From your link : “When one carefully reads the report, we find that the NOAA findings actually do confirm precisely what the skeptics have been claiming all along:
1. The Earth has stopped warming.
2. The climate models exaggerated future warming [caused by] CO2 climate sensitivity is much lower than we first thought.
“That’s the real issue at hand,” he added.
---------------------------------
Let's remember that date - August 13, 2013
---------------------------------
" All of the top ten warmest years in the record have occurred since the last major El Ni?o event, in 1998." : http://www.climate.gov/news-features/und...
Residual warming from the Natural Super El Nino event? Possible, but not according to alarmists.
Well your propaganda piece said
"NOAA also reported that the “average lower strastospheric temperature, about six to ten miles above the Earth’s surface, for 2012 was record or near-record cold, depending on the dataset” even while the concentrations of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, continued to increase."
Do you think perhaps your source should have mentioned that a cooling STRATOSPHERE is one of the predictions of global warming?
So I'm going to go with your source as doing the doublespeak, and not NOAA.
Environmental doublespeak is an understatement. I love watching the lunatic global warming err...Climate change fundamentalists squirm every time a report comes out that invalidates their religious environmental beliefs. Antarctica was supposed to me melted off and we were to have massive coastal flooding from higher sea levels and the polar bears are supposed to be extinct by now. Al Gore said so more than 10 years ago and Ted Dansen said that in the 90s. But we have record breaking levels of Antarctic sea ice and below average temps in the arctic and proof that the world is on a cooling trend.
But like any other religion global warmists will believe in their idealism in spite of any and all fact that contradicts them. They'll spin the fact until the rest of us get too dizzy to take them seriously.
After all in 2001 UK winter snow was to be a memory....a thing of the past. Those massive blizzards in the UK were just figments of our imagination and when summer came around the global warmists act like winter never happened...just like they pretend the medieval warm periods never happened or were confined to tiny sliver of remote earth at the time.
I had to laugh when not a single person showed up for a climate change rally sponsored by Obama's lunatic fringe too.
The NOAA represents and analyzes reports reports based on data submitted to them from over 1300 weather stations throughout the world and it is not propaganda.
CNS news however is biased and their BS news comes from the Media Resource Center which is a conservative right wing media watch dog, and totally unreliable. It wouldn't surprise me to learn they receive $$ from Koch or Exxon.
NOAA is a government bureaucracy.
bu・reauc・ra・cy
/byo?o?r?kr?sē/
Noun
A system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.
A state or organization governed or managed according to such a system.
As a bureaucracy, its primary function is to grow and part of that is ensuring its budget for the future. Bureaucrats at NOAA have certainly noticed that AGW is a mechanism for it to grow. Those who think they have motivations for furthering science are naive IMO.
NOAA ia an agency the enriches life through science. our reach goes from the surface of the sun to the depths of the oceans floor as we work to keep citizens, informed of the changing environment protecting life and property and to conservation and protecting natural resources.so, the new NOAA just report environmental double speak.
I commented on it when it came out, saying that they obviously had to recycle 2012 events, because there were not enough disasters for them this year, and the major event in 2012 was the huge Arctic cyclone that lasted for weeks and pushed a lot of Arctic ice into warmer waters.
have you actually read the NOAA report or depend on opinion from media?
Why don't you try reading and referencing the report, rather than an "interpretation" of it?
Edit: You want me to give somebody else a chance to sell me his opinion rather than going to the original and forming my own. No thanks. I mute TV ads and discard spam unread, as well.
Yes, apparently so. THANKS MUCH.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend
