Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.
Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.
The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.
They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.
And Lastly, Hurricanes:
Quote:
A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.
This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.
while fox news does have an agenda, they dont bend the ear of the regulatory officials in the government, greenpeace does.
and really, think progress? you are going to use think progress, an organization whose goal is to destroy capitalism as completely as possible, and really doesnt tell the truth? they made the same claim about the bush tax cuts also, that they were only for the rich, but the reality is that they were for EVERYBODY. the plan was to cut ALL the income tax rates across the board, a fact that the liberals dont want people to actually know because it would hurt their whole, "the republicans hate the poor" mantra. get real and get a clue.
as for nasa, the epa, and greenpeace, i dont trust them at all these days. tell me nasa is going back to the moon to build a base from which we will explore the rest of the solar system, and i will trust them. tell me nasa has some good information on aerodynamics that will make aircraft, and even cars, more efficient, and i will trust them(after all that was the reason for the founding of naca the forerunner to nasa). but on climate studies? no. and the epa started off with good intentions, and did good work early on, but in the 90s they started using junk science far more heavily to gain more power in the federal government, so they cant be trusted anymore. and greenpeace? get real they have never been trust worthy. they are a group of radicals who will do anything to make a splash in the news to push their agenda, including letting their member risk their very lives.
fox news? i trust them to report the news, when i decide to watch them, but their talk programs are entertainment, so i dont watch them anymore.
scientists? when they put out repeatable experiments, they can be trusted. when they put out the raw data for everyone to see, they can be trusted. but when they modify the raw data, and when they start with a conclusion rather than a hypothesis, and when "investigate" themselves, they cannot be trusted.
because scientists have not proven that man is the cause. they have shown that the climate is changing, anyone can see that, but they are assuming that man is the cause and not nature, because man is here now. they started with a conclusion rather than a hypothesis, and as such they wen toff on a tangent and only looked at the evidence that supported their conclusion. that is not real science.
a real scientist would have started with a hypothesis, then looked at ALL the evidence before coming to a conclusion. and all the evidence includes what went on in the past as well as what is going on now, and what may happen in the future.
and real science would support proper regulations that would truly curb emissions, and apply to everyone equally. instead they are pushing for the regulations they want to apply only to the fully developed countries, and they want a wealth redistribution scheme on a global scale. lets take money from the rich countries and give it to the poor countries so they can develop their industries, and thus pollute more.
How does Greenpeace bend the ear of the regulatory officials in government?
They don't. Fox news, oil corporations, and their paid politicians do it.
No one gives Greenpeace money to say global warming is real, but money changes hands between corporations and republicans to say global warming is a hoax (because combating global warming decreases corporate profits.)
Here's oil corporations giving republicans campaign money, and then republican politicians changing laws to increase oil corporations profits.
while fox news does have an agenda, they dont bend the ear of the regulatory officials in the government, greenpeace does.
and really, think progress? you are going to use think progress, an organization whose goal is to destroy capitalism as completely as possible, and really doesnt tell the truth? they made the same claim about the bush tax cuts also, that they were only for the rich, but the reality is that they were for EVERYBODY. the plan was to cut ALL the income tax rates across the board, a fact that the liberals dont want people to actually know because it would hurt their whole, "the republicans hate the poor" mantra. get real and get a clue.
as for nasa, the epa, and greenpeace, i dont trust them at all these days. tell me nasa is going back to the moon to build a base from which we will explore the rest of the solar system, and i will trust them. tell me nasa has some good information on aerodynamics that will make aircraft, and even cars, more efficient, and i will trust them(after all that was the reason for the founding of naca the forerunner to nasa). but on climate studies? no. and the epa started off with good intentions, and did good work early on, but in the 90s they started using junk science far more heavily to gain more power in the federal government, so they cant be trusted anymore. and greenpeace? get real they have never been trust worthy. they are a group of radicals who will do anything to make a splash in the news to push their agenda, including letting their member risk their very lives.
fox news? i trust them to report the news, when i decide to watch them, but their talk programs are entertainment, so i dont watch them anymore.
scientists? when they put out repeatable experiments, they can be trusted. when they put out the raw data for everyone to see, they can be trusted. but when they modify the raw data, and when they start with a conclusion rather than a hypothesis, and when "investigate" themselves, they cannot be trusted.
because scientists have not proven that man is the cause. they have shown that the climate is changing, anyone can see that, but they are assuming that man is the cause and not nature, because man is here now. they started with a conclusion rather than a hypothesis, and as such they wen toff on a tangent and only looked at the evidence that supported their conclusion. that is not real science.
a real scientist would have started with a hypothesis, then looked at ALL the evidence before coming to a conclusion. and all the evidence includes what went on in the past as well as what is going on now, and what may happen in the future.
and real science would support proper regulations that would truly curb emissions, and apply to everyone equally. instead they are pushing for the regulations they want to apply only to the fully developed countries, and they want a wealth redistribution scheme on a global scale. lets take money from the rich countries and give it to the poor countries so they can develop their industries, and thus pollute more.
You said Think Progress is an organization whose goal is to destroy capitalism as completely as possible.
Can you show evidence that your above claim is true?
Answer: No.
You also said Think Progress lied and said the Bush tax cuts were for the rich.
But the middle 20% of Americans who make $36,000–59,000 a year got 9% of the Bush tax cuts. The richest 1% of Americans got 51% of the Bush tax cuts.
Or the bottom 60% of Americans got 17% of the Bush tax cuts.
And the richest 10% of Americans got 62% of the Bush tax cuts.
Think Progress did not lie, the Bush tax cuts were for the rich.
while fox news does have an agenda, they dont bend the ear of the regulatory officials in the government, greenpeace does.
and really, think progress? you are going to use think progress, an organization whose goal is to destroy capitalism as completely as possible, and really doesnt tell the truth? they made the same claim about the bush tax cuts also, that they were only for the rich, but the reality is that they were for EVERYBODY. the plan was to cut ALL the income tax rates across the board, a fact that the liberals dont want people to actually know because it would hurt their whole, "the republicans hate the poor" mantra. get real and get a clue.
as for nasa, the epa, and greenpeace, i dont trust them at all these days. tell me nasa is going back to the moon to build a base from which we will explore the rest of the solar system, and i will trust them. tell me nasa has some good information on aerodynamics that will make aircraft, and even cars, more efficient, and i will trust them(after all that was the reason for the founding of naca the forerunner to nasa). but on climate studies? no. and the epa started off with good intentions, and did good work early on, but in the 90s they started using junk science far more heavily to gain more power in the federal government, so they cant be trusted anymore. and greenpeace? get real they have never been trust worthy. they are a group of radicals who will do anything to make a splash in the news to push their agenda, including letting their member risk their very lives.
fox news? i trust them to report the news, when i decide to watch them, but their talk programs are entertainment, so i dont watch them anymore.
scientists? when they put out repeatable experiments, they can be trusted. when they put out the raw data for everyone to see, they can be trusted. but when they modify the raw data, and when they start with a conclusion rather than a hypothesis, and when "investigate" themselves, they cannot be trusted.
because scientists have not proven that man is the cause. they have shown that the climate is changing, anyone can see that, but they are assuming that man is the cause and not nature, because man is here now. they started with a conclusion rather than a hypothesis, and as such they wen toff on a tangent and only looked at the evidence that supported their conclusion. that is not real science.
a real scientist would have started with a hypothesis, then looked at ALL the evidence before coming to a conclusion. and all the evidence includes what went on in the past as well as what is going on now, and what may happen in the future.
and real science would support proper regulations that would truly curb emissions, and apply to everyone equally. instead they are pushing for the regulations they want to apply only to the fully developed countries, and they want a wealth redistribution scheme on a global scale. lets take money from the rich countries and give it to the poor countries so they can develop their industries, and thus pollute more.
In my previous posts I responded to the first 3 sentences in your above post. But it would take too much time to respond to the rest of your post. But the remainder of your post is as inaccurate and distorted as your first 3 sentences.
Perhaps you should read more information from environmental and groups on the left. I am not saying those groups are 100% accurate and always tell the truth. But perhaps when one believes that everything NASA, the EPA, and Greenpeace says is a lie, then that person becomes disconnected from reality.
Have the manmade-global-whatever fanatics ever come up with an actual link between man's activites and the climate changes we are seeing? Or are they still ducking, dodging, shucking, and jiving away?
Climates frequently change.
Sometimes the climate gets warmer.
And sometimes it gets colder.
That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.
And man has never had the slightest influence on it.
Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.
What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too.
The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.
***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, and that we send more and more of our resources to them, to change what they cannot change.
You say the Earths climate has been changing for 100's of millions of years, and it was scientists who said that. Why do you believe the scientists who tell us about the Earths climate 100's of millions of years ago?
Why do you believe science when it says the Earths climate has been changing for 100's of millions of years, and you do (not) believe science when it says man made global warming is happening?
Just as I predicted: Not the slightest bit of proof that man's activities has any effect on the climate changes we are seeing.
But I know you don't trust NASA is matters of the Earths atmosphere, rather you trust Fox news, Rush radio, and the republican politicians who get their campaign money from oil corporations.
Fact is I believe NASA in matters of global warming, and you believe the republican politicians. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
But I know you don't trust NASA is matters of the Earths atmosphere, rather you trust Fox news, Rush radio, and the republican politicians who get their campaign money from oil corporations.
Fact is I believe NASA in matters of global warming, and you believe the republican politicians. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Chad.
NASA needs to read this. They are way behind the curve here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
