2009 second warmest year on record

[saveliberty]

Where global warmer scientists will appear next:

Scientist: Alien life could already be on Earth - Yahoo! News

This will be far more entertaining. I can see their tin foil hats now. Running around asking people to blow their nose's into tissues.

 

[Oddball]

Hell, we could be the alien life, for all we know.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, just sit back and watch what happens in 2010.

Perhaps you could pray to your people in the Hollow Moon to help us, Frank

Laugh now, you'll see.

Well, maybe you won't see.

You can take comfort that I believe that the theory that deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 is causing some kind of imaginary and non-existent warming on Earth makes far more sense than any current theory explaining how the Moon got there.

The Moon rang like a bell for over three hours after the Apollo 13 booster landed on it and according to Ken Johnson formerly of NASA who was there at the time, the NASA engineers said the resonance was as if it had dampening struts.

Also, Carl Sagan had it right, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object"

Right on, Carl.

 

[Big Fitz]

Look!....Cottingley Fairies!

Hey! Quick, catch those Fairies! They're supposed to be paying off our national debt! Obama told me so!

 

[Chris]

No, CH4 is not CO2. It is, over the space of a decade, about 70 times more effective than CO2 in trapping heat. Not only that, as the clathrates outgas, they add significantly to the acidity increase in the oceans, leading to an anoxic ocean.

Right now, due to the 250% increase in CH4 and the industrial GHGs, we are past the equivelent of 450 ppm of CO2.

And the Arctic Ocean clathrates have began to outgass. The edomal areas of the permafrost are also contributing CH4 by the millions of tons.

Note, a prediction of global warming is changed atmospheric circulation. But just because we are now seeing changed atmospheric circulation does not mean global warming has anything to do with is

OK.........?????????????

Sciency stuff? LOL. None of the articles that I presented were written by scientists? Your denial has gone beyond ridiculous into the realm of fantasy!

Don't bother these guys with the facts.

They really are living in a fantasy world.

 

[Chris]

Endlessly looping and stupidly repeating your false claim doesn't make it any less false.

The sun is at it's lowest level of activity in 80 years.

correct

The ice continues to melt

correct

So where is the false claim? Or do I have to present links that prove both statements were correct? I can quite quickly, you know. For it is your own deniers that have been making a big deal out of the solar minimum, only to have it blow back in their faces.

Liberty, do you have any kind of intellect at all? Do you know how to do even the most basic research? To present links from reputable sources to back up your mindless assertations? I think not.

Ice continues to form more places than it is melting is a far more accurate statement. I am doing some studies. It is finding your supposed scientists to be fakers, liars and generally misleading on almost their entire body of work. Your sources certainly are not reputable, just supported by government funding.

89% of the data sites don't meet the standards of the group gathering information. Graphs and charts are manipulated and don't even reflect actual temperature differences experienced in the area. All you had to do was look at some of the websites I listed a couple of days ago and see how poorly the data sites were.

You are ignorant. That means willful stupidity in my book. It is okay to be stupid, some can't help that. To be stupid because you refuse to learn is entirely different. I believe you have the capacity and ability to change, I just don't understand why you won't.

The ice is melting. That is without question.

All the scientists in the world are not involved is a giant conspiracy.

 

[Liability]

The sun is at it's lowest level of activity in 80 years.

correct

The ice continues to melt

correct

So where is the false claim? Or do I have to present links that prove both statements were correct? I can quite quickly, you know. For it is your own deniers that have been making a big deal out of the solar minimum, only to have it blow back in their faces.

Liberty, do you have any kind of intellect at all? Do you know how to do even the most basic research? To present links from reputable sources to back up your mindless assertations? I think not.

Ice continues to form more places than it is melting is a far more accurate statement. I am doing some studies. It is finding your supposed scientists to be fakers, liars and generally misleading on almost their entire body of work. Your sources certainly are not reputable, just supported by government funding.

89% of the data sites don't meet the standards of the group gathering information. Graphs and charts are manipulated and don't even reflect actual temperature differences experienced in the area. All you had to do was look at some of the websites I listed a couple of days ago and see how poorly the data sites were.

You are ignorant. That means willful stupidity in my book. It is okay to be stupid, some can't help that. To be stupid because you refuse to learn is entirely different. I believe you have the capacity and ability to change, I just don't understand why you won't.

The ice is melting. That is without question.

All the scientists in the world are not involved is a giant conspiracy.

It is certainly NOT the case that "all the scientists in the world" agree with your fruadulent contention.

Figures lie. Liars figure. AGW Faither "scientists" lie and use cooked figures.

When the temperature in an area climbs above 32 degrees F., ice does melt. That much is true.

As for anything else claimed by the likes of Chrissy, solid proof is now an absolute requirement. Citation to the "data" used by a bunch of AGW Faither/"scientists" is suspect in all cases.

 

[Chris]

Ice continues to form more places than it is melting is a far more accurate statement. I am doing some studies. It is finding your supposed scientists to be fakers, liars and generally misleading on almost their entire body of work. Your sources certainly are not reputable, just supported by government funding.

89% of the data sites don't meet the standards of the group gathering information. Graphs and charts are manipulated and don't even reflect actual temperature differences experienced in the area. All you had to do was look at some of the websites I listed a couple of days ago and see how poorly the data sites were.

You are ignorant. That means willful stupidity in my book. It is okay to be stupid, some can't help that. To be stupid because you refuse to learn is entirely different. I believe you have the capacity and ability to change, I just don't understand why you won't.

The ice is melting. That is without question.

All the scientists in the world are not involved is a giant conspiracy.

It is certainly NOT the case that "all the scientists in the world" agree with your fruadulent contention.

Figures lie. Liars figure. AGW Faither "scientists" lie and use cooked figures.

When the temperature in an area climbs above 32 degrees F., ice does melt. That much is true.

As for anything else claimed by the likes of Chrissy, solid proof is now an absolute requirement. Citation to the "data" used by a bunch of AGW Faither/"scientists" is suspect in all cases.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have increased the temperature of the earth.

What part of this is untrue?

 

[saveliberty]

The ice is melting. That is without question.

All the scientists in the world are not involved is a giant conspiracy.

It is certainly NOT the case that "all the scientists in the world" agree with your fruadulent contention.

Figures lie. Liars figure. AGW Faither "scientists" lie and use cooked figures.

When the temperature in an area climbs above 32 degrees F., ice does melt. That much is true.

As for anything else claimed by the likes of Chrissy, solid proof is now an absolute requirement. Citation to the "data" used by a bunch of AGW Faither/"scientists" is suspect in all cases.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have increased the temperature of the earth.

What part of this is untrue?

A simpleton sees people and CO2, so they jump to the conclusion there is a realtionship. No Chris, the largest ice cap in the world is growing. 72% of the total ice caps on the planet are in growth mode. 89% of data sites in the US don't meet standards set by the agency in charge of gathering the information. Inconvenient facts I am sure, but facts in the less.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. What a liar you are, Liberty. Why don't you post some data from scientific sources to back those foolish statements.

I have repeatedly posted the American Institute of Physics site with the history of CO2.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now you are going to tell me that these people are simpletons? And all the scientists in all the scientific societies in the world are simpletons?

I think the posting of nonsense by you proves who is the simpleton.

NASA, NOAA, and every other agency that studies the ice caps, of whatever government, has repeatedly stated that the ice caps are losing ice by the giga-ton. But one blowhard comes on here and states otherwise, and we are to believe him?

 

[Liability]

The ice is melting. That is without question.

All the scientists in the world are not involved is a giant conspiracy.

It is certainly NOT the case that "all the scientists in the world" agree with your fruadulent contention.

Figures lie. Liars figure. AGW Faither "scientists" lie and use cooked figures.

When the temperature in an area climbs above 32 degrees F., ice does melt. That much is true.

As for anything else claimed by the likes of Chrissy, solid proof is now an absolute requirement. Citation to the "data" used by a bunch of AGW Faither/"scientists" is suspect in all cases.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have increased the temperature of the earth.

What part of this is untrue?

The syllogism and some of the premises.

I realize that to you this is no big deal, but your simplistic effort to dumb it down to suit your petty needs is an obvious ploy.

You again cite "data" but in light of the deliberate manipulation of and suppression of data by the AGW Fiather scientists, the data is in doubt.

CO2, by the way, may contribute to warming, but there is no concrete proof that it causes warming. In fact, it has also been scientifically suggested that when we see increased CO2 in the atmosphere, we are witnessing a RESULT of heating, not a cause of heating. Thus, we may see heat and CO2 increasing (apparently) in tandem, but there is reason to doubt a causal connection along the simplistiic lines you always claim. (That's just an article of Faith for your AGW Faithers.)

Interestingly, if there even has been a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 (another bit of data which is suspect because of the fact that AGW Faithers have screwed with the data), you have yet to establish that the alleged increase is the result of human activity.

 

[saveliberty]

LOL. What a liar you are, Liberty. Why don't you post some data from scientific sources to back those foolish statements.

I have repeatedly posted the American Institute of Physics site with the history of CO2.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now you are going to tell me that these people are simpletons? And all the scientists in all the scientific societies in the world are simpletons?

I think the posting of nonsense by you proves who is the simpleton.

NASA, NOAA, and every other agency that studies the ice caps, of whatever government, has repeatedly stated that the ice caps are losing ice by the giga-ton. But one blowhard comes on here and states otherwise, and we are to believe him?

Got a reading problem?

 

[Old Rocks]

It is certainly NOT the case that "all the scientists in the world" agree with your fruadulent contention.

Figures lie. Liars figure. AGW Faither "scientists" lie and use cooked figures.

When the temperature in an area climbs above 32 degrees F., ice does melt. That much is true.

As for anything else claimed by the likes of Chrissy, solid proof is now an absolute requirement. Citation to the "data" used by a bunch of AGW Faither/"scientists" is suspect in all cases.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have increased the temperature of the earth.

What part of this is untrue?

The syllogism and some of the premises.

I realize that to you this is no big deal, but your simplistic effort to dumb it down to suit your petty needs is an obvious ploy.

You again cite "data" but in light of the deliberate manipulation of and suppression of data by the AGW Fiather scientists, the data is in doubt.

CO2, by the way, may contribute to warming, but there is no concrete proof that it causes warming. In fact, it has also been scientifically suggested that when we see increased CO2 in the atmosphere, we are witnessing a RESULT of heating, not a cause of heating. Thus, we may see heat and CO2 increasing (apparently) in tandem, but there is reason to doubt a causal connection along the simplistiic lines you always claim. (That's just an article of Faith for your AGW Faithers.)

Interestingly, if there even has been a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 (another bit of data which is suspect because of the fact that AGW Faithers have screwed with the data), you have yet to establish that the alleged increase is the result of human activity.

Are you working at being stupid? The absorbtion spectra of CO2 was defined by Tyndal in 1858.

No, it has not been scientifically suggested that the CO2 that we are seeing at present in the atmosphere is the result of heating. In fact, it has been scientifically proven that the increase in the CO2 is the result of the burning of fossil fuels. This was done through isotopic studies in the late 1950s. Scripps Institute of Oceanagraphy.

You are presenting yourself as one truly dumb ass. Where in the hell do you think the CO2 goes when you burn a ton of coal for power? The burning of one ton of coal creates 2 1/2 tons of CO2. It goes out the smoke stack into the atmosphere. We know, from power plant records around the world, how much coal we are burning. So we know how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere from that source. Same for oil and natural gas. We know how much we use, and that the results of that use are vented into the atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. What a liar you are, Liberty. Why don't you post some data from scientific sources to back those foolish statements.

I have repeatedly posted the American Institute of Physics site with the history of CO2.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now you are going to tell me that these people are simpletons? And all the scientists in all the scientific societies in the world are simpletons?

I think the posting of nonsense by you proves who is the simpleton.

NASA, NOAA, and every other agency that studies the ice caps, of whatever government, has repeatedly stated that the ice caps are losing ice by the giga-ton. But one blowhard comes on here and states otherwise, and we are to believe him?

Got a reading problem?

Not at all. You are an ignorant blowhard. Now that you are well defined, go ahead and continue to prove the definition.

 

[saveliberty]

LOL. What a liar you are, Liberty. Why don't you post some data from scientific sources to back those foolish statements.

I have repeatedly posted the American Institute of Physics site with the history of CO2.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now you are going to tell me that these people are simpletons? And all the scientists in all the scientific societies in the world are simpletons?

I think the posting of nonsense by you proves who is the simpleton.

NASA, NOAA, and every other agency that studies the ice caps, of whatever government, has repeatedly stated that the ice caps are losing ice by the giga-ton. But one blowhard comes on here and states otherwise, and we are to believe him?

Got a reading problem?

Not at all. You are an ignorant blowhard. Now that you are well defined, go ahead and continue to prove the definition.

Your actions point to another conclusion. I have repeatedly posted evidence of a 72% growth in the ice caps world wide. I made a statement this morning, "A simpleton sees people and CO2, so they jump to the conclusion there is a realtionship.", and you just went right past it spouting CO2 greenhouse info. Apparently you feel that attacking me will validate your point of view. Most here will not consider that credible. Please continue with your tactics. They are the same as your global warmer science friends who are losing the battle a little each day. The data is bogus from it's positioning, environmental influences, and revisions by the collecting body. Further invalidated by interpretation and differing methodologies in processing information. Then you refer to charts and graphs made by that information as some sort of climate Bible.

 

[Liability]

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have increased the temperature of the earth.

What part of this is untrue?

The syllogism and some of the premises.

I realize that to you this is no big deal, but your simplistic effort to dumb it down to suit your petty needs is an obvious ploy.

You again cite "data" but in light of the deliberate manipulation of and suppression of data by the AGW Fiather scientists, the data is in doubt.

CO2, by the way, may contribute to warming, but there is no concrete proof that it causes warming. In fact, it has also been scientifically suggested that when we see increased CO2 in the atmosphere, we are witnessing a RESULT of heating, not a cause of heating. Thus, we may see heat and CO2 increasing (apparently) in tandem, but there is reason to doubt a causal connection along the simplistiic lines you always claim. (That's just an article of Faith for your AGW Faithers.)

Interestingly, if there even has been a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 (another bit of data which is suspect because of the fact that AGW Faithers have screwed with the data), you have yet to establish that the alleged increase is the result of human activity.

Are you working at being stupid? The absorbtion spectra of CO2 was defined by Tyndal in 1858.

No, it has not been scientifically suggested that the CO2 that we are seeing at present in the atmosphere is the result of heating. In fact, it has been scientifically proven that the increase in the CO2 is the result of the burning of fossil fuels. This was done through isotopic studies in the late 1950s. Scripps Institute of Oceanagraphy.

You are presenting yourself as one truly dumb ass. Where in the hell do you think the CO2 goes when you burn a ton of coal for power? The burning of one ton of coal creates 2 1/2 tons of CO2. It goes out the smoke stack into the atmosphere. We know, from power plant records around the world, how much coal we are burning. So we know how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere from that source. Same for oil and natural gas. We know how much we use, and that the results of that use are vented into the atmosphere.

No, olde Fossil. I have ceded the field of stupidity to idiots like you and Chrissy and the other basically dishonest AGE Faithers.

As for your denial of my claim, where you stupidly and ignorantly claimed "No, it has not been scientifically suggested that the CO2 that we are seeing at present in the atmosphere is the result of heating." You are wrong. It most certainly has been so suggested.

Your denial is baseless. That YOU might be ignorant of this contention si hardly a solid basis to issue your ignorant denial.

That you don't seem to understand that CO2 is RELEASED and is also re-absorbed in a cycle is fascinating. You apparently don't understand even the basic mechanics of the field you have endlessly pontificated about. It's almost shocking. But as things stand, it's just sad and rather predictable. You AGW Faithers are a bunch of frauds.

Now, to the extent that there has been an incomplete reabsorption of CO2 in the cycle, there surely has been an increase in atmospheric CO2. You FAITHERS maintain that this increase is (and will be) responsible for Global Warming. But what guys like you close your eyes and ears to is the FACT that you are unable to tell us whether the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of human activity resulting in increased heating or if other heat sources (and complex interactions) have resulted in increased global warming thereby causing the increase of atmospheric CO2.

You can make claims all day, but you actually don't know. Morons like you don't even want to permit such questions to be posed. It's akin to blasphemy. You AGW Faithers are exactly like the worst of the religions you mock.

 

[edthecynic]

The syllogism and some of the premises.

I realize that to you this is no big deal, but your simplistic effort to dumb it down to suit your petty needs is an obvious ploy.

You again cite "data" but in light of the deliberate manipulation of and suppression of data by the AGW Fiather scientists, the data is in doubt.

CO2, by the way, may contribute to warming, but there is no concrete proof that it causes warming. In fact, it has also been scientifically suggested that when we see increased CO2 in the atmosphere, we are witnessing a RESULT of heating, not a cause of heating. Thus, we may see heat and CO2 increasing (apparently) in tandem, but there is reason to doubt a causal connection along the simplistiic lines you always claim. (That's just an article of Faith for your AGW Faithers.)

Interestingly, if there even has been a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 (another bit of data which is suspect because of the fact that AGW Faithers have screwed with the data), you have yet to establish that the alleged increase is the result of human activity.

Are you working at being stupid? The absorbtion spectra of CO2 was defined by Tyndal in 1858.

No, it has not been scientifically suggested that the CO2 that we are seeing at present in the atmosphere is the result of heating. In fact, it has been scientifically proven that the increase in the CO2 is the result of the burning of fossil fuels. This was done through isotopic studies in the late 1950s. Scripps Institute of Oceanagraphy.

You are presenting yourself as one truly dumb ass. Where in the hell do you think the CO2 goes when you burn a ton of coal for power? The burning of one ton of coal creates 2 1/2 tons of CO2. It goes out the smoke stack into the atmosphere. We know, from power plant records around the world, how much coal we are burning. So we know how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere from that source. Same for oil and natural gas. We know how much we use, and that the results of that use are vented into the atmosphere.

No, olde Fossil. I have ceded the field of stupidity to idiots like you and Chrissy and the other basically dishonest AGE Faithers.

As for your denial of my claim, where you stupidly and ignorantly claimed "No, it has not been scientifically suggested that the CO2 that we are seeing at present in the atmosphere is the result of heating." You are wrong. It most certainly has been so suggested.

Your denial is baseless. That YOU might be ignorant of this contention si hardly a solid basis to issue your ignorant denial.

That you don't seem to understand that CO2 is RELEASED and is also re-absorbed in a cycle is fascinating. You apparently don't understand even the basic mechanics of the field you have endlessly pontificated about. It's almost shocking. But as things stand, it's just sad and rather predictable. You AGW Faithers are a bunch of frauds.

Now, to the extent that there has been an incomplete reabsorption of CO2 in the cycle, there surely has been an increase in atmospheric CO2. You FAITHERS maintain that this increase is (and will be) responsible for Global Warming. But what guys like you close your eyes and ears to is the FACT that you are unable to tell us whether the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of human activity resulting in increased heating or if other heat sources (and complex interactions) have resulted in increased global warming thereby causing the increase of atmospheric CO2.

You can make claims all day, but you actually don't know. Morons like you don't even want to permit such questions to be posed. It's akin to blasphemy. You AGW Faithers are exactly like the worst of the religions you mock.

Well, let's assume that warming increases CO2 and cooling decreases CO2 rather than CO2 being the causal agent. Denier whackos claim we have been COOLING for the last 11 years.
So why has CO2 continued to increase during these last 11 years of global cooling??????????????

 

[Liability]

* * * *
Well, let's assume that warming increases CO2 and cooling decreases CO2 rather than CO2 being the causal agent. Denier whackos claim we have been COOLING for the last 11 years.
So why has CO2 continued to increase during these last 11 years of global cooling??????????????

Warming does release CO2, so I will "assume" that fact.

Cooling may decrease the release of CO2 and it ight also assist in the process(es) of reabsorption of CO2. So, I will assume THAT, too.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about when you say silly shit about denier wackos or you suggest that "they" maintain we have been cooling for 11 years. So I will make no such "assumption."

Now, then, let's see if we can address your final "question."

Nope. It would require accepting your stupid final "premise."

CO2 has continued to be released, however, by human-kind during the past 11 years. However, we do not know all the variables associated with reabosrption of CO2 nor can we make a good guess as to the time-lag associated with increased natural release of CO2 OR its reabsorption.

I am sorry to step on the big toe of your Faith.

 

[Oddball]

Since resigning in disgrace, Phil Jones now has plenty of time to consult his special adviser about the Great Climatic Googly-moogly:

 

[edthecynic]

* * * *
Well, let's assume that warming increases CO2 and cooling decreases CO2 rather than CO2 being the causal agent. Denier whackos claim we have been COOLING for the last 11 years.
So why has CO2 continued to increase during these last 11 years of global cooling??????????????

Warming does release CO2, so I will "assume" that fact.

Cooling may decrease the release of CO2 and it ight also assist in the process(es) of reabsorption of CO2. So, I will assume THAT, too.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about when you say silly shit about denier wackos or you suggest that "they" maintain we have been cooling for 11 years. So I will make no such "assumption."

Now, then, let's see if we can address your final "question."

Nope. It would require accepting your stupid final "premise."

CO2 has continued to be released, however, by human-kind during the past 11 years. However, we do not know all the variables associated with reabosrption of CO2 nor can we make a good guess as to the time-lag associated with increased natural release of CO2 OR its reabsorption.

I am sorry to step on the big toe of your Faith.

As I have said, when CON$ get caught lying they play dumb and just keep on lying.

Deniers have been claiming for years that global warming stopped since 1998.

I simply put you on the horns of a dilemma, do you admit you are lying about CO2 or do you admit the deniers are lying about cooling.

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 - Telegraph

Prepare for Cooling, not Warming
By Dr. Tim Ball & Tom Harris Friday, October 5, 2007
The world is cooling. Global temperatures have declined since 1998 and a growing number of climate experts expect this trend to continue until at least 2030.

Global Climate Chaos: Climate cooling since 1998
"The Earth is not warming. The 28-year period of warming between 1970 and 1998 stopped dead in its tracks, and the climate has been cooling ever since.

Meteorologist and Weather Channel founder John Coleman put it this way: In the face of a rapidly cooling planet, all the proponents of global warming can do is to lamely suggest that global warming has gone on vacation and is taking a 10-year hiatus on account of the absence of sun spots.

No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off
Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998.

Is there global cooling.com - Home
1998 was a warm year but the eleven years since have each been cooler, global temperatures have dropped an average of .6 degrees C in this period (according to UAH)

FNC?s Pinkerton Corrects FNC?s Kennedy on Global Warming: ?Cooling Since 1998' | NewsBusters.org
On Saturday’s Fox News Watch on FNC, regular panel member Jim Pinkerton of the conservative New America Foundation corrected fellow panel member Douglas Kennedy – an FNC correspondent and son of former New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy – as Kennedy asserted that "you don't have to be a scientist to know that the world is getting hotter," and that "that's objective reporting to say that the world is getting hotter."

Pinkerton responded: "Actually, it’s inaccurate reporting to say that. The world has been cooling since 1998."

The World Has Been Cooling Since 1998 AConservativeEdge
Drop in world temperatures fuels global warming debate. Official government measurements show that the world’s temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998. That’s given global warming skeptics new ammunition to attack the prevailing theory of climate change.

Scientic data collected since 1998 - the Earth is Cooling, not Warming inspite of rising CO2 levels. Go figure.
Carbon Dioxide or Carbon is not the culprit, Global Warming is a misnomer, the Earth has been cooling since 1998 as is the Pacific Ocean and evidence of 24% rise in the extent of summer Polar ice since 1998.