greenhouse Gases 5. The Intertemporal Discount Rate 6. Welfare Loss From Inaction 7. The Cost–Benefit Ratio 8. Illustrative Case Studies 9. Results 10. Discussion 11. Conclusions Part VI. Oceans Chapter 11. Relationship of Multidecadal Global Temperatures to Multidecadal Oceanic Oscillations 1. Introduction 2. The Southern Oscillation Index 3. Multivariate ENSO Index 4. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation 5. Frequency and Strength of ENSO and the PDO 6. Correlation of the PDO and Glacial Fluctuations in the Pacific Northwest 7. ENSO Versus Temperatures 8. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) 9. The North Atlantic Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation, and the AMO 10. Synchronized Dance of the Teleconnections 11. Using Warm and Cold Pools in Operational Seasonal Forecasting 12. Short-Term Warm/Cool Cycles From the Greenland Ice Core 13. Where Are We Headed During the Coming Century? Chapter 12. Sea Level Changes as Observed in Nature 1. Introduction 2. “Poster Sites” for Lobbyists 3. Test Areas of Eustatic Changes in Sea Level 4. Satellite Altimetry Before “Corrections” 5. Discussion 6. Conclusions Chapter 13. Ocean “Acidification” Alarmism in Perspective 1. Introduction 2. The Historical Record of CO2 and Temperature in the Atmosphere 3. The Adaptation of Species to Changing Environmental Conditions 4. The Buffering Capacity of Seawater 5. The Ability of Calcifying Species to Control the Biochemistry at the Site of Calcification 6. A Warmer Ocean May Emit CO2 Back Into the Atmosphere 7. Summary of Experimental Results on Effect of Reduced pH on Calcifying Species 8. Conclusions Part VII. Solar Influences on Climate Chapter 14. Cause of Global Climate Changes: Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays, and Radiocarbon and Berylium Production Rates 1. Solar Variation—Grand Minima 2. Radiocarbon (14C6) Production Rates 3. Berylium-10 (10Be4) Production Rates 4. Cosmic Ray Incidence and Climate 5. Conclusions Chapter 15. Solar Changes and the Climate 1. Introduction 2. The Earth–Sun Connection 3. Warming Due to Ultraviolet Effects Through Ozone Chemistry 4. The “Pause” and Climate Projections 5. Summary Chapter 16. The Sun's Role in Climate 1. Introduction 2. Solar Activity Changes Over the Last 10,000 Years 3. Medieval Warm Period 4. Is Something Missing in the Climate Models? 5. Solar-Forced Millennial Climate Cycles 6. Coverage of Millennial Climate Cycles in the Fifth IPCC Climate Report 7. Conclusions Chapter 17. The New Little Ice Age Has Started 1. Introduction 2. Milankovitch Cycles and Interrelated Variations in Climate and Abundance of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere 3. Interrelated Variations in the Climate, Total Solar Irradiance, and Solar Activity 4. Quasi-bicentennial Variations in Total Solar Irradiance and Mechanisms of Its Secondary Additional Influences 5. The Quasi-bicentennial Solar Cycle Determines Variations in Both the Duration and the Power of the 11-Year Solar Cycle 6. The Average Annual Energy Balance of the Earth 7. Quasi-bicentennial Variation in the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to an Energy Imbalance of the Surface–Atmosphere System 8. Current Total Solar Irradiance Decrease in the Quasi-bicentennial Cycle Has Led to a Long-Term Deficit in the Earth's Energy Balance and the Beginning of a New Little Ice Age 9. Sensitivity of Climate to Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide 10. Convection, Evaporation, and Condensation in Transfer of Thermal Flow at the Earth's Surface 11. Powerful Volcanic Eruptions Lead Only to Short-Term Cooling Periods 12. Future Deep Cooling Can Become a Major Problem for the Development of Petroleum in the Arctic 13. Increasing Global Temperature on the Earth Has Stopped Since 1997 14. Conclusion Chapter 18. Aspects of Solar Variability and Climate Response 1. Solar Activity in the Little Ice Age and Modern Warm Period Chapter 19. The Notch-Delay Solar Hypothesis 1. Introduction 2. The Notch in the Empirical Transfer Function 3. The Delay 4. The Force-X Hypothesis 5. The Force-ND Hypothesis 6. Mechanisms 7. A Prediction 8. The Notch-Delay Solar Model 9. Conclusions Appendix A: Acronyms Part VIII. Climate Models Chapter 20. Correcting Problems With the Conventional Basic Calculation of Climate Sensitivity 1. Introduction 2. The Conventional Calculation of Climate Sensitivity 3. Problems With the Conventional Basic Climate Model 4. Proposed Feedback: “Rerouting” 5. Externally Driven Albedo Could Be Significant 6. Alternative Model 7. The “Hotspot” 8. Calculating the ECS Using the Alternative Model 9. Conclusions Appendix: Acronyms Part IX. Climate Predictions Chapter 21. Using Patterns of Recurring Climate Cycles to Predict Future Climate Changes 1. Introduction 2. The Past is the Key to the Future: Lessons From Past Global Climate Changes 3. Significance of Past Global Climate Changes 4. Correlation of Temperature Cycles and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation 5. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation 6. Where Is Climate Headed During the Coming Century? Index


Thus the BBC is engaged in the extinction of journalism

It never occurred to the BBC to ask who might be behind Extinction Rebellion, since a coordinated world-wide movement like this does not arise through spontaneous action.

Evidence that has emerged so far indicates a cynical alliance between capitalists and anti-capitalists. This piece suggests that behind Greta Thunberg, the movement’s teenage figurehead, lies a powerful non-profit industrial complex which has manufactured and promoted a youth movement in order to “to unlock 100 trillion dollars from pension funds” in the “financialisation of nature”.

This piece by Paul Homewood highlights documents reportedly retrieved from Extinction Rebellion’s computer database which reveal that its aims include “to build structure, community and test prototypes in preparation for the coming structural collapse of the regimes of western ‘democracies’ — now seen as inevitable due to stored-up crisis. Thus preparing a foundation to transform society and resist fascism/other extremes. This includes creating Rising from the Wreckage – a citizens’ assembly based on sortition [random selection]”.

As Forbes magazine noted here, over the past 150 years the world has warmed by a mere 0.8 degrees – and even that has tapered off to essentially flatlining over the last decade and a half.

As climate scientist Vijay Jayara wrote: “There is poor correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature. Between 2000 and 2018, global temperature showed no significant increase despite a steep increase in carbon dioxide emissions from anthropogenic sources. The same was the case between the years 1940 and 1970. When carbon dioxide concentration increases at a constant and steady rate and temperature doesn’t follow the pattern, we can be certain that carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of global temperature.

Data about temperatures in the USA from the NOAA show that, in six of the past nine months, temperatures were below normal — and the US temperature average is actually cooler now for 2019 than in 2005 when the dataset started. So is global warming only, er, occurring in Europe?

In March, a NASA study found the famous Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland was starting to grow again “after retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually since 2013,” but is growing the past two years (2016-2018). And for most of the past 10,000 years, the Greenland Ice Sheet was smaller than it is today.

As for the supposedly record number of wildfires, according to NASA global wildfires have dropped since 2003 by 25 per cent.

By this, Taalas meant that deep greens have been abusing the reports of the IPCC, cherrypicking parts that they think will support radical action.

“The IPCC reports have been read in a similar way to the Bible: you try to find certain pieces or sections from which you try to justify your extreme views. This resembles religious extremism.”

What are witnessing is not the imminent extinction of the planet. It is the extinction of reason.


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.


http://www.real-science.com/consistent-pattern-data-tampering

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.


fraud

As in "lies and deception".


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."


"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."


The lawn of Trinity College is seen after being dug up by Extinction Rebellion climate protesters

The lawn of Trinity College is seen after being dug up by Extinction Rebellion climate protesters

A spokeswoman for Trinity College said: "The college respects the right to freedom of speech and non-violent protest but draws the line at criminal damage and asked the protesters to leave.


 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.


https://medium.com/@spann/the-age-of-disinformation-98d55837d7d9

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:






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.


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

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


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282389821_Re-evaluating_the_role_of_solar_variability_on_Northern_Hemisphere_temperature_trends_since_the_19th_century

Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century

Debate over what influence (if any) solar variability has had on surface air temperature trends since the 19th century has been controversial. In this paper, we consider two factors which may have contributed to this controversy: 1. Several different solar variability datasets exist. While each of these datasets is constructed on plausible grounds, they often imply contradictory estimates for the trends in solar activity since the 19th century. 2. Although attempts have been made to account for non-climatic biases in previous estimates of surface air temperature trends, recent research by two of the authors has shown that current estimates are likely still affected by non-climatic biases, particularly urbanization bias. With these points in mind, we first review the debate over solar variability. We summarise the points of general agreement between most groups and the aspects which still remain controversial. We discuss possible future research which may help resolve the controversy of these aspects. Then, in order to account for the problem of urbanization bias, we compile a new estimate of Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature trends since 1881, using records from predominantly rural stations in the monthly Global Historical Climatology Network dataset. Like previous weather station-based estimates, our new estimate suggests that surface air temperatures warmed during the 1880s–1940s and 1980s–2000s. However, this new estimate suggests these two warming periods were separated by a pronounced cooling period during the 1950s–1970s and that the relative warmth of the mid-20th century warm period was comparable to the recent warm period. We then compare our weather station-based temperature trend estimate to several other independent estimates. This new record is found to be consistent with estimates of Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature (SST) trends, as well as temperature proxy-based estimates derived from glacier length records and from tree ring widths. However, the multi-model means of the recent Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) climate model hindcasts were unable to adequately reproduce the new estimate — although the modelling of certain volcanic eruptions did seem to be reasonably well reproduced. Finally, we compare our new composite to one of the solar variability datasets not considered by the CMIP5 climate models, i.e., Scafetta and Willson, 2014's update to the Hoyt and Schatten, 1993 dataset. A strong correlation is found between these two datasets, implying that solar variability has been the dominant influence on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since at least 1881. We discuss the significance of this apparent correlation, and its implications for previous studies which have instead suggested that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide has been the dominant influence.


Dyson founded the field of climate science and "got out when money corrupted it". Currey is an IPCC contributor and an expert on arctic ice. Linzen has some good proofs while Spencer is a NASA climate scientist and professor.


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


"NASA ignored the principlews of physicist and best scientific practice"

Nobel prize winner Richard Feynman stated that in the shuttle disaster hearings.

Here is the 1986 footage of the Challenger Shuttle Disaster and here is Feynman showing how NASA screwed up. Never mistake consensus for truth.


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.


Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination

A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny.




800:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html


1000:
http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore


2011 NASA: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
https://web.archive.org/web/20111008000517/http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html


2013 DailyMail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html


2013 DailyMailIPCC: World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html


2014 DailyMail: Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html


2014 not hottest: NOAA says 2014 was warmest year worldwide on record; state climatologist John Christy disagrees
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/01/noaa_says_2014_was_warmest_yea.html


2015 Duke: Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models
https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models


2019 Lawsuit: NY sued Exxon for "knowing climate change was real"... and lost. Because it's not.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-10/exxon-prevails-over-n-y-in-climate-change-accounting-case


2020 AusPullout: Australia will no longer contribute to major UN climate change fund
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/436986-australia-will-no-longer-contribute-to-major-un-climate-change-fund


8100: An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417


97 per cent: 97% of climate scientists believe AGW?
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats


ancient:
https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/08/big-data-finds-the-medieval-warm-period-no-denial-here/


dont panic:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366


easterbrook: Evidence-Based Climate Science 2nd Edition 2016
https://www.elsevier.com/books/evidence-based-climate-science/easterbrook/978-0-12-804588-6


extinction of reason: Thus the BBC is engaged in the extinction of journalism
https://www.melaniephillips.com/extinction-of-reason/


failed model:
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/coming-century-predictions.pdf


faked-numbers:
http://www.real-science.com/consistent-pattern-data-tampering


faked data:
http://www.real-science.com/consistent-pattern-data-tampering


greenpeace:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic


half:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/11/20/only-50-scientists-blame-mankind-climate-change-new-study


lawn: The lawn of Trinity College is seen after being dug up by Extinction Rebellion climate protesters
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/18/climate-change-protesters-dig-trinity-college-lawn-cambridge


lukewarmers:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all


manufactured consensus:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/16/manufacturing-consensus/


math:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uif1NwcUgMU


misinformation:
https://medium.com/@spann/the-age-of-disinformation-98d55837d7d9


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


rs1:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995239/Why-Royal-Society-wrong-climate-change-devastating-critique-world-s-leading-scientific-organisation-one-Fellows.html


rs2:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316469/Royal-Society-issues-new-climate-change-guide-admits-uncertainties.html


scc2015: Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282389821_Re-evaluating_the_role_of_solar_variability_on_Northern_Hemisphere_temperature_trends_since_the_19th_century


scientists in opposition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


skeptic:
http://www.capitolreportnewmexico.com/?p=6691


skeptic2:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html


upenn: Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf