http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
And don't believe the claims of Graphicdecption. The claims by the graph that most of the last 5,000 years was warmer than the present is an absolute lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stic...
And Madd Maxx uses cherry picked data
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/fro...
And discredited videos.
As a scientist (geologist) and a conservative, I can assure you that politics is not compatible with science and global warming alarmism is all about exaggerating any warming to push a leftist agenda.
They don't even talk about ice core samples,
ice cores are useful to get rough calcuations of atmospheres in polar regions 150 years ago and earlier. They show that warming causes CO2 increases, not vice versa. Ice core data isn't the panacea many claim it is. It takes about 150 years for the fern to form enough to trap bubbles. In that time, the CO2 migrates through dissolved fluids, preferentially dissolves with other compounds, and is mixed over the entire 150 years. As it forms it becomes more impervious to CO2 moving through the ice and liquid in the ice and eventually it may be sealed enough to provide useful information but it isn't very precise. Plant stomata (the openings on leaves to let plants breathe) indicate CO2 varies far more than indicated by ice cores. Anyway, some skepticism should be exercised over ice core data. Some of it, such as ice core data in Greenland isn't too useful in pushing AGW alarmism because it shows a warmer medieval warm period
how the greenhouse effect works, The simple version is polarized molecules absorb a certain limited spectrum of light in the case of CO2 corresponds in a large degree with a portion of the IR spectrum of light
why they dispute the hockey puck graph. It is hockey stick and it is pure garbage. For example it adds thermometer data (the hockey stick blade) to tree ring data because the tree ring data wasn't convenient or alarming. Much of the tree ring data is exaggerated and misused. Mann created algorithms out his *** so that one proxy, Bristlecones, could account for all the exaggerated warming. Just keep an open mind and learn. I would suggest you avoid political blogs like skepticalscience because it isn't skeptical and it isn't science.
The graph you linked to starts conveniently right at the warming. Before that global cooling was theorized because the world was cooling. We have apparently been warming for nearly 300 years with minor cooling and warming periods since then.
... and here is that warming trend you are talking about.
Go on, tell me you can clearly see the effect of man-made global warming.
Watch how the temperatures start to agree with the hype over time as they are adjusted: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/gi...
Look at two parts of the same time series. One was man-made and the other was before man-made CO2 could kick in:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1895-1946_1957-2008_temperature-compare.png
The extremists are nut cases with their pseudo-science and conspiracies but it's not just the global warming denialists that are such nut cases, there are similar extremists on the global warming side and you see these views with other topics such as the Ebola workers being killed by people who are convinced it's a government conspiracy. It's just that the mounting evidence with global warming are such that a higher proportion of the denial camp are the extremists.
Well, I’m not one myself to believe in conspiracy theories. In most cases they are simply a feeble minds attempt to understand something through the misuse of null hypothesis.
However, when your take a global organization such as the UN, and start by doing the right thing in bringing leading scientists together to study and conduct scientific critical assessment towards probably the most complex interactive physical planetary phenomenon known to man, but then quickly devolve this group into a tool of politics, diplomacy, and activism…..
And this same organization brings forth a proposition known as Agenda 21!
Well, again I’m not saying you should believe in conspiracy theories,
But, I understand
I can see that your mind is already made up and I'm wasting my ink, because you call skeptics denialists.
But you should believe the skeptics because all the facts are on our side.
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.
if you want me to believe in global warming, come up with accurate predictions. So for now I'll believe in the Farmers Almanac. It's over 20x more accurate.
science proved global worming in no way can be man made . CO2 is at its lowest point on record . even from the ice cores ,the ice caps are huge ,bigger than in decades , If any thin ,its the sun . man can do nothing about it ,and has done nothing to cause it .
What do you have the say about the report issued by the left wing group on the effect of warming in U.S. west being the fault of winds, not man? Kind of deflates your whole theory, does it not?
I find the same problem when visiting climate change believer sites, they allude to the overwhelming evidence that backs climate change but never elaborate, you just have to take their word, which is not satisfactorly for me.
The fact is it is up to climate change proponents to prove their hypothesis, and that they have not done, empirical evidence (temperature rise, icecap melt, rising sea levels) are just not accelerating, and they have to, if global warming is real.
I decided to see what all the global warming "controversy" was about and visited some sites questioning it. Every single site I visited focused on Al Gore's hypocrisy and allegations of supposed fraud. They don't even talk about ice core samples, how the greenhouse effect works, why they dispute the hockey puck graph. In other words, they don't actually debate the science itself, and other than claiming it's all a hoax, they have no rebuttals to any of the arguments make on the global warming site.
You are correct, you shouldn't. I have asked here for the identification a paper to show that man does not cause half the warming, and got none. I can think of a few reasons to be skeptical, but the deniers here do not know enough to come up with them. Just some cherry-picked data, or mis-information.
You shouldn't believe shiit those crazy hippies say
if it's hard for you to listen to conspiracy theories, why is it easy for you to listen to lies. yes global warming is a lie.
Raised ocean temperatures are what has caused overall raised surface temperatures (involves "record temperature" claims). When you realize that ocean winds have diminished considerably recently (which scientifically means that surface temperatures are corrupted by showing a higher reading), then you might understand why the science has to be continually questioned.
Name calling suggest to me that you have no case. The data DO NOT support the AGW hypothesis.
You shouldn't. They are pathological liars with single digit IQs
People do not deny, they just don't buy the hype.
you shouldn't
and many of them here seem to have OCD
posting the same thing day and night day after day for weeks, months, years.
@Maxx - here's that global warming "pause" you're talking about.
You shouldn't....... they're just repeating the approved right wing lies. These lies are fascinating for "conservative" morons who spread them as quickly as they can suck them out of Karl Rove's butt.
"Conservative" morons will even give you scientific-sounding bullsh*t so you can start your own little denial agency.
Better safe than sorry.
This is what they are really afraid of. They are Christians. They want suffering.
The extremists are nut cases with their pseudo-science and conspiracies but it's not just the global warming denialists that are such nut cases, there are similar extremists on the global warming side and you see these views with other topics such as the Ebola workers being killed by people who are convinced it's a government conspiracy. It's just that the mounting evidence with global warming are such that a higher proportion of the denial camp are the extremists.
Well, I’m not one myself to believe in conspiracy theories. In most cases they are simply a feeble minds attempt to understand something through the misuse of null hypothesis.
However, when your take a global organization such as the UN, and start by doing the right thing in bringing leading scientists together to study and conduct scientific critical assessment towards probably the most complex interactive physical planetary phenomenon known to man, but then quickly devolve this group into a tool of politics, diplomacy, and activism…..
And this same organization brings forth a proposition known as Agenda 21!
Well, again I’m not saying you should believe in conspiracy theories,
But, I understand
I can see that your mind is already made up and I'm wasting my ink, because you call skeptics denialists.
But you should believe the skeptics because all the facts are on our side.
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.
if you want me to believe in global warming, come up with accurate predictions. So for now I'll believe in the Farmers Almanac. It's over 20x more accurate.
science proved global worming in no way can be man made . CO2 is at its lowest point on record . even from the ice cores ,the ice caps are huge ,bigger than in decades , If any thin ,its the sun . man can do nothing about it ,and has done nothing to cause it .
What do you have the say about the report issued by the left wing group on the effect of warming in U.S. west being the fault of winds, not man? Kind of deflates your whole theory, does it not?
I find the same problem when visiting climate change believer sites, they allude to the overwhelming evidence that backs climate change but never elaborate, you just have to take their word, which is not satisfactorly for me.
The fact is it is up to climate change proponents to prove their hypothesis, and that they have not done, empirical evidence (temperature rise, icecap melt, rising sea levels) are just not accelerating, and they have to, if global warming is real.
I decided to see what all the global warming "controversy" was about and visited some sites questioning it. Every single site I visited focused on Al Gore's hypocrisy and allegations of supposed fraud. They don't even talk about ice core samples, how the greenhouse effect works, why they dispute the hockey puck graph. In other words, they don't actually debate the science itself, and other than claiming it's all a hoax, they have no rebuttals to any of the arguments make on the global warming site.
You are correct, you shouldn't. I have asked here for the identification a paper to show that man does not cause half the warming, and got none. I can think of a few reasons to be skeptical, but the deniers here do not know enough to come up with them. Just some cherry-picked data, or mis-information.
You shouldn't believe shiit those crazy hippies say
if it's hard for you to listen to conspiracy theories, why is it easy for you to listen to lies. yes global warming is a lie.
Raised ocean temperatures are what has caused overall raised surface temperatures (involves "record temperature" claims). When you realize that ocean winds have diminished considerably recently (which scientifically means that surface temperatures are corrupted by showing a higher reading), then you might understand why the science has to be continually questioned.
Name calling suggest to me that you have no case. The data DO NOT support the AGW hypothesis.
You shouldn't. They are pathological liars with single digit IQs
People do not deny, they just don't buy the hype.
you shouldn't
and many of them here seem to have OCD
posting the same thing day and night day after day for weeks, months, years.
@Maxx - here's that global warming "pause" you're talking about.
You shouldn't....... they're just repeating the approved right wing lies. These lies are fascinating for "conservative" morons who spread them as quickly as they can suck them out of Karl Rove's butt.
"Conservative" morons will even give you scientific-sounding bullsh*t so you can start your own little denial agency.
Better safe than sorry.
This is what they are really afraid of. They are Christians. They want suffering.
