Another nail in the global warming coffin.....
 

I realize the danger of challenging anyone religious faith, and I mean no offense by it, so I apologize in advance to any true believers out there...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ONG-along.html


The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along

By David Rose

PUBLISHED: 18:37 EST, 16 March 2013 | UPDATED: 12:13 EST, 20 March 2013



No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well... what do YOU think?

The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.

The graph on this page blows apart the ?scientific basis? for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...84_634x427.jpg

Steadily climbing orange and red bands on the graph show the computer predictions of world temperatures used by the official United Nations? Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The estimates ? given with 75 per cent and 95 per cent certainty ? suggest only a five per cent chance of the real temperature falling outside both bands.


But when the latest official global temperature figures from the Met Office are placed over the predictions, they show how wrong the estimates have been, to the point of falling out of the ?95 per cent? band completely.

The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions.

The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets.

A version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC?s landmark Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realised.

Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University?s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.

But he now says: ?The odds have come down,? ? adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower.
Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ?looking iffy?.

The graph confirms there has been no statistically significant increase in the world?s average temperature since January 1997 ? as this newspaper first disclosed last year.

At the end of last year the Met Office revised its ten-year forecast predicting a succession of years breaking records for warmth. It now says the pause in warming will last until at least 2017. A glance at the graph will confirm that the world will be cooler than even the coolest scenario predicted.
experts
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...94_634x338.jpg
experts

Its source is impeccable. The line showing world temperatures comes from the Met Office ?HadCRUT4? database, which contains readings from more than 30,000 measuring posts. This was added to the 75 and 95 per cent certainty bands to produce the graph by a group that amalgamates the work of 20 climate model centres working for the IPCC.

Predictions of global warming, based on scientists? forecasts of how fast increasing CO2 levels would cause temperatures to rise, directly led to Britain?s Climate Change Act. This commits the UK to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
1977 - THE YEAR WE WERE TOLD TO FEAR TERROR OF...GLOBAL COOLING

In the Seventies, scientists and policymakers were just as concerned about a looming ?ice age? as they have been lately about global warming ? as the Time magazine cover pictured here illustrates.

Temperatures had been falling since the beginning of the Forties. Professors warned that the trend would continue and food crises were going to get worse because of shorter growing seasons.

Newsweek magazine reported that evidence of cooling was so strong ?meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it?. But, it lamented, ?scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections?. It said the planet was already ?a sixth of the way towards the next ice age?.

While recently every kind of extreme weather event has been blamed on warming, in the Seventies the culprit was cooling. One article predicted ?the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded?, along with ?droughts, floods, extended dry spells and long freezes?.

The current Energy Bill is set to increase subsidies for wind turbines to £7.6 billion a year ? leading to a combined cost of £110 billion. Motorists will soon see a further 3p per litre rise in the cost of petrol because this now has to contain ?biofuel? ethanol.

Many scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed ?climate sensitivity? ? how much the world will warm for a given level of CO2.

Yesterday Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: ?The fact that global surface temperatures haven?t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.?

And Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said: ?The models are running too hot. The flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two.?

James Annan, of Frontier Research For Global Change, a prominent ?warmist?, recently said high estimates for climate sensitivity now look ?increasingly untenable?, with the true figure likely to be about half of the IPCC prediction in its last report in 2007.

Avowed climate sceptics are more unequivocal. Dr David Whitehouse, author of a new report on the pause published on Friday by Lord Lawson?s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ?This changes everything. It means we have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of anyone?s economic or energy policy.?

I said the end wasn't nigh... and it cost me my BBC career says TV's first environmentalist, David Bellamy
Former BBC Botanist David Bellamy said that he was regarded as heretical for not toeing the line on global warming



.

Challenged the orthodoxy: Former BBC Botanist David Bellamy said that he was regarded as heretical for not toeing the line on global warming

This graph shows the end of the world isn’t nigh. But for anyone – like myself – who has been vilified for holding such an unfashionable view, possibly the most important thing about it is its source: the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Since its creation in 1988, the IPCC has been sounding the alarm about man-made global warming. Yet here, in a draft of its latest report, is a diagram overlaying the observed temperature of the earth on its predictions.

The graph shows a world stubbornly refusing to warm. Indeed, it shows the world is soon set to be cooler.

The awkward fact is that the earth has warmed just 0.5 degrees over the past 50 years. And Met Office records show that for the past 16 years temperatures have plateaued and, if anything, are going down.

As the graph shows, the longer this goes on, the more the actual, real-world temperature record will diverge from the IPCC’s doom-laden prediction.

Yet this prediction is used to justify the ugly wind farms spoiling our countryside and billions in unnecessary ‘green’ taxes that make our industry less competitive and add up to £100 a year to household energy bills.

Man-made global warming has become scientific orthodoxy, with no room for dissent. Tragically, the traditional caution of my brethren has gone out of the window along with the concept of sceptical peer reviewing to test new theories.

Opponents of man-made global warming are regarded as dangerous heretics, as I learnt to my cost. Soon after the IPCC was created, I was invited to what is now the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter to hear a presentation on global warming.

As the face of natural history on the BBC and a science academic, they wanted to enrol me in their cause. But when I read the so-called evidence, I realised it was flawed and refused to ‘sign up’.

I rapidly found myself cast out from the BBC and the wider scientific community. When I helped some children campaign against a wind farm as part of a Blue Peter programme, I was publicly vilified. Abusive emails criticised me. I realised my career at the BBC was over.

But scientific theory should be tested. That’s why I question the science which casts carbon as the villain that will bring about the end of the world.
David Bellamy argues that we should be able to test theories about global warming and that the world can live with fluctuations of carbon levels in the air

Open discussion: David Bellamy argues that we should be able to test theories about global warming and that the world can live with fluctuations of carbon levels in the air

Geology tells us that fossil fuels are predominantly carbon which was part of our atmosphere before being locked away in the earth millions of years ago. At that time, there were more than 4,000 carbon parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere. Over time this has been as low as 270ppm and is now about 385ppm.

It is obvious the world can live with these fluctuations in the level of atmospheric carbon.
There is a correlation between temperature and CO2, but some of my colleagues have put the cart before the horse.

The evidence shows CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around.
Indeed, there may be many factors that determine our climate. Australian scientist David Archibald has shown a remarkable correlation between the sun’s activity and our climate over the past 300 years. Climate scientists insist we must accept the ‘carbon’ orthodoxy or be cast into the wilderness.

But the scientists behind the theory have a vested interest – it’s a great way to justify new taxes, get more money and guarantee themselves more work.

The reality is that man-made global warming is a myth: the global temperature is well within life’s limits and, indeed, the present day is cooler by comparison to much of Earth’s history. Perhaps this will be the moment that this fact becomes the new scientific orthodoxy.

The original graph was produced by Dr Ed Hawkins, a senior research scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. Discussion of the graph and its meaning can be found on the website Climate Lab Book.




.

The UK dailymail certainly isn't right about everything.... but then I have seen inaccurate information published by every major newspaper in the world. Take a look at the sources of the info on this stuff.... Pretty interesting, I think.




.

Who was it that said you can use stats to prove anything?

That's why they changed it to "Climate Change" LOL

QFT! :thumbsup

Hmm I guess I better the people I'm working with about sustainability & climate change should just pack it in.

And do they not realize that predictions will changed based on the regulations put in place? Like the reason LA hasn't melted from acid rain (that was predicted in the 70's) was because the cause was addressed and we were able to stop it.

I better tell the guys over at Saudi Aramco and Petrobras they can stop worrying.

If you go to the source of that redrawn graph you will find that the scientist behind it debunks David Rose.

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/20...-observations/


And quoted from this month's Chemical Engineering magazine

TL;DR, but anyway, this is one of those things that time will bear out.

Hi Sperbonzo,

I'm sorry, but the earth IS warming up. The biggest indicator of this is the warming oceans and melting ice caps.

http://climateandsecurity.files.word..._animation.gif

Warming oceans mean more energy for hurricanes and other storms, rising flood waters and more damage.

Every year the United States hits record high temperatures.

Yes some people will claim that the cause is not man made. I personally believe that it is, but even if it is natural due to green house gasses from Volcanoes for example, man-made pollution contributes to GLOBAL WARMING, and we have to do what we can to stop it from getting much warmer.

Big oil & coal have a huge interest in putting out disinformation to keep people buying gas and oil of course but all it takes is some critical thinking and a little research to find out what they might just be lying to you. Even worse, those same companies are trying to dissolve the EPA which which is a dangerous and downright scary thought. (Every time I hear a politician say the words "Get rid of job-killing regulations", the EPA is exactly what they are talking about).

The earth is warming up. It's a bad sign.

I am not sure if I believe in global warming or not. We already know that without humans fucking things up the planet goes through warm and cool periods; The ice age and all that. I'm not sure how much we affect the planet's temperature, but we should make attempts to stop polluting so much. Just makes sense to me.

Fucking cold here still. No sings on spring.

My dad drilled that into me before I hit high school.

There we go, Baddog's dad said it - So it predates time itself.....












Sorrty, I am drunk - I just couldn't resist it...

Edit: I might actually be older that Baddog so I can say things like that.

Who needs an ozone anyway? http://i.imgur.com/h3MQk.gif

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

If global warming is a myth why are the polar ice caps and glaciers world wide receding so quickly?

i don't know how people can say global warming isn't real. i can see how people can question if its caused by man. personally i just think its gradual change the world is going through.

Hi Sperbonzo,
Like every Republican ( I know, you will say you are independent, and you did not vote for war criminal Bush), you will only believe when Atlantic swallows your condo in Miami. Keep pushing that right wing, anti-sience agenda and watch Sarah Palin's house melt in Alaska. "Rape is a blessing from Heaven" as said another GOP Science chairman :thumbsup

....and yet the West field of the antarctic ice cap.... which contains NINETY PERCENT OF THE ICE ON THE PLANET, is getting thicker.


Don't let them yank your chain. This is about global control, not global warming.





.:2 cents:

Once there were no polar icecaps. Once the world was all frozen. The world changes. And there is nothing we can do to change that. Likewise there?s not much this puny species can do to the world that it just can?t shake us off.

reminds me of that DirecTV commercial "90% of all statistics can be made to say anything.... 50% of the time"

You people are fucking retarded. The Earth goes through cycles, some beneficial to man, others no so. Do you really think this has ANYTHING to do with man's participation won the global warming scenario?

Jesus Christo get a grip on reality

I don't know what's more annoying, people who spout off in support of global warming and it being a fact and the world is doomed etc, or people who spout off that there is no problem and bring an equally avalanchian-sized deluge of facts, figures, charts and graphs to sway people to ignore there even being a problem whatsoever.

Fact is, warming or not, the planet IS getting more poluted with flurocarbons and the like, our oceans are getting warmer and marine life in certain areas of it are slowly dying from it. It's also a fact that it can't hurt to do a few things differently in one's own life in order to go greener. In fact not only does it not hurt but it can in many instances save you hundreds if not thousands of dollars per year.

I baffles me why people continue to argue about this. I really could not give a rats ass whether it exists or not. There is nothing I as an individual can do against it on any kind of grand meaningful scale. But I can drive less. I can use energy efficient lighting. I can conserve and be more responsible with my water usage. I can recycle more. I can better insulate my home. All of which I've done and continue to do.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out there's an ongoing threat to the world's environment. People need to shut up about the arguing of 'if' it exists or not and just do a little something here or there to help stop it, or at least delay it some.

yes.. because of those cycles, anything 'man' does on a major, global scale that can impact those 'cycles' should be catastrophic

as im sure, at some point of 'human' history, this has been made extremely apparent.

Dude. you're an idiot :1orglaugh:1orglaugh Think about what you are saying... like it fucking matters.

What a moron. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

well said. global warming or not we're all killing this world and ourselves with our unnatural lifestyles.

QFT...:2 cents::2 cents:
Seriously. Where does the UK pull these clowns out of? The US?

God, was ready to type something out and then reminded myself you guys are stupid. So not worth it :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Stats are fun!

You can take stats and twist them around to say whatever you want.

My favorite is that town where firearms are required by law, and it looks like crime has come down there. Looks like a winner until you compare it to my home town, about the same size, without that requirement - and my town is four times safer.

You can totally twist stats around.

Whats the old saying "Liars figure and figures lie."

This site debunks the journalists claims and shows he's a lying shill for the oil companies......

http://www.skepticalscience.com/davi...l-warming.html

When we're in some sort of "Water World" living on atolls, than we will have our answer.

either way, this vid is badass

Cyclic changes in the global temperature have been happening as long as the earth has been here.

I could believe that we "MIGHT" be in a slight warming cycle but I have seen absolutely nothing, scientific, to indicate that anything mankind has done or is doing are contributing in any significant way.

One thing climate change propagandist can't deny is all life thrives off of carbon dioxide. Greenhouses pump it into their greenhouse to make their plants grow faster. So the more carbon dioxide the more abundant life. In fact the World as a whole has gotten greener since the industrial revolution and introduction of automobiles. So in turn to reduce your carbon footprint is basicly reducing your life expectancy which is what those behind this wish for. You may as well hop in your car with the garage closed and suck in some carbon monoxide which is what most idiots who believe in this shit think it's all about.

You are a fucking Bozo.

Even the chart that claims overestimation clearly shows the trend is still warm.

You are a self absorbed douche that cares more what is in your wallet than what you are doing to the world.

The bottom line is we need to reduce pollution in all fronts, earth, air and water. Show me one study that shows additional carbon in the air is good for the environment and (or) humans.

haha, it's funny you didn't say.. anything in response

cause you have nothing to say right?

what is life like being laughed at? seriously?

Study the carbon dioxide on Venus and tell us how well life thrives on it there genius.

Obviously too much of anything is not a good thing. Apples to oranges there buddy. Venus is 95% carbon dioxide whereas Earth is .04%. Not even remotely comparable. Hola back at me when we at least reach 1 percent.

Breeding permits issued.

Fuck a study how about a real life example.. One of MANY

Capturing CO2 With Tomatoes

THE GIST

- A heat and power plant is designed to pump its CO2 into a giant greenhouse.

- Inside the greenhouse, tomato plants benefit from the gas and flourish.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/glob...oes-120821.htm

No its not apples and oranges, its CO2. You made the claim the more CO2 the more life thrives, so that would mean life should be thriving on Venus. Venus used to have the same atmosphere as Earth, it used to have water, it is about the same distance from the sun, yet the average temperature now is 600 degrees fahrenheit BECAUSE of to much CO2 in the atmosphere. Tell me again how more CO2 is better?

Yeap, like everything else..
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instanc...x/25830593.jpg

the earth is warming. we're setting temp records all the time, ice sheets up north are melting, the ice roads are open shorter times every year

saying different shows you're an idiot

What you are talking about is Land Ice. Land ice has accumulated for a long time on the land, not the ocean, of Antarctica via falling snow. You can think of it as stored ocean water that fell as precipitation.

Sea ice in Antarctica grows during winter melts during the summer. This is different from Arctic sea ice which lasts all year. When Arctic sea ice melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans, causing them to warm up. See

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anta...aining-ice.htm



I agree with you, but from my point if view, it is the Koch brothers, big oil, and republicans that seem hell-bent on world control, and they're willing to destroy the planet to get that control.





.:2 cents:[/QUOTE]

Use to when? Billions of years ago? Again get back to me when we reach at least 1% but my guess is we won;t see it in our lifetime so I guess end of discussion for the remainder of our lives.

Wow that is so completely wrong.

Yes plants & trees take in Carbon Dioxide and water and turn it into oxygen but there is already plenty of it and in fact there is more of it then they can use.

Excess Carbon Dioxide (CO2) traps heat in the atmosphere from escaping, keeping more heat in and warming the planet.

Less trees & green areas mean less CO2 is absorbed. This fact plus the excess that is pumped into the atmosphere is what is causing the earth to warm up.

Bravo :thumbsup