As of 1990, the IPCC didn’t see any Mann-made global warming.
In 1975, the National Academy Of Sciences didn’t see any global warming
In 1975, NCAR didn’t see any global warming
Hansen showed the US cooling :
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.
in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country
NOAA and CRU didn’t see any US warming
February 04, 1989 Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.
US temperatures were much hotter in the 1930s
Scientists were more worried about global cooling
The Milwaukee Sentinel – Google News Archive Search
Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.
The Windsor Star – Google News Archive Search
http://news.google.com/newspapers/
The Deseret News – Google News Archive Search
In the last decade, the Arctic ice and snow cap has expanded 12 per cent, and for the first time in this century. ships making for Iceland ports have been impeded by drifting ice.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html
Man-made global warming was fabricated around the year 2000 by people with no morals who were willing to tamper with data in exchange for funding.
Nice assembly of data…. as usual. Not to mention that:
1.There is no hot spot
2. No increase in Hurricanes
3. No increase in large Tornadoes
4. Droughts worse in the 1930s
5. 100 degrees in every state of the lower 48 (within a month) twice in the 1930s
6. Worse fires in the past
7. Worse floods in the past
8. Bandwidth of absorption of CO2 maxing out
9. Declining atmospheric humidity readings
10. Photographic and Journal records of rapidly ablating glaciers going back into 1800s.
11. Ancient Forests appearing from beneath glaciers
12. Previous records of decreasing arctic ice
13. Increasing ice in Antarctic, up overall worldwide
14. Increasing snow cover in northern Hemisphere
15. So called “Solutions” to so called CAGW don’t address CO2, just build redistributive global government.
Skeptics need to start calling this what it is. A Gigantic scam.
I prefer the word FRAUD. And if I am really feeling nasty Murder I.
Here is an interesting link for you, mister Goddard. Temperatures in the upper Arctic are not only below normal, but are now dropping off a cliff into deep below normal territory. – See more at: http://theweathercentre.blogspot.ca/2013/08/arctic-temperatures-plummeting.html#sthash.wzbj3Pf3.dpuf
The problem with the “skeptic” vs. “believer” labels is that your are pitting entrenched factions against each other. To a believer, a skeptic is an unbeliever, someone to be shunned.
We need a better label than skeptic. Something that implies we are willing to examine the facts and evidence to decide what is happening (or not). Used to be that such an individual could be considered an amateur scientist. The term scientist has been crapped upon by the so-called climatologists, so I think that is out.
Ideas? (I’m fresh out)
Pragmatists.
Realists
I like that one. Even Obama voters would understand it.
Dialog from a ‘Star Trek: Voyager’ episode called ‘Coda’ :- “I raised you to be a doubter and a skeptic, to look at the world with a scientist’s eye.” (Jan., 1997) .. So maybe ‘doubter’ could be a good label. A doubter is uncertain about the truth, fact or existence of something. We doubt if any observed changes are caused by mankind, mainly because there is a lack of .. “empirical and measurable evidence that is subject to specific principles of reasoning.” (‘Rules for the the Study of Natural Philosophy’, Newton 1999, Book 3, pp. 794.)
A ‘believer’ believes that AGW claims are true, correct, and factual, without considering that .. ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of evidence if they are to be believed.’ .. Of couse, ‘belief’ is not part of the scientific method. .. “When [Kepler] found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions. That is the heart of science.” – Carl Sagan
… sorry! .. only one word (doubter) was supposed to be bold!
I’m really liking “Climate Realist”
It’s taking a page from the “progressives” and hijacking a term that will resonate with the public.
No more “believers” vs. “skeptics”.
When you argue on the side of the “climate realists” vs. “believers”, you’re ahead just on the terminology.
Scientist.
A true scientist*** will take one look at this mess and go YUCK!
Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
***Scientist is a mindset, a way of looking at the world and has nothing to do with schooling or credentials.
Sorry for the double post. I wanted to ask your attention for the temperature drop in the Arctic region, see the first picture in the link I mailed. But now I am looking at the second picture, the temperature anamoly map. The colour deep dark purple, almost going to black, is used for temperatures that are more than 10 degrees C (or K) below normal. I was looking at the region in that colour and is that not just the region where those lunatic Arctic rowers are trying to proove global warming? I know they are idots, but with temperatures of ten degrees below normal there is a big chance they will freeze to death.
http://theweathercentre.blogspot.nl/2013/08/arctic-temperatures-plummeting.html
I sure hope they will understand that they were wrong, but I am afraid this will be their last thougt. It reminds me of the man who wrote a note, just before he died in the desert. It said: After a long day of traveling through the desert, I was getting a bit thirsty. I was looking in all the things I brought with me, and then I realised I had forgotten to bring some water. So people when you find me and you read my note: Never travel through the desert without carrying enough water.
My latest meme is casual referral to “Climatology members.”
http://s8.postimg.org/z3pcr8gjp/Climatology_Extracted.jpg
Reblogged this on CACA.
Reblogged this on Roald j. Larsen.