It's good to have some sort of understanding before you give your opinions on a subject such as "global warming". Allow me to correct some of your mistakes and perhaps you can form a new question that sounds more intelligent...

First of all, the term "global warming" simply refers to a gradual increase in average global temperature over a significant period of time. All of the scientific data (even from the "skeptic" sceintists) show that pattern over the past 100 years. Anyone that argues that fact is wasting their time. The argument is on the impact of humans to the warming trend. This is called "anthropogenic global warming" which simply means humans caused it. If you're going to argue global warming, then you need to argue the reason of the warming trend (humans or natural forcings) and not the existence of the phenomenon itself.

Having said that, there are plenty of "non liberal scientists" that accept the data as showing a warming trend. Most REAL scientists do not reveal their political affiliation and only deal with the evidence. The few you see on TV or the radio are such a small minority of the group. When you mix politics with science, you get lots of ignorance and grandstanding from both of the parties. Meanwhile the scientists are simply doing their job and collecting/interpreting data because that's their job. Most of them take it very seriously. To real scientists, science comes before politics. They don't go to school for years thinking "hey, maybe I can make up scientific data and push my agenda on unsuspecting people in order to embezzle money and votes for the liberal party". They go to school because they enjoy and respect the science.

Winter is not an example of global cooling. Winter is a seasonal climate variation that is a result of less incoming solar radiation due to the tilt of the earth. When it's winter in the northern hemisphere, it's summer in the southern hemisphere, and vice-versa. The total amount of solar heat that reaches the earth doesn't change. So it makes no sense to bring up seasons when talking about global warming or cooling. That's why it's called GLOBAL warming and not regional warming.

Deserts are not categorized as being hot. They are deserts because of the lack of precipitation. There are hot deserts, cold deserts (Antarctica is actually the largest desert in the world), and seasonal deserts. The temperatures vary depending on lattitude and climatic factors. So snowfall in a desert (which is rare because snow is precipitation) is in now way evidence that global warming is false. In fact, if snowfall increases in a desert, then that could possibly be evidence that supports global warming. I know that might sound stupid to you, and I see people argue this all the time, but that's because they're ignorant of how weather and climate works. Snow is simply frozen rain. It freezes in the atmosphere after it is evaporated from the surface and transported elsewhere. Evaporation is caused by, guess what, HEAT and low pressure. How did you think that snow got up there? Did you think it was always there? If so, why hasn't it stopped snowing because eventually it runs out right? It's WINTER dude, if it snows during the winter in a region it's not going to stop snowing just because the global temperatures are rising, in fact the opposite could be true because of more heat causing more evaporation and snowfall (such as the record snowfall we've had in the Northeast US lately). Global warming doesn't always cause more snowfall/rainfall though, it can cause droughts, it's all dependent on how the GLOBAL temperature increase impacts the climate in a particular region.

It gets much more complicated, but I was just hoping I could educate you a bit so you don't keep making the same mistakes. I don't expect everyone to be an expert on weather and climate, but I feel that some of these concepts are fairly easy to understand and get misrepresented too often.

It all started with a "challenge" from Margaret Thatcher in 1987-88 when she told the Royal Society that there was Government money "on the table" to prove that human industry was warming the Planet by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. "Maggie" was wanting Great Britain's energy production to come from nuclear power. She didn't want GB's energy security to be controlled by Coal Miner's Unions or Middle East Oil Cartels. It was purely a political strategy.

The Royal Society then directed their efforts towards the United Nations. The UN then established the IP CC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). The United Nations has been a politically motivated Government conglomeration since its inception. This gave the UN another revenue source along with another avenue of Government control worldwide.

It has been 26 years since the beginning of the UNIP CC and according to satellite temperature anomalies at UAH here : http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-globa... , global average temperatures haven't risen one bit while atmospheric CO2 measurements have risen approximately 10%.

Jan 1988 anomaly : 0.28C above the established global mean

Last updated anomaly (August 2014) : 0.20C above the established global mean.

ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends...

Jan 1988 CO2 level : 350.13ppm

Current CO2 level (Sep 2014) : 394.98ppm

There isn't a discernible connection with CO2 levels to atmospheric warming which hasn't happened. Global average temperatures went through a "convulsion" in 1997-98 from a Super El Nino (a totally natural event), but nothing much has really happened with temperatures in the past 26 years besides that.

It seems that "environmental climate science" ("climate clowns" IMO) has been playing right along with nature. They say that the "heat" is hiding somewhere and they are still "seeking" it, while they continue with their unsubstantiated claims based on a "political and financial" objective.

Additionally :

It seems that the past 10 or so years they have been "screaming" even louder that temperatures continue to rise and setting all kinds of "warming" records. The fact of the matter is that wind speeds on the oceans have "greatly decreased", which gives the illusion of higher surface temperatures through the anomalies.

" ... a curious thing has been shaping up in the last few years. Global average ocean surface wind speeds have been decreasing. In fact, August 2014 had the lowest surface wind speed in about 25 years. ... "

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/u...

" ... Wind-driven evaporation is the largest source of heat loss from water bodies, including the global oceans. Assuming a global average rate of ocean surface heat loss of 90 W/m2 (which is mostly evaporative), the August value of about 4-5% below the long-term average would mean about 4 W/m2 less cooling of the ocean surface.

Importantly, this 4 W/m2 reduction in heat loss is LARGER than the supposed anthropogenic radiative forcing of about 2.3 W/m2, the IPCC’s RCP6 current radiative forcing value. (The true radiative imbalance is actually less than that because warming has offset some of it with increase IR emission to space). The net result that the wind speed effect is probably at least 4 times the anthropogenic effect. ... "

Dorkster, nobody could match your stupidity. You are th poster boy for the inane.

Yes people are. Just look at the politicians. It all boils down to Goebbels' theory.

Joseph Goebbels,

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The lie is an important tool of the evil and it works on the uninformed.

Gary F: I ignore you on this subject because you are so dense and even though I have explained this in the past with clarity and exactness. Yet you don't get. I didn't come up with the quote. I didn't originate it. I copied and pasted it from a reputable source. This quote is too often quoted for there to be any question in any mind of the informed. Now I am going to challenge you. Prove that he didn't say that. I bet you can't! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! And what are you doing defending a NAZI? Tsk! Tsk!

You are correct not to believe it. Contrary to what others have said, there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support man-made Global Warming.... NONE. There was a little natural warming leading up to the year 2000 but not much. It was well within the envelope of natural variability and should have never raised as much as an eyebrow, let alone wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on this SCAM.

The man-made Global Warming SCAM is all about raising taxes and destroying liberties and keeping the grant money flowing to the climate fraud industry. They have been riding the man-made Global Warming gravy train for more than 30 years already and as long as we pay them their big fat paychecks each week to continue screeching about it, they will do exactly that.

There is NO **man-made** Global Warming and there has never been any.

What global warming? It's been cooling for at least 12 years according to HadCrut3 & HadCrut4 is nearly flat. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

According to RSS Satellite data there has been no warming for almost 18 years.

Previous： Is 2014 going to be the hottest year on record thanks to 'Mike's Nature Trick'?

Next：How does the issue of climate change relate to the economic problem of scarcity?