Expert: No Global Warming since 1995

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Shooter

Unanimously Great
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
5,484
Likes
152
Points
63
Professor Phil Jones, the director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit which collects "climate change" data used by the United Nations, is now saying, "Oops!"

Professor Jones 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.

Would someone please inform Al Gore that the Nobel Committee wants their prize back?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
 
I've oft wondered why this debate appears to have been divided along political lines??


Both parties have found it to be a hot button for donations.
 
Gee, a leading climate change expert admits that there's been no global warming in the last 15 years, and yet everybody is all vexed about which political party is supporting big oil??

Let's get back on topic. There has been no global warming in 15 years. None. Nada. Zilch.

That's the point.
 
So why is Antarctica melting?

Nasa: "Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass 11. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate."

and Glacier Natl Park:?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090302-glaciers-melting.html
 
melting%20ice%20caps.jpg
 
I find it funny that people still think Global Warming doesn't exist when almost every major country in the world not only acknowledges its existence, but is spending billions to slow down/prevent it. Don't believe me? Look it up & do some research. I encourage you to.

The only debate today is whether it's man-made or "natural", but again...do you really think all these countries are so dumb that they're spending buckets of money toward something that can't be helped?
 
Gee, a leading climate change expert admits that there's been no global warming in the last 15 years, and yet everybody is all vexed about which political party is supporting big oil??

Let's get back on topic. There has been no global warming in 15 years. None. Nada. Zilch.

That's the point.

He's obviously no expert, and he's certainly not leading anyone.

Pointing to comparatively tiny periods in time as indicative of anything to do with global warming suggests he is either a fraud for hire, or the topic is too big for his itty-bitty brain.

Try harder.
 
The issue is whether Global Warming is a man-made phenomena or not. Climate change has occured throughout the Earth's history. The problem is these Global Warming Alarmists have secured billions of dollars of funding and they are perpetrating a lie.
 
Climate change has occured throughout the Earth's history. The problem is these Global Warming Alarmists have secured billions of dollars of funding and they are perpetrating a lie.
And Al Gore is the biggest liar of all.
 
So why is Antarctica melting?

Nasa: "Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass 11. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate."

and Glacier Natl Park:?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090302-glaciers-melting.html

http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

(more at the link)
 

According to this web site for the 2008 election cycle the Democrats raised:

$99 mil from lawyers
$70 mil from retiree groups
$41 mil from Securities/Investment
$35 mil from Real Estate
$35 mil from Health Care
$32 mil from Education
$32 mil from various Unions

The Oil Companies gave $27 mil to the Republicans (and $8 mil to Democrats).

Yes, it is the oil companies that run everything!

What people fail to grasp is that the big oil companies fancy themselves nible, well manage "Energy" providers. They, for the most part, have already baked into their business plans transition to a lower carbon use future. They feel if they manage the transition right, they will make even MORE profit during that early transition period when technology, capital and management leaders have the advantage.

The real push-back on restricted cabron rules comes from coal mining states and states that generate a high portion of their electricity from coal. Much of the population of those states would bear a very high burden. When the estimates for how much the bills were going to look like started coming out these people got upset and starting hounding their Senators.
 
By the way:

Holy Jesus - if the lawyers have $100 mil in loose change to grease Democrats alone - for only 1 election cycle - is it time to admit - that as a group - lawyers make too much money.

Where the heck do they get all that money and what great stuff did they create to earn it?

I will say that justice is a valuable commodity. Do we get "justice" for all that lawyers get?
 
By the way:

Holy Jesus - if the lawyers have $100 mil in loose change to grease Democrats alone - for only 1 election cycle - is it time to admit - that as a group - lawyers make too much money.

Where the heck do they get all that money and what great stuff did they create to earn it?

I will say that justice is a valuable commodity. Do we get "justice" for all that lawyers get?

Monopolies are nice. Attorney organizations have procured monopolies in all 50 states and federally. They have both sides of every case argued by attorneys in front of judges that are attorneys.

It's a nice gig.

Ed O.
 
Monopolies are nice. Attorney organizations have procured monopolies in all 50 states and federally. They have both sides of every case argued by attorneys in front of judges that are attorneys.

It's a nice gig.

Ed O.

And they usually get a cut of the proceeds, so they pressure govt. to not restrict them even if they're ridiculous amounts.
 
Monopolies are nice. Attorney organizations have procured monopolies in all 50 states and federally. They have both sides of every case argued by attorneys in front of judges that are attorneys.

It's a nice gig.

Ed O.

What's the alternative.......dictatorships? :eek:
 
Monopolies are nice. Attorney organizations have procured monopolies in all 50 states and federally. They have both sides of every case argued by attorneys in front of judges that are attorneys.

It's a nice gig.

Ed O.

Inaccurate and misleading.

First of all, anyone can represent themself in court.

Second, and beyond that, do doctors have a monopoly? You bet. Do you get to perform surgery? And only CPAs can create certified financial returns. And only architects can create certified blueprints.

What's the deal with government requiring extra education and licenses for people to perform some specific jobs - its outrageous!!
 
Gee, a leading climate change expert admits that there's been no global warming in the last 15 years, and yet everybody is all vexed about which political party is supporting big oil??

Let's get back on topic. There has been no global warming in 15 years. None. Nada. Zilch.

That's the point.

Lets get experts in every single country to agree and then we can definitely say that we had zilch Global Warming in the last 15 years.
 
Lets get experts in every single country to agree and then we can definitely say that we had zilch Global Warming in the last 15 years.

Well, there's only two real sets of data that the scientists use to base their claims, and this guy was in charge of one of them. The guy in charge of the other (and who wrote the IPCC report) says there was no global warming the past 15 years, either.

BTW, you won't get experts in every single country to agree. The Indians just pulled out of the international global warming scheme and started their own agency. They and the Chinese would never sign on to any world-wide agreement, and they have about 2.5B of the ~6.5B total people on the earth between them.
 
Well, there's only two real sets of data that the scientists use to base their claims, and this guy was in charge of one of them. The guy in charge of the other (and who wrote the IPCC report) says there was no global warming the past 15 years, either.
Now THAT'S an "inconvenient truth!"

:clap:
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown

David Adam
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 February 2010 18.00 GMT

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."

Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.

The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top