By: Tamara Cohen
Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.
A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.
Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.
Read the rest at: Daily Mail Online
I think there is an explanation to why there has been no warming. I’ll give you a hint: It’s really big, about 93,000,000 miles away, and it’s so bright you can’t look straight at it because it will burn your cornea. Any ideas?
Neilio. It can’t possibly be the sun. The sun only provides 99.999999% of the heat energy on this planet. How anyone coud think that such an insignificant thing could influence climate is mind boggling. Besides, I read on the Skeptical Science website that, “anyone who thinks that the sun has anything to do with global warming is a moron.”
And all these years I thought the sun was the primary heat source on earth. Good thing we have experts who know better to set us straight. But it does leave one question unanswered. Why does the temperature go down when the sun sets? Just a coincidence I’d guess.
Pass the kool ade please.
I wonder how many people will take my comment seriously?
Don’t sweat it. Only people who don’t get sarcasm would take it seriously.
As one of ~7 billion apes on a ball, circling a ball of fire, hurtling through space, I take your comment completely seriously… I just wanted you to know that.
Wow , how insightful. Now let’s compare apples and oranges.
I like pineapple. Can we compare pineapples to oranges?
Did you know that a Tomato is actually a fruit? Why don’t we compare Pineapples to Tomatoes?
Tomato is a fruit yes, however knowledge is knowing not to put a tomato into a fruit salad.
I did not know that! And if you think about it, that makes perfect sense. Thanks! Now we’re making progress.
I think you were shooting for something like “Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.”
Actually I was just messing with RNH. I really didn’t even know what he meant when he said ” Now let’s compare apples and oranges.” Does anybody?
There is something in this story that I think is worth highlighting. Talking about the upcoming IPCC ‘assessment report’.
“The latest report, which runs to 2,000 pages, will be shown to representatives from all 195 governments next week at a meeting in Stockholm, who can discuss alterations they want to make.”
!!”Representatives from all 195 governments, who can discuss alterations they want to make.”!
Think about that. This is scientific data that they are talking about. But they have to craft it to give it the proper spin. These are not scientists that are trying to prove a theory, these are political people. And they know that if they can not spin the truth in a way that is favorable to them, then it is over for them. The Great Global Warming Gravy Train comes to a screeching halt. And a tool of fear will no longer be available to them.
You asked what I meant too late, not that you care. Did you even try to think it thru initially? Rhetorical question, I doubt you did, and it wasn’t that difficult.
Appalling, isn’t it? Even more appalling is the blind support they’ll receive from the media
The big issue here is Al Gores heart attack. Its about to occur and it’s gonna take 2 months for him to get a doctors apt. under ob care.
There is a very simple test to proove/disprove co2.
You just need 2 condoms,2 thermometers and a co2 cartridge.
According to the Rockefeller Foundation and other mesantrophic good doers
0.01% co2 should be responsible for the (non-existing)+5degrees global warming.
If 0.01% can heat up planet earth up to 5degrees than
co2 in combination with sunrays must be omnipotent in terms of heat and 100%co2 exposed to sunrays should be as explosiv as nitro
Two questions:
1)Why don’t we use co2 to create energy?(because it does not work)
2)What will happen if we take instead of 0.01% co2 100% co2(it should produce enourmous heat)
Test:
Put a thermometer inside condom1.
Fill condom1 with Air.
Put a thermometer inside condom2
Fill condom2 with 100% co2.
Expose both condoms to the sun (for 30 minutes/3hours/5hours)
Take a lookat the Thermometer:
You will see that both thermometers will show a similar result.
You will see that even 100% co2 are not able to create a+5 degree difference.
How should 0.01% cause such an effect?=impossible.co2 does not work.
I like your initiative. But the material of the condom may be blocking the certain particular wavelengths of IR radiation that is absorbed by CO2. But I still think the same experiment using a container known to be opaque to those wavelengths, would probably have a similar result.
Pyrex beakers? Maybe? Stick a thermometer through the cork.
CO2 has gotten a bad rap.
zebo. No offence to you, but your experiment is completely inaccurate and does not measure what you are assuming it is.
Ever heard of the greenhouse effect? Allow me to explain. There are gasses in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gasses) that block sunlight that would otherwise bounce off earth back into space. CO2 is one of these gasses, and the more of them there are, the more heat is prevented from leaving. Now, these gasses are essential to life on earth, but too much of them will (and is) cause the earth to warm up. CO2 does not absorb heat, and therefore filling 2 condoms (part of me wants to question your material for this “experiment” and the other is just like LOL) with air and CO2 does not prove that CO2 has no effect on global climate.
As always, do your research and maybe you will actually know something about the world.
~AmudPuddle
Have to agree that the proposed condom experiment doesn’t demonstrate much but you are also mistaken in your assumptions and conclusions. The fact is, CO2 levels have continued to increase in the atmosphere and the brief warming trend that was so hyped in the 90s has ended. There’s been no increase in the global average temperature in 15 years. So explain why the only experiment that matters (real world observation) doesn’t match up to the computer climate models (and never has).
there has been warming over the last 15 years. the 11 warmest years on record have been in the last 12, including 2012, the warmest year on record.
Oh, don’t try to use plain data on these guys- they can see right thru it and into conspiracy land. Fools errand.
Who’s records? How do we know? Why do you trust people like this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/
“The world’s source for global temperature record admits it’s lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.”
Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist said. “Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
(Umm. That’s why you make data like that available. You want people other than yourself to find out if your data holds up to scrutiny. That’s part of the scientific method.)
Are you sure about your sources? Maybe you should just start by taking your most trusted source and question it. Not ask them questions, but more, ask yourself some questions about the information. I have always said that you can never trust anything completely. You really have to question everything nowadays.
You’ve probably been conditioned to believe what you believe. You implicitly trust your sources because they are the sources that you have been taught to trust.
The thing is, that there are a lot of facts floating around out there. Sometimes facts are used correctly, and sometimes they are not in context. There are also a lot of lies out there too. Manipulation of fact, and the application of lies are commonplace. And the lies aren’t always simple. A lie can be something like purposefully using a fact out of context. Or assigning a political motivation to something where there was no political motivation. Things like that.
Once you know what to look for it’s easier to spot. It’s ok to doubt things. Try it sometime.
Their records are based off the last 100 years..
not paleoclimatetolgy.
That’s not science..
I don’t think that talking about the last 100 years would be considered as paleoclimatology. But I don’t think you can claim that it’s not science. Paleoclimatological records are studies of past climate from records that are from proxy data, from ice cores, tree rings, sediments, and they go back thousands of years in the past.
100 years to today would be records from actual observation, using modern methods, and instruments like thermometers, and are considered a lot more accurate and reliable than proxy records.
I just don’t see how you can claim that it’s not science. It’s scientific data. Even the recorded temperatures from yesterday are scientific data.
In the last 17 years CO2 levels have gone up over 10%. The temperature has gone down slightly during that same period. This is what is known in science as a negative correlation, negative correlations disprove theories. At least they used to.
If you’re going to say that other natural processes are counteracting the effects of CO2, then I have more bad news for you. That also proves CO2 is not a dominant factor in temperature forcing. Other natural factors are. Either way, the science doesn’t support the theory. When the science doesn’t support the theory, the theory is dead.
If you can’t explain how a ten percent increase in CO2 can cause a slight decline in temperature without more powerful outside forcings interfering then your theory is dead. If you can prove that other factors overpower the effect of CO2 then the theory of dominant CO2 promoted by the IPCC is also dead.
Heads you lose, tails you lose.
well,anonymous.
than i still have 3 problems if my condom experiment isn’t proving a thing.
1) we have infinite supply of climate-gases=water,a planet with so much water called blue planet.
Sunrays=Steam
Steam(climate gas no1)=more heat
more heat= more steam
more steam= more heat
a perpetual warming machine.
This planet should have reached 20mio degrees .
but it does not work like that
2)why is co2 just reflecting from the atmosphere to the earth but not on to the other side(space)
is co2 goro-tex like?no!
is there any power forcing co2 to reflect just towards the earth but not to space
3) even inside a condom(a small size green house) co2 has to work the same way inside the condom.
4)how is it possible that the same scientist who told us in the 70ies that a new ice age is coming are telling us since the 90ies about global warming.
this 180 is ridicouluos.
i shall trust them:
or the scientists who worked for Hitlers German Science
turned 180 working for the USA (operation paperclip)
or the economy-scientists haven’t predicted the crisis/bubbles in 2000 or 2008.
they don’t dare to criticize FED .
They called people idiots when they were told the LIBOR is manipulated.
The same sh!t with climate scientists.
global warming was invented and is pushed by Rockefellers-
the same guys who polluted the entire US country with standard oil.
They still own Exxon and they give a shit about nature(remember exxon valdez and how they succeed in court to reduce the fines)
now these rockefellers care about nature-lol.
The atmosphere does reflect infra red radiation back to earth. It doesn’t exactly work both ways because the wavelength of the solar radiation is changed by passing through the atmosphere and being partly absorbed and reflecting off the Earth. This is thought to lengthen the wavelength making it more susceptible to being reflected back off of gasses in the atmosphere. There is a point of diminishing returns, however. Once certain gasses reach a certain concentration, adding more has less and less additive effect, approaching nil. For CO2, we’re already past that point. More CO2 will not result in an amplified greenhouse effect.
Nice work, Nelio. Of course, it’s just pure coincidence that the people who promote climate change happen to be the ones who stand to profit from it. I’m sure that doesn’t affect their scientific judgment, however.
oh, you guys amuse me so. Yes, I am fairly sure I trust my sources, but I can ask my teacher tomorrow about it. I have to disagree with you about the never trusting anything part. There’s really nothing to life without risks, and trusting comes with risks. I choose who and what I trust very carefully.
~AmudPuddle
Well, until you discover that at least one trusted source is either flat out full of excrement, or has hidden data, or just plain old passes on information that is demonstrably false, you’ll not know what it’s like. It will happen one day if you pay attention and ask questions. The truth is you are being lied to and manipulated by a person, people, or an organization this very day. The secret is that we all are, this very day, and everyday. The trick is to figure out who or what is doing that for what purpose, or agenda. We’re all in that boat. Welcome to life.
And it’s about population control, right? Right?
Maybe, but that really can’t be proven. How about the kid who had to realize that his long-held understanding wasn’t neccessarily firm or accurate? Some kids are curious, but others figure it just can’t be true. Again, there’s those who are really trying to learn, and open to finding out new ideas even regarding how the Earth’s climate works, regardless of whether held ideas are accurate or not. Then there’s those who want to be correct to the point where they’ll try and employ demagoguery to “make their ideas correct”.
Phil Jones’ behavior is disgraceful and a disappointment to curious individuals like myself. Sure, there are conspiracy nuts who take information of scientists out of context, but when it comes time for accurate vetting, the people who take your experimental data and procedure out of context don’t tend to have the academic strength against it. Take 9/11 truth, for instance, how is that coming along? With all their out-of-context quotations and statements, climatologists should get a pretty good idea that Phil Jones has nothing to fear about his observations.