Where’s the warming?

posted at 6:00 pm on June 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Carbon emissions over the past decade actually exceeded predictions by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), no thanks to the global economic recession.  According to their anthropogenic global-warming theories, global temperatures should have risen significantly as a result.   James Taylor at Forbes wonders what happened:

Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.

The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case forglobal sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.

If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

Be sure to check out the links, which show charts over varying time sets, but which all show basically the same thing: no real change over longer periods of time. Not in the Arctic, which Taylor notes was supposed to be the canary in the coal mine, nor in the northern hemisphere, or the globe overall.  That’s even true for just the last decade, but it’s especially true over the period of several decades.  Periods of high amplitudes in warming are matched with low amplitudes.

Earlier this week, I linked to a couple of articles from physicists who have expressed considerable skepticism of the AGW hysteria, including one who worked in Australia’s climate-change ministry.  It’s worth revisiting his observation about the science, its models, and what’s missing:

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

It’s becoming even more clear now.  If carbon increases and the predicted warming didn’t follow, then the obvious conclusion is that the hypothesis regarding cause and effect is incorrect — and the missing hot spots are even further evidence of this.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Conservatives need to stop fighting science. There’s too much money involved for such a large number of people to exclude themselves from such high growth areas of our economy.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:09 PM

As he cherry picks a chart with an irrelevant extremum.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:18 PM

I’m glad you understood the point of that link. It’s irrelevant to reference a single source, even if that source was formerly associated with the Australian ministry of climate change or points to a NASA chart. It’s telling that Ed has to reach so far to justify his political agenda- he can’t turn to the overall conclusions of NASA’s climate research team or to major research universities in the US.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Nope. The obvious conclusion is that more fudge factors are needed.

unclesmrgol on June 12, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Need to move the testing sensors closer to the exhaust vents.

Roy Rogers on June 12, 2011 at 8:26 PM

he can’t turn to the overall conclusions of NASA’s climate research team or to major research universities in the US.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM

NASA (as opposed to NOAA) has no time for real science anymore.

The Muslim Outreach Program requires all their resources now.

Roy Rogers on June 12, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Ok, thanks for that, Count. We really don’t have a clue, do we?

OldEnglish on June 12, 2011 at 8:21 PM

From first principles? I certainly don’t, and I kind of suspect that nobody does. Given that the whole “limit CO2 emissions” thing is based on pure theory…

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:30 PM

I say,all the heat was generated during Hopeys days in the
Hood/Community H*ll Raising,Pelosi’s Demonizing of the Right
and the MSM Over-Heated Narrative of the GOP,as well as the
NeverEnding Friction of Bush Bashing of over eight years,and
the combined heat,of all the Liberl/Progressive Proxies,that
were BrainStorming Political Attacks!

Just imagine,if all that heat,could of been captured,both fr
om their brains,and especially,from their Non-Stop Protest-
ing mouths,

hell,there would of been enough heat generated to power the
entirety of North America,for at least 10 Years!!!!(Snark).

canopfor on June 12, 2011 at 8:34 PM

I’m glad you understood the point of that link. It’s irrelevant to reference a single source, even if that source was formerly associated with the Australian ministry of climate change or points to a NASA chart. It’s telling that Ed has to reach so far to justify his political agenda- he can’t turn to the overall conclusions of NASA’s climate research team or to major research universities in the US.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM

So, you really don’t understand the relevancy of atmospheric temperatures to a discussion about whether atmospheric temperatures are driving changes in surface temperatures?

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:35 PM

No argument with that. It’s just that it isn’t a really strong argument against AGW.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Hmmm. let’s see…Mars, like Earth, has gone through periods of warming and cooling…Mars, like Earth, warmed during parts of the last century…Mars, unlike Earth, has no inhabitants that could cause Mars to warm or cool…Mars and Earth have many other things in common, like being on the receiving end of Solar activity…But that can’t possibly be the cause of warming here on Earth…I guess our solar powered rovers on Mars somehow upped the warming trend on Mars thus making Man responsible for both Man made global warming here on Earth and on Mars…

Gohawgs on June 12, 2011 at 8:35 PM

You know, AGW is such a boon to Socialists. This active pursuit of trying to reduce carbon emmisions allows them to control almost every corner of industry. If it wasn’t real, they’d have to invent it.

Hey …

hawkdriver on June 12, 2011 at 8:43 PM

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM

You have lost the argument. We as Americans are not buying your lies. Much of the world is learning too. Go ask those in Great Britain. You dupes and useful idiots will not get your gold stars.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Hmmm. let’s see…Mars, like Earth, has gone through periods of warming and cooling…Mars, like Earth, warmed during parts of the last century…Mars, unlike Earth, has no inhabitants that could cause Mars to warm or cool…Mars and Earth have many other things in common, like being on the receiving end of Solar activity…But that can’t possibly be the cause of warming here on Earth…I guess our solar powered rovers on Mars somehow upped the warming trend on Mars thus making Man responsible for both Man made global warming here on Earth and on Mars…

Gohawgs on June 12, 2011 at 8:35 PM

That’s all well and good, but people seriously arguing for AGW are going to accept that solar activity plays a roll, but then claim that the CO2 warming is responsible for the long term trend.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Bayam what is funny too is that so much of the supposed science is based on “models”. Models that can be tweaked and set up to find what one wants to find.

QUESTION AUTHORITY you little stupid phukk.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 8:46 PM

You know, AGW is such a boon to Socialists. This active pursuit of trying to reduce carbon emmisions allows them to control almost every corner of industry. If it wasn’t real, they’d have to invent it.

Hey …

hawkdriver on June 12, 2011 at 8:43 PM

Heh.
Of course, it all starts with Thatcher trying to turn public opinion against the public service unions of Brittan’s coal industry, but the leftists have yet to meat the bandwagon they didn’t want to highjack.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:49 PM

It’s in south Texas……damn it.
Every summer.
Mcguyver on June 12, 2011 at 6:14 PM

You know it, bruddah……

john1schn on June 12, 2011 at 8:49 PM

So, you really don’t understand the relevancy of atmospheric temperatures to a discussion about whether atmospheric temperatures are driving changes in surface temperatures?

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 8:35 PM

There’s no point in engaging in that conversation. I’m not a climate scientist and inevitably end up deferring to US research universities and scientific bodies that are widely derided as part of a global conspiracy to promote false science. So what’s the point?

I do think it’s legitimate to point out that today’s science is less than conclusive. But the case against man-made global warming science tends to completely discredit all the science and the scientists. It’s unfortunate that so many conservatives distrust science across the board. Over time it will result in the Chinese and other nations creating wealth from scientific research that has traditionally been part of America’s growth story.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Conservatives need to stop fighting science. There’s too much money involved for such a large number of people to exclude themselves from such high growth areas of our economy.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Once again;
1. We conservatives are not fighting science, as you assert without proof. I and others have asked repeatedly for an hypothesis that meets the basic tenets of science as learned in 6th grade all over the world:
A. Put forth hypothesis
B. Test
C. Repeat test, to insure that the results can be replicated.
D. Publish all data, and invite review and rebuttal.
E. Adjust hypothesis based on broad-based, replicated, reviewed data.

Those who insist that AGW is real, immedidiate, threatening keep skipping steps, and going directly to the science is settled!

This apparently fits the because we said so method,
which is not science.

2. If you propose that AGW would provide some remuneration for conservative investors, please show us how private sector investments in technologies supporting belief in AGW make sense.
If, on the other hand, your premise is that these high growth areas of the economy require massive government spending, over extended periods of time, in order to pan out, not interested.

massrighty on June 12, 2011 at 8:52 PM

There goes my beach home in northern Canada.

clement on June 12, 2011 at 7:34 PM

clement:Lol,were lucky to have two days in a row at 75
degress!!

canopfor on June 12, 2011 at 8:53 PM

I do think it’s legitimate to point out that today’s science is less than conclusive. But the case against man-made global warming science tends to completely discredit all the science and the scientists. It’s unfortunate that so many conservatives distrust science across the board. Over time it will result in the Chinese and other nations creating wealth from scientific research that has traditionally been part of America’s growth story.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:51 PM

You have the occasional young-earther trying to use it to discredit evolutionary science, but what you are talking about is technology, rather than basic science. The real advances don’t come from publicly funded projects but from private research, which is hardest hit by government crowding it out with all of it’s spending.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 9:01 PM

I’m still waiting for someone to layout for me what the solid state of the environment and weather/global temperatures is supposed to be.

I mean, that there is a solid state is implied in the Global Warming/Climate Change notion. The planet had to have fallen from its pristine paradise to be suddenly wrong or in danger.

Sharr on June 12, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Bayam you are far too trusting . What an idiot. Useful you are though. Gawd your scary.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 9:11 PM

Sharr on June 12, 2011 at 9:03 PM

The day before the SUV was invented.

OldEnglish on June 12, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Hey …

hawkdriver on June 12, 2011 at 8:43 PM

hawkdriver:True dat,and every corner of the globe!:)

canopfor on June 12, 2011 at 9:19 PM

The AGW believers need to get together and agree to stop trying the silly fear tactics. Do NOT claim that every weird weather event is related to AGW. Maybe then and only then can your scam succeed.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 9:20 PM

The AGW believers need to get together and agree to stop trying the silly fear tactics. Do NOT claim that every weird weather event is related to AGW. Maybe then and only then can your scam succeed.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 9:20 PM

You’re making Gaia cry.

hawkdriver on June 12, 2011 at 9:29 PM

There is a Weiner Warming joke in here somewhere.

…just…haven’t…yet…got it.

percysunshine on June 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM

I’ve always said that global warming was full of crap! It’s the domain of communists & idiots! I guess that’s an oxymoron to be a communist you have to be an idiot!

Confederate on June 12, 2011 at 9:53 PM

The AGW believers need to get together and agree to stop trying the silly fear tactics. Do NOT claim that every weird weather event is related to AGW. Maybe then and only then can your scam succeed.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 9:20 PM

True story:

Just today I had someone point to the “increase in lightning strikes” as part of “global warming”.

Of course, I had to ask where in the world they heard about an increase in lightning strikes and their answer….

get ready for it…

…because there are more videos and photographs of lightning strikes now than there were 100 years ago.

Really.

I totally didn’t know how to respond. I was speechless.

ButterflyDragon on June 12, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Bayam you are far too trusting . What an idiot. Useful you are though. Gawd your scary.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 9:11 PM

And you’re obviously a clown without the intellectual depth to make a compelling argument. Go ahead and whine about liberals and scientists, and then spend your free time on internet services and technologies that were built by progressives. Keep clicking, monkey boy, and further enrich the liberals running Google, Yahoo, and Facebook.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM

bayam – Compelling argument? You first.

I see I hit a nerve. You’re such the useful idiot. You just spout talking points. What a nut job. Pretty good distortions in all of your posts. Like most liberals you’re a liar and a useful idiot. You simply use one fallacious argument after another. Still no gold star –sorry.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:13 PM

I totally didn’t know how to respond. I was speechless.

ButterflyDragon on June 12, 2011 at 10:02 PM

—Meet:
bayam on June 12, 2011

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Internet services and technologies that were built by progressives.
bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM

You mean the technology built on ARPANET?

Technologies driven by Profit and Capitalism?

Funny how this technology wasn’t created by the Progressive Soviet Union, huh?

Why couldn’t they make that kind of Progress?

Chip on June 12, 2011 at 10:14 PM

I’m glad you understood the point of that link. It’s irrelevant to reference a single source, even if that source was formerly associated with the Australian ministry of climate change or points to a NASA chart. It’s telling that Ed has to reach so far to justify his political agenda- he can’t turn to the overall conclusions of NASA’s climate research team or to major research universities in the US.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Except that he linked to far more sources than one. You’re pathetic.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:16 PM

It’s unfortunate that so many conservatives distrust science across the board. Over time it will result in the Chinese and other nations creating wealth from scientific research that has traditionally been part of America’s growth story.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:51 PM

s t r e t c h

God you’re stupid.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:18 PM

The real advances don’t come from publicly funded projects but from private research, which is hardest hit by government crowding it out with all of it’s spending.

Count to 10 on June 12, 2011 at 9:01 PM

The primacy of private research is a myth. Do you have any idea how many private research projects are initially funded by a grant from a branch of the armed services, or a government department such as DOE? Private investment is typically directed toward commercializing scientific research that already has a clear path to commercial success.

In fact, silicon valley is a byproduct of government funded research. Steve Blank has written a fascinating series of articles that cover this story from the days of WWII:
http://steveblank.com/2010/01/18/the-secret-history-of-silicon-valley-part-14-weapons-system-117l-and-corona/

China has carefully studied how US government funding enabled the West to develop and dominate technologies such as semiconductors and later the internet. Today China is stealing a page from our book by aggressively funding research into high growth areas of innovation.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:18 PM

The primacy of private research is a myth.

You realize that you again just continued with a dishonest tactic to make your point? Do you always lie? You must be a liberal.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:20 PM

God you’re stupid.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:18 PM

At least I’m not a loser. Keep on clicking monkey boy and further enrich Eric Schmidt, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and all those other useful idiots that control hi tech.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Steve Blank has written a fascinating series of articles

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:18 PM

It’s irrelevant to reference a single source

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM

You and your ilk like crr talk yourselves into circles. Laughable.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:22 PM

At least I’m not a loser.
bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Yep striking a nerve. No I will not stand here and put up with your lies and distortions.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:23 PM

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Why aren’t you liberals more happy on your own sites. There are many, many advantages. First, there are more people that think like you. And secondly, they don’t let anyone with a Conservative opinion through moderation because they’re like little freaking kids with their fingers in their ears going, “Lalalalala, I can’t hear you”.

You want to talk about clowns. Talk about your crowd that won’t even address the counter claims.

hawkdriver on June 12, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Bayam:

I responded to one of your posts, upthread, here:

massrighty on June 12, 2011 at 8:52 PM

I had a couple of requests, which you could have responded to, with reason, logic, and proofs.

Your non-response speaks loudly.

massrighty on June 12, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Steve Blank has written a fascinating series of articles

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:18 PM

It’s irrelevant to reference a single source

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM

You and your ilk like crr talk yourselves into circles. Laughable.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:22 PM
—————-

Seriously effing pathetic. Smart guy. /sarc

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Internet services and technologies that were built by progressives.
bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:21 PM

You mean the technology built on ARPANET?

Technologies driven by Profit and Capitalism?

Funny how this technology wasn’t created by the Progressive Soviet Union, huh?

Why couldn’t they make that kind of Progress?

Chip on June 12, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Why couldn’t they make that kind of Progress?

Chip on June 12, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Chip don’t bother . Bayam is not near as smart as he thinks he is.

Funny how capitalism is loathed until a lefty can make a ton of money off of it.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:29 PM

If you propose that AGW would provide some remuneration for conservative investors, please show us how private sector investments in technologies supporting belief in AGW make sense.

I was pointing to the fact that less than 5% of scientists describe themselves as conservatives. Conservatives see the scientists at every major research university in the US- from Notre Dame to Michigan and Stanford- as part of a global conspiracy to produce false global warming science. Where does this take you? Look at the founders of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Oracle, Genetech… where are the conservatives? Don’t fight science, it’s part of our heritage as Americans, from Thomas Edison to the space race. It’s also an important growth engine of the overall US economy.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:29 PM

he primacy of private research is a myth. Do you have any idea how many private research projects are initially funded by a grant from a branch of the armed services, or a government department such as DOE? Private investment is typically directed toward commercializing scientific research that already has a clear path to commercial success.

In fact, silicon valley is a byproduct of government funded research. Steve Blank has written a fascinating series of articles that cover this story from the days of WWII:

http://steveblank.com/2010/01/18/the-secret-history-of-silicon-valley-part-14-weapons-system-117l-and-corona/

China has carefully studied how US government funding enabled the West to develop and dominate technologies such as semiconductors and later the internet. Today China is stealing a page from our book by aggressively funding research into high growth areas of innovation.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:18 PM

You “Quote” all kinds of things like you believe in Science, but the “science” was all a bunch of made up hockey sticks.. as bad as the Photograph science Ms Butterfly made up.

Science as of late has been little to none, poor methodology science from food to Nuclear Science to this little bought of Global warming hysteria on the part of people like you. You decided what is going on and then carefully push your agenda into the puzzle picture.

SCIENCE doesn’t work that way. It shouldn’t be in the pocket of anyone, and you and your “private” money for global warming is a joke.

Just explain to me what the RIGHT temperature is? Can you do just that? It was a lot warmer in the world in the past and those were some pretty darn good years, from England having vineyards to Greenland actually being green. The COLDER ones are where people die. Just tell me WHO gets to decide the right temperatures? IF you say some government body, I am then gonna tell you to stick it where the global warming sun don’t shine.

Noelie on June 12, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Don’t fight science, it’s part of our heritage as Americans, from Thomas Edison to the space race.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:29 PM

“The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

Roy Rogers on June 12, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Don’t fight science, it’s part of our heritage as Americans, from Thomas Edison to the space race. It’s also an important growth engine of the overall US economy.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Since I make my living in manufacturing (as a metrologist,) I might know something about sciences role in Americas history. Your specific reference to Thomas Edison (a private sector inventor, privately funded,) and the space race (which was actually our last successful public-private partnership,) speaks volumes, again. It’s not that conservatives fear science: it’s rather that your side in this debate has not produced any actual science.

Do so, whenever you wish: we’ll test your reproducible data, and see whether it validates your hypotheses.

Until you do this, you’ve done nothing.

massrighty on June 12, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (1/5)
*******************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&feature=related

canopfor on June 12, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Don’t fight science
bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:29 PM

The fallacious arguments continue. You’re a pro!!!!

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:40 PM

It’s unfortunate that so many conservatives distrust science across the board.
bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:51 PM

The fallacious arguments continue. You’re a pro!!!!

the gift that keeps on giving.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:43 PM

maybe it has more to do with that big yellow glowing ball of fire in the sky?

Just maybe….

Yakko77 on June 12, 2011 at 10:44 PM

The big problem for the Warmers is that even if you conceded all their doom and gloom claims, what they are proposing as a solution does not lower temperatures significantly while raising energy costs greatly. I doubt if Obama actually believes his cap and trade regulation will really lower global temperatures significantly. This whole business is an excuse for dramatic tax increases and a shifting of money and power to central governments.

KW64 on June 12, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Bayam you are a master at lying and you wonder why those on your side are not trusted. Your posts are filled with overstatements and deceptive arguments. The AGW believers will blame any climate hiccup on climate change and the useful idiots just sit back and watch.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Global Warming Idiots,were entering an Ice Age!
==================================================

No Manmade Global Warming
Rolf A. F. Witzsche
June 3, 2006
*****************

The Myth of Manmade Global Warming
************************************

Yes we are in a long-term global warming trend, but this trend is not manmade, nor is it in any way exceptional as is illustrated below. We have been recovering from that last Little Ice Age. And it appears that the recovering trend has ended, as a cooling trend has begun from 1998 on (see below).

The current warming trend began in the 1700s with the end of the last Little Ice Age, but we are still far below the medieval optimum and earlier warm periods.

Large Historic temperature swings were experienced throughout the present interglacial period.
********************************************

Global warming assumptions based on false CO2 measurements.
***********************************************************

100 years of direct chemical measurements contradict the foundation for global warming theory
**************************************

Over 90,000 direct chemical measurements have been carried out between 1857 and 1957, which indicate that the natural fluctuation in atmospheric CO2 are far greater than the small changes that the global warming prediction is based on. Nor does any evidence exist that these natural fluctuations had any effect on global average temperatures.

The CO2 portion of the global greenhouse effect is minuscule.
**************

Solar Cycles, not CO2, determine our climate (both the warming and the cooling cycles.)
*********************************

The current global warming trend appears to be coming to an end.
****

Oh yes, global cooling can give us warmer temperatures
(that’s not a contradiction).
*******************************

While the lies continue, the Ice Age is coming closer.
*******************************************************
(More……………)

http://www.rolf-witzsche.com/peace/global/canada/global_warming.html

canopfor on June 12, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Just add this to the failures of “smart power” and economics policies by the “adults in the room”, and you can see why it is so absurd for liberals to go around claiming how “smart” they are.

Epic fail on every front.

Baxter Greene on June 12, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Why couldn’t they make that kind of Progress?

Chip on June 12, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Chip don’t bother . Bayam is not near as smart as he thinks he is.

Funny how capitalism is loathed until a lefty can make a ton of money off of it.

CW on June 12, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Her failure to answer speaks volumes, good night all.

Chip on June 12, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Do so, whenever you wish: we’ll test your reproducible data, and see whether it validates your hypotheses.

Until you do this, you’ve done nothing.

massrighty on June 12, 2011 at 10:35 PM

…the chicken littles in the AGW scam won’t even show their work….”science” is the last thing that the eco-fundamentalist are putting forward.

Baxter Greene on June 12, 2011 at 10:56 PM

“Go ask those in Great Britain. You dupes and useful idiots will not get your gold stars.”

The conservative government in the UK is still paying billions per year in carbon offsets.

davod on June 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM

…the chicken littles in the AGW scam won’t even show their work….”science” is the last thing that the eco-fundamentalist are putting forward.

Baxter Greene on June 12, 2011 at 10:56 PM

I notice a lot of that “afraid of the scrutiny” from these types.

Roy Rogers on June 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM

“Go ask those in Great Britain. You dupes and useful idiots will not get your gold stars.”

The conservative government in the UK is still paying billions per year in carbon offsets.

davod on June 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM

And? Are you from the Bayam school of debate.?

CW on June 12, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Bayam school of debate

ROFLMAO!!!!!

+10!!!

Roy Rogers on June 12, 2011 at 11:08 PM

The Sorus financed groups are already lecturing students about global warming in our schools.

davod on June 12, 2011 at 11:09 PM

I notice a lot of that “afraid of the scrutiny” from these types.

Roy Rogers on June 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM

…yes…and an unbelievable amount of fraud.

Universities,scientist,and the UN have been found to have cooked the books and falsified data….

….their models like, the Hockey Stick, have been shown to be blatant frauds….

……claims like “AGW is destroying the rain forest” have been shown to be false….

……….claims that “AGW is will result in an increase in destructive stroms” have been shown to be false…..

………….claims made about “AGW causing our Glaciers to disappear” have been shown to be false…..

…………….Al Gore’s movie has been proven to be nothing more than political propaganda with false claims riddled throughout it.

……………claims that AGW would raise the ocean levels,create mass migrations and death,and result in starvation,have not come true.

……………….the Polar Bears are not becoming extinct.

…………supposed “scientist” have been exposed falsifying data,suppressing dissent,and out right lying.

…………..supposed”scientist” have refused to show their work to back up their claims and pre-determined conclusions.

….. and liberals like Bayam want to whine about “Conservatives don’t believe in science”….

The reality is that Conservatives are not stupid enough to be fooled by corrupt people using their positions to push unproven claims in their quest for money and power.

Real scientist don’t have to lie and cheat to prove their hypothesis….. “valid science” is not debunked on a regular basis by failed predictions put forth by corrupt activists.

Baxter Greene on June 12, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Real scientist don’t have to lie and cheat to prove their hypothesis….. “valid science” is not debunked on a regular basis by failed predictions put forth by corrupt activists.

Baxter Greene on June 12, 2011 at 11:18 PM

That’s the key that escapes their understanding

Roy Rogers on June 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM

I was pointing to the fact that less than 5% of scientists describe themselves as conservatives.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Link please. Total scientists please, not just academics.

You do realize, do you not, that far fewer scientists work in academia than in the rest of the workforce?

I know more scientists, personally, than you will ever meet, and I only know of two of them being a liberal or a progressive.

Your comment, shown above, is BS.

Yoop on June 12, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Time for a little Paul Shanklin -

Ball of Fire

roy_batty on June 12, 2011 at 11:42 PM

Link please. Total scientists please, not just academics.
Your comment, shown above, is BS.

Yoop on June 12, 2011 at 11:34 PM

http://www.slate.com/id/2277104/

Only if you describe Pew Research Center polls as unscientific. Does it take a Phd to realize that the people dominating high growth sectors including internet, clean energy, and biotech and overwhelmingly not conservatives? This is bad for conservatives, and it’s bad for the country.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 11:48 PM

bayam

LOL

Liberal nitwits are so cute when confronted by facts that undermine their core religious-like beliefs. They simply can’t understand – they refuse to even try.

I picture bayam/et al doing the fingers-in-ears “LALALALALALI’MNOTLISTENINGLALALALA” routine…

Midas on June 12, 2011 at 11:49 PM

The people that accuse conservatives of fighting science NEVER have a science background.

bayam, are you the exception? Do you have any type of science background at all?

blink on June 12, 2011 at 11:11 PM

You mean that scientists have never accused conservatives of baseless attacks on their research?

No, I have never claimed to have the scientific background that qualifies me to analyze complex data and then override scientists at NASA or top research universities. You might ask Ed the same question.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 11:53 PM

Pew is not a reputable organization. They admitted years after the fact that they faked the whole controversy over campaign finance based on their polls in order to push through what became McCain-Feingold. Never, ever trust anything they produce.

slickwillie2001 on June 12, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Another factually challenged AGW post. Every temperature trend is up over he last decade. What he’s done here is take the most recent temperature data point and compared it to ten years ago. This is called cherry-picking. Similar methods would have proved a year ago that temperature was rising faster than predicted. Because temperature trends vary, you fit ALL the data. And when you fit ALL the data, you get 0.15 degrees of warming per decade.

Hal_10000 on June 13, 2011 at 12:08 AM

Only if you describe Pew Research Center polls as unscientific. Does it take a Phd to realize that the people dominating high growth sectors including internet, clean energy, and biotech and overwhelmingly not conservatives? This is bad for conservatives, and it’s bad for the country.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 11:48 PM

“…the online survey of scientists was conducted among a sample of 2,533 members of the AAAS…”

You’re kidding, right?

Yoop on June 13, 2011 at 12:14 AM

Is Bahamas holding down the fort for Oakland? Heh these gullible libtards will believe anything by someone with ‘dr’ for a title. Talk about blind faith and a willing suspension of disbelief.

AH_C on June 13, 2011 at 12:20 AM

The AGW and their ilk are a covert part of the One World movement, and their motives are very questionable. They want us to give away our power to the One World government, where we will be ruled by those that don’t have our best interests at heart, kind of like some of our liberal politicians that we already have.

DL13 on June 13, 2011 at 12:23 AM

bayam, are you the exception? Do you have any type of science background at all?

blink on June 12, 2011 at 11:11 PM

I don’t have a “science” degree, I freely admit, but do you blink and can you prove it? You like to claim your debate opponents all lose in their debates with you and claim this “scientific background” that is on your side… So what is it? Have any peer reviewed papers or contributions to the scientific community at large? What field are you in exactly?

Until you can conclusively do so, your opinion is all you have. And as they say, opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one.

What is your best piece of conclusive evidence that AGW isn’t real or substantial?

SauerKraut537 on June 13, 2011 at 12:44 AM

New York was supposed to be underwater by now.

Damn you real science!

/s

Roy Rogers on June 13, 2011 at 12:53 AM

Because temperature trends vary, you fit ALL the data. And when you fit ALL the data, you get 0.15 degrees of warming per decade.

Hal_10000 on June 13, 2011 at 12:08 AM

Which has been shown to be nothing more than lowering the bar every decade:


Climate models go cold

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.
They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade — yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected.” These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.

..but hey…this is just one of those “scientist” that the eco-fundamentalist keep telling everybody Conservatives don’t listen to.

You might want to let the Godfather of AGW know about all of that warming because he states that there has been no significant warming over the last 15 years:


Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

By Jonathan Petre Daily Mail
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

..and yet more “scientist” dispute how much warming has actually taken place(never mind the fact that there are no hard,factual conclusions that Co2 has anything to do with warming at all)

Was there any actual warming to begin with?
posted at 12:20 pm on February 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The Times of London delivers a separate blow to the AGW movement today in a report on scientific review of the data used to claim man-made warming of the planet over the last few decades.  Several researchers have found that the measurements of temperatures in the AGW record that showed temperature increases mainly came from land development and urbanization, not from actual temperature increases. 

This is called cherry-picking
Hal_10000 on June 13, 2011 at 12:08 AM

Speaking of “Cherry picking”:


Only 9,099 Of Last 10,500 Years Warmer Than 2010

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/256079/only-9099-last-10500-years-warmer-2010-brian-bolduc


Dr. Don J. Easterbrook notes the attention 2010 is getting as a contender for the warmest year of the century. And then he calms everyone down
:

So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010.  Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.

…but the sky is falling….the sky is falling!!!!!!


Now the Met Office says it too: ‘apocalyptic climate predictions’ are misleading

In an article published on the Guardian website, Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, calls on scientists and journalists to stop misleading the public with “claim and counter-claim”.


New Climategate Shocker: Even the CRU Thought the Climate Change Hockey Stick Was Flawed

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-climategate-shocker-even-cru.html

The British Newspaper The Guardian has published the full manuscript of its investigation into the climate science emails taken from the University of East Anglia. Those document cwhich revealed apparent attempts to cover up flawed data; moves to comprise the Climategate scandal, an effort by leading climate scientists, to prevent access to climate data; and to keep research from climate sceptics out of the scientific literature.

..and then we have this famous e-mail exposing one of the AGW lead “scientist” bragging about “cherry picking and falsifying data”:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@ [snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

..and of course this “cherry picked and falsified data was the primary basis of other claims made by “scientist” and institutions around the world.


NASA climate data worse than East Anglia CRU?


Why is this a problem for all of the anthropogenic global-warming (AGW) data sets?  NASA chief James Hansen, now an Obama administration official, explained in the same e-mail thread:

“The different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise,” said Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in the same 2007 e-mail thread. Earlier this month, in an updated analysis of the surface temperature data, GISS restated that the separate analyses by the different agencies “are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations.”
The efforts by NASA, UEA CRU, and NCDC have not been independent of each other at all.  They have been very much related, which means that systemic problems discovered in the UEA CRU data and analyses bleed over onto the other projects as well.  They use each other’s analyses as assumptions, and each other’s data as the basis of their own calculations.  The collapse of the UEA CRU’s credibility necessarily damages the credibility of the entire AGW industry.

The fraud and corruption is so common place in AGW circles that leading environmentalist groups freely admit to lying in the attempt to sell their schemes:


Greenpeace: Yeah, we misled, but we needed the emotionalism
!
posted at 8:47 am on August 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The BBC, later in the interview, gets to the heart of Greenpeace’s agenda:
Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.
Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.

…..let’s tell everybody that the world is going to end unless we bring America down to it’s knees economically..

…how scientific!!!!!!

Baxter Greene on June 13, 2011 at 1:00 AM

China has carefully studied how US government funding enabled the West to develop and dominate technologies such as semiconductors and later the internet. Today China is stealing a page from our book by aggressively funding research into high growth areas of innovation.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 10:18 PM

He’s on to something there. Instead of the democrats bankrupting California and then the whole country why don’t we let the Chinese discover the cure for global warming, when and if it ever becomes a real problem? Then we can steal it back without the discovery fee.

papertiger on June 13, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Again folks, the global warming that hit Earth and Mars was brief. It was due to the heliosphere shrinking because the sun went inactive for a few years. The sun is very active, thus strengthening the heliosphere, and therefore offering improved protection against the gamma rays that heated the atmosphere of both planets.

This is science folks. Al Gore was chasing the wrong causation factor and used pseudo-science to dupe millions of people.

jediwebdude on June 13, 2011 at 1:13 AM

Is there something wrong with this, or is it just me?

this is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air.

Ok one bit of warming plus three bits of warming = four bits

The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three


Now it’s down to three.

so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

and it ends up at two.

I know they teach math in Australia.

papertiger on June 13, 2011 at 1:19 AM

Not a single June bug in SoCal so far this year. Too cold. Shall we start calling them September bugs?

theCork on June 13, 2011 at 1:25 AM

against the gamma rays that heated the atmosphere of both planets

troll alert

papertiger on June 13, 2011 at 1:25 AM

papertiger on June 13, 2011 at 1:19 AM

It could be due to a missing comma:

For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming_,_ due to the extra moist air.

So that is a factor of three, and

two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air

is OK because the 3, of which 1 part is CO2 and 2 parts H20.

pedestrian on June 13, 2011 at 1:30 AM

the global warming that hit Earth and Mars was brief. It [blah blah blah] was due to the heliosphere shrinking because the sun went inactive for a few years.

Heh Heh haw – that’s a good one! a real knee slapper
The ultimate solar denier.

papertiger on June 13, 2011 at 1:31 AM

pedestrian on June 13, 2011 at 1:30 AM

Thanks pedestrian. I’m sure that’s it.

papertiger on June 13, 2011 at 1:40 AM

bayam is all about science. Except that what he chooses to “accept” (read believe faithfully without question), is what the Bible refers to as “science falsely so-called”. When the material upon which a supposedly scientific theory rests has been repudiated, refuted, refudiated, and shown to be full of lies as well as holes, there is no science happening.

But let me back up a moment. I get this regularly from people I know all over the spectrum, that science is absolutely dependable for explaining everything. Science isn’t answers to questions, science is a system of methods which, when properly employed, can lead to the acquisition of potential answers. Nothing more. Worhsipping at the altar of science is as misguided as expecting your child to get the best possible education from a union-driven school. Both are subject to corruption from within and without, and both have agendas which are completely unrelated to their presumed products if not carefully monitored.

Freelancer on June 13, 2011 at 2:11 AM

All this talk of missing hot stops and declining trends is besides the point. AGW is a religion and facts will never be enough to dissuade it’s true believers of it’s correctness.

Fred 2 on June 13, 2011 at 3:32 AM

Gotta ask yourself a few questions…

One, according to the geologic record, was it ever as warm or warmer than today? (Answer, yes – Much warmer)

Two, Was there as much or more greenhouse gasses (CO2, Methane, etc) in the air in the past? (Answer – Yes, much more at times)

Three, was there change in the climate or a steady uptick of temperatures (Answer – Yes, sometimes in as little as a few decades)

Ok.. given the answers to these three questions, how can you judge the AGW/Climate Change Alarmists as anything but useful idiots at the very least or dangerous villains bent on global domination of their ‘green’ religious views at the most.

Wolftech on June 13, 2011 at 3:52 AM

As I read the words, “Climate change ministry” I immediately thought of religious ministry. I understand the term is used more broadly overseas, but it sounded oddly appropriate.

AbaddonsReign on June 13, 2011 at 6:00 AM

This is science folks. Al Gore was chasing the wrong causation factor and used pseudo-science to dupe millions of people.

jediwebdude on June 13, 2011 at 1:13 AM

Go home, boy. Your cult leader was too busy setting up his new 10,000 square foot home on the beach, from the proceeds he’s received from chumps, such as yourself.

MNHawk on June 13, 2011 at 6:05 AM

Propaganda by folks in white coats is just that – it’s essence does not change -propaganda is more effective if they capture a source of credibility (white lab coats)to put an impramature upon their lies. (it’s the scientific equivelent of finding emanations from penumbras hidden deep in the bowels of the constitution)

Let’s see now, who could we get with even more credibility about climate than the grant moneyed white coats? I’ve got it – Nature’s God -the one who alone gives us our rights!

Oh, I forgot – we’ve removed Him from the equation years ago…

Well there’s always political entities with their agendas – like the UN’s IPPC, and an impeccably honest(tee hee) politician – say, how about that Al GOre fellow? He could stand in front of one of those growing glaciers that are calving off icebergs as they break off into the seas and call that (tee hee) ice melting. Yep, that ought to do it.

Don L on June 13, 2011 at 6:28 AM

It’s unfortunate that so many conservatives distrust science across the board.
bayam on June 12, 2011 at 8:51 PM

You set up these straw men and then expect to be taken seriously. Really?

SKYFOX on June 13, 2011 at 6:44 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4