Sea level rise is no longer a threat, Antarctica and Greenland GAINING ice.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You said this "...You, and the rest of the AGWers simply want to use a false argument to impose your will on the rest of humanity. "

So is listening to NASA and other respected scientific organizations and caring about the Planet, mean that I want to impose my will on you? No. I'm just a guy with a small business family etc. I care about pollution, and being in Vegas and seeing the temp rise steadily in the past 20 years, I care about the heat. One reason I'm moving out of here soon, It's getting way to hot and unbearable. But back on point, I don't want to impose my will on you, I just choose to believe science over Right wing News pundits. You can't blame me for that can you? I chose not to be a sheeple, believing the corporate lie that humans have no effect on the envirnoent, fossil fuels are safe and healthy and the earth is not warming.

You believe in science right?

originally posted by: Robotswilltakeover
NASA is finally admitting that the Antarctic is overall gaining ice. Greenland is also gaining ice. Most of the world's glaciers are growing, and for anyone who likes to ski the season is beginning early this year. Everywhere that was once covered in glaciers is beginning to become colder. Expect this to be the most brutal winter the world has ever seen, but of course the "man-made climate-change" believers will say things like, "Oh, but some places get colder." Is it just a coincidence that the "places getting colder" are the exact same places that were covered in glaciers thousands of years ago?

www.nasa.gov...

The theory of AGW is officially dead. Dress warm.

Sea levels are still rising.
Greenland is not gaining ice.
Most of the world's glaciers are not growing.
The only 'accurate' claim is that one brand-new study on Antarctica concludes that ice is getting thicker in East Antarctica rather than thinner, contrary to previous studies.

Their claim is that the rock under the ice in Antarctica is not rising (as other studies conclude), but falling. What they refer to is plate rebound, where the sheer weight of a mass of ice being removed causes the plate to decompress.

Given the gross inaccuracies in the OP, this thread should go in the hoax bin.

I agree that no doubt that CO2 levels are at record highs. The historical data shows that if anything we are in for another "Ice-age" or Glacial state as opposed the the inter-glacial state the Earth is currently in.

The graph below(taken from Antarctic station "Vostok") and shows ice core sampling of O2,CO2 and average temperature differentials.

The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation.

Whether the ultimate cause of temperature increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor probably doesn't matter much. It could have been one or the other, or different combinations of factors at different times in the past. The effect is still the same. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is that GTGs account for at least half of temperature increases, and that they strongly amplify the effects of small increases in solar radiation due to orbital forcing.

Full Report..

This data was published in 1999..

originally posted by: Dr1Akula
...
I am sick and tired of every ignorant fool thinking C02 is toxic pollution, worrying more about C02 in the air,
but have no problem breathing Sulfur and Nitrogen oxides, Carbon monoxide, Chlorofluorocarbons ,Peroxyacetyl nitrate, Lead, Mercury etc

3.3 million deaths each year from the exhausts of vehicles and industries,
yet none of those toxic carcinogenic gasses are taxed and regulated by law like the totally harmless, non toxic, C02

7 million suffering lung diseases and breathing issues leading to premature deaths due to air pollution
yet none cares...all we care and tax about is C02, the new antichrist.

EXACTLY. If i could i would give you 10 stars just for that. It is something some of us have tried to point out many times in the past, but the AGWarmists cannot even comprehend the idiocy they have been led to believe.

If you read the responses of many of the AGW followers in ATS you will see most of them don't even understand the subject at all. Of course, you are also branded as "an oil shill being paid by oil monopolies to lie" every time you present evidence they can't refute and don't understand.

AGW is the "new false religion" of the late 20th and 21st century, it is based on lies yet there are many "believers" in this hoax and new religion.

a reply to: Havick007

That report is false. It is actually known that CO2 lags temperature increases by an average of 800 years. Many times the lag is sooner than 800 years.

As it is, the Earth started warming in the 1600s, which is over 300 years after the height of the industrial revolution.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Lags Temperature: the Proof

Written by Dr Pierre Latour PE on 13 Jun 2014

Man-made global warming promoters claim the high correlation between carbon dioxide (CO2) and atmospheric temperature (T) in the 420,000 year ice core record proves CO2 causes T to change. Herein is demonstrated how the evidence conflicts with that belief.

Basics. First, correlation alone only proves correlation, not cause and effect. Physics is required to describe and prove cause and effect. Second if increasing CO2 did cause T to increase, there must be some physical lag or delay in the response of T to CO2; average T of whole atmosphere, oceans and land masses cannot respond instantaneously to CO2, no matter how strong the cause.

In fact many researchers claim CO2 actually lags T, proving CO2 cannot cause T changes at all. Rather T causes CO2.

What could cause CO2 to lag warming? Its solubility in water? Yes, that explains the data well. Simply put, when oceans warm due to greater solar energy absorption, they outgas dissolved CO2 just like soda water does because CO2 is less soluble in warm water than cold. When oceans are chilled, they absorb CO2 gas and hold it because CO2 is more soluble. Tropical seas hold less CO2/m3 than polar seas do. en.wikipedia.org...

The lag is measured to be about 800 years and confirmed by theory.

Data analysis. After studying that mechanism in 2009 and Al Gore’s 420,000 years of T and CO2 data in his “Inconvenient Truth” movie and National Geographic June 2007 Big Thaw article and insert, their data confirm it was a lag, not a lead.
...

www.principia-scientific.org...

BTW, in the above he is talking about atmospheric CO2 content on Earth, not on Venus...

originally posted by: amazing
...
But back on point, I don't want to impose my will on you, I just choose to believe science over Right wing News pundits. You can't blame me for that can you? I chose not to be a sheeple, believing the corporate lie that humans have no effect on the envirnoent, fossil fuels are safe and healthy and the earth is not warming.

You believe in science right?

Every time people like you keep claiming "it's the corporate media lying and making people believe AGW is not real"... How about this, instead discussed the SCIENCE and the EVIDENCE. Otherwise all you are is a simple sheeple.

Heck, you yourself stated that you did not need to understand the science and simple believing what you are being told is enough... That is the mark of a sheeple.

Claiming that AGW deniers "are paid by oil to lie" and all that nonsense is just...nonsense coming from people who simply don't understand the topic being discussed and simply base their opinion on a "false believe".

The science that I believe is the one that can actually be proven...

If your AGW scientists were right why is it that the majority of GCMs are wrong? Let me give you a hint, they are wrong because they assume CO2 is the cause of "unprecedented warming"...



The few GCMs, 5% that got it "partially right" could have been reach simply by chance.

Not to mention the claims from the AGWarmists that the Arctic was going to lose all sea ice by X year. They have been claiming this for what 5-6 years now? "Oh no wait, it will be next year"...

Then there is the know lie published by AGW scientists claiming that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, and later had to admit they never verified the data, and simply were trying to force governments to accept their AGW policies.

There there is climategate, the delation of raw temperature data. The fudging of data from Russia, South America, and even in the U.S... These hoaxers that you call Climate scientists have been caught time and again in their hoax yet nothing happens to them, and world governments clear them because the world governments want to use AGW to implement a global One World government that will implement the most strict laws against CO2. A completely benign gas that is in fact needed for life on this planet.

originally posted by: flyandi
I don't think...

Indeed.

It's a cycle of melting and freezing that spans several decades with each upturn or downturn. Global warming was a sensationalized hype or anxious guesswork or a mixture of both.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: amazing
...
But back on point, I don't want to impose my will on you, I just choose to believe science over Right wing News pundits. You can't blame me for that can you? I chose not to be a sheeple, believing the corporate lie that humans have no effect on the envirnoent, fossil fuels are safe and healthy and the earth is not warming.

You believe in science right?

Every time people like you keep claiming "it's the corporate media lying and making people believe AGW is not real"... How about this, instead discussed the SCIENCE and the EVIDENCE. Otherwise all you are is a simple sheeple.

Heck, you yourself stated that you did not need to understand the science and simple believing what you are being told is enough... That is the mark of a sheeple.

Claiming that AGW deniers "are paid by oil to lie" and all that nonsense is just...nonsense coming from people who simply don't understand the topic being discussed and simply base their opinion on a "false believe".

The science that I believe is the one that can actually be proven...

If your AGW scientists were right why is it that the majority of GCMs are wrong? Let me give you a hint, they are wrong because they assume CO2 is the cause of "unprecedented warming"...

The few GCMs, 5% that got it "partially right" could have been reach simply by chance.

Not to mention the claims from the AGWarmists that the Arctic was going to lose all sea ice by X year. They have been claiming this for what 5-6 years now? "Oh no wait, it will be next year"...

Then there is the know lie published by AGW scientists claiming that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, and later had to admit they never verified the data, and simply were trying to force governments to accept their AGW policies.

There there is climategate, the delation of raw temperature data. The fudging of data from Russia, South America, and even in the U.S... These hoaxers that you call Climate scientists have been caught time and again in their hoax yet nothing happens to them, and world governments clear them because the world governments want to use AGW to implement a global One World government that will implement the most strict laws against CO2. A completely benign gas that is in fact needed for life on this planet.

I think you miss my point. You said basically say that blindly believing in AGW is the sign of a sheeple. I say that blindly believing the propaganda of oil companies and denying AGW is the sign of a sheeple. One of us is right. But which one? Is AGW true or false?

I say I don't understand all of the science but nor to I understand the chemistry and biology, I have to trust scientists. Not just one scientist but thousands of them. I read lot's of articles and statements by lot's of scientific organizations. Isn't that the sign of someone thinking for themselves and looking at real data and then making an informed decision on AGW or as I like to call it Man Made Global Warming?

How is that not researching an issue and making an informed decision, believing in scientific principles and denying ignorance.

You're trying to tell me that all of those scientists are lying to me. You're, seemingly to me, telling me not to trust scientists on anything...so according to you I shouldn't believe in evolution, the big bang theory, our scientific theories on planetary formation, relativity, and autism and more.

Why should I believe you over scientists?

originally posted by: amazing

I think you miss my point. You said basically say that blindly believing in AGW is the sign of a sheeple. I say that blindly believing the propaganda of oil companies and denying AGW is the sign of a sheeple. One of us is right. But which one? Is AGW true or false?

Again, you are wrong. My statements are not based on what oil companies say, but on what the actual evidence says...

Do you understand the difference? Not to mention that simply saying "that's what oil companies want you to believe" doesn't prove the argument is wrong. It only proves that you can't formulate a valid response.

originallyposted by: amazing
I say I don't understand all of the science but nor to I understand the chemistry and biology, I have to trust scientists. Not just one scientist but thousands of them.

Really? what "thousands of scientists"?... It has been shown many times in this forum that the claim, among others, that the IPCC had/has thousands of climate change experts who agree with AGW has been shown to be a lie... Only a few dozen scientists were the experts on climate change, the others were experts on other fields, including fields that have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change, and many of them are simply "policymakers".

...
Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.
...

The above can be found at the end of page 10 and beginning of page 11. Although on overall it is a good read.
www.probeinternational.org...

originallyposted by: amazing
I read lot's of articles and statements by lot's of scientific organizations. Isn't that the sign of someone thinking for themselves and looking at real data and then making an informed decision on AGW or as I like to call it Man Made Global Warming?

You are not looking at the data... You said it yourself, you don't need to understand the science, you just believe what you are being told...

originally posted by: amazing
You're trying to tell me that all of those scientists are lying to me. You're, seemingly to me, telling me not to trust scientists on anything...so according to you I shouldn't believe in evolution, the big bang theory, our scientific theories on planetary formation, relativity, and autism and more.

Why should I believe you over scientists?

And I have shown, including to you in specific in threads dealing with this topic what hundreds of scientists have to say. I even gave the statements from at least 47 IPCC scientists who say the contrary to what you claim.

This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ]I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become[b politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
...

cstpr.colorado.edu...

...
46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC

1. Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

2. Dr Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."

3. Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."

5. Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."

6. Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."

7. Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers."

8. Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."

9. Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."

10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."

11. Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."

12. Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."

14. Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA's James Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the (scientific) literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."
...

undeceivingourselves.org...

originally posted by: Dr1Akula


3.3 million deaths each year from the exhausts of vehicles and industries,
yet none of those toxic carcinogenic gasses are taxed and regulated by law like the totally harmless, non toxic, C02

Of course CO2 is toxic, and harmful. To state otherwise is to be disingenuous lying.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

Soon you will have a climate doomer screaming how the article references sea ice rather than land ice, good luck ^_^

Well only a complete moron would compare area to volume. But hey go ahead......

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Dr1Akula
...
I am sick and tired of every ignorant fool thinking C02 is toxic pollution, worrying more about C02 in the air,
but have no problem breathing Sulfur and Nitrogen oxides, Carbon monoxide, Chlorofluorocarbons ,Peroxyacetyl nitrate, Lead, Mercury etc

3.3 million deaths each year from the exhausts of vehicles and industries,
yet none of those toxic carcinogenic gasses are taxed and regulated by law like the totally harmless, non toxic, C02

7 million suffering lung diseases and breathing issues leading to premature deaths due to air pollution
yet none cares...all we care and tax about is C02, the new antichrist.

EXACTLY. If i could i would give you 10 stars just for that. It is something some of us have tried to point out many times in the past, but the AGWarmists cannot even comprehend the idiocy they have been led to believe.

If you read the responses of many of the AGW followers in ATS you will see most of them don't even understand the subject at all. Of course, you are also branded as "an oil shill being paid by oil monopolies to lie" every time you present evidence they can't refute and don't understand.

AGW is the "new false religion" of the late 20th and 21st century, it is based on lies yet there are many "believers" in this hoax and new religion.

Oh that famous saying : "the pot calling the kettle....."

originally posted by: amazing

Why should I believe you over scientists?

Because thousands of hours typing on a computer sitting on their fat behind in front of a computer makes them far more of an expert than the people spending months of their lives without a break in freezing cold antarctic conditions taking core samples and using their several years of education to analyse the findings.

The couch potato is the expert the PHD in climate studies is a lying fraudulent moron.

...17. Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen."
...

undeceivingourselves.org...

Next, i am sure you are going to try to link to wikipedia, or "RealScience" with the claims made by the editors of scientific organizations. Except that THEIR SCIENTISTS have stated they are not being heard in regards to their input on the AGW histeria.

As an example of how "scientific organizations" have jumped in the AGW bandwagon to get funding and not because the majority of their scientists agree with it. There is what happened with the largest scientific organization, the American Chemical society, among others, when many scientists who are members of said organization revolted against the claims of the editor of said society because he claimed “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

wattsupwiththat.com...

Or what about this?...

What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty

I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen Strengers, Verheegen, and Vringer shows even that is not true.(1) The “97% consensus” is now 43%.

Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty.

More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But hey, the IPCC quoted rather a lot of gray literature itself. Donna LaFramboise found 5,587 non peer reviewed articles in AR4.)

Fabius Maximus deserves credit for finding and analyzing the study. He notes that only 64% agreed that man-made CO2 was the main or dominant driver controlling more than half of the temperature rise. But of this group (1,222 scientists), only 797 said it was “virtually certain” or “extremely likely”. That’s just 43% of climate scientists who fully agree with the IPCC statement. This survey directly asks climate scientists, unlike the clumsy versions by John Cook, William Anderegg, or Naomi Oreskes that do keyword surveys of abstracts in papers and try to “guess”.

Fabius Maximus suggests we exclude the “I don’t knows” which brings up the number to 47%. Since these are “climate scientists” I don’t see why those responses should be excluded. An expert saying “I don’t know” on the certainty question is an emphatic disagreement with the IPCC 95% certainty.

The IPCC AR5 Statement:

“It is extremely likely [95%+ certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”
...

joannenova.com.au...

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

Soon you will have a climate doomer screaming how the article references sea ice rather than land ice, good luck ^_^

why do that?......all you amateur climate scientologists here, have all the answers, and even the comebacks

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

But if we look at what you post and your links and some of my posts to scientists and scientific organizations then they almost cancel each other out. Who's right? Why should I believe you and your scientists over my scientists?

That's the question. And showing me your analysis of data doesn't sway me because I've seen data posted by an actual scientist with the opposing view. So again. Why should I believe your scientists over mine?

That is a serious question. And at the heart of the matter.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: amazing

Why should I believe you over scientists?

Because thousands of hours typing on a computer sitting on their fat behind in front of a computer makes them far more of an expert than the people spending months of their lives without a break in freezing cold antarctic conditions taking core samples and using their several years of education to analyse the findings.

The couch potato is the expert the PHD in climate studies is a lying fraudulent moron.

it's useless...they know everything they need to know, and they don't care what is presented to them that doesn't fit their narrow narrative.....they are at that point, where truth only comes from one specific group, all others are uninformed or liars.....

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

Because thousands of hours typing on a computer sitting on their fat behind in front of a computer makes them far more of an expert than the people spending months of their lives without a break in freezing cold antarctic conditions taking core samples and using their several years of education to analyse the findings.

The couch potato is the expert the PHD in climate studies is a lying fraudulent moron.

LOL, the typical, arrogant response from Europeans, btw I was raised in Europe part of my life so I know how arrogant Europeans can get.

Lots of assumptions you are making there buddy... First, I am not fat, but if I was...how in the nine hells would that debunk anything I have written?...

Second of all, MANY climate scientists disagree with the claim that they are 95% certain that mankind causes/caused Climate Change. They are not that certain, and many of them completely disagree with such a claim. Even among the IPCC members, many of the real experts in climate change have stated the contrary to the claims made by the IPCC policymakers...

As to "couch potato"? you should look in the mirror to find one.

originally posted by: amazing

But if we look at what you post and your links and some of my posts to scientists and scientific organizations then they almost cancel each other out. Who's right? Why should I believe you and your scientists over my scientists?

Because their data is wrong?...

Because they have been caught lying to simply push for their AGW agenda?...

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
Created: 19:54 EST, 23 January 2010

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Because they have been caught deleting raw temperature data?

We Lost the Original Data

Because they have been caught manipulating temperatures?

James Delingpole

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
...
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
...

blogs.telegraph.co.uk... ta-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

originally posted by: amazing
That's the question. And showing me your analysis of data doesn't sway me because I've seen data posted by an actual scientist with the opposing view. So again. Why should I believe your scientists over mine?

That is a serious question. And at the heart of the matter.

Which is why you need to understand the topic and hence make an informed decision instead of believing policymakers and liars like Mann, Jones, et al.

The observations do not substantiate the claims from the Global Circulation Models/computer models. Which are simply computer models that assume that the warming has been caused by CO2 when it hasn't.

When you don't even make an attempt to understand a topic, and you are simply parroting what you are being told, you are not siding with science.