2015 hottest year ever, 15 of 16 hottest years since 2001...

[Billy_Bob]

The next time you want to make fun of someone's predictions, find one that uses a date.

Midnight tonight.. AL GORE FAIL-ATHON hits its apex...

Source

 

[Crick]

The IPCC's mandate is to find man-made impact on climate. Funding is freely available towards that cause. Funding not related to, or especially opposed to man-made causes is much harder to find. That is why skeptical researchers look to non governmental funding, and if they find it they are criticized. Catch 22.

Here is the text of the resolution creating the IPCC:

Convinced that climate change affects humanity as a whole and should be
confronted within a global framework so as to take into account the vital
interests of all mankind,

1. Recognizes that climate change is a common concern of mankind, since
climate is an essential condition which sustains life on earth;

2. Determines that necessary and timely action should be taken to deal
with climate change within a global framework;

3. Reaffirms its resolution 42/184 of 11 December 1987, in which,
inter alia, it agreed with the Governing Council of the United Nations
Environment Programme that the Programme should attach importance to the
problem of global climate change and that the Executive Director of the United
Nations Environment Programme should ensure that the Programme co-operates
closely with the World Meteorological Organization and the International
Council of Scientific Unions and maintains an active, influential role in the
World Climate Programme;

4. Considers that activities in support of the World Climate Programme,
approved by the Congress and Executive Council of the World Meteorological
Organization and elaborated in the system-wide medium-term environment
programme for the period 1990-1995, which was approved by the Governing
Council of the United Nations Environment Programme,be accorded high
priority by the relevant organs and programmes of the United Nations system;

5. Endorses the action of the World Meteorological Organization and the
United Nations Environment Programme in jointly establishing an
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide internationally
co-ordinated scientific assessments of the magnitude, timing and potential
environmental and socio-economic impact of climate change and realistic
response strategies, and expresses appreciation for the work already initiated
by the Panel;

6. Urges Governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental
organizations and scientific institutions to treat climate change as a
priority issue, to undertake and promote specific, co-operative
action-oriented programmes and research so as to increase understanding on all
sources and causes of climate change, including its regional aspects and
specific time-frames as well as the cause and effect relationship of human
activities and climate, and to contribute, as appropriate, with human and
financial resources to efforts to protect the global climate;

7. Calls upon all relevant organizations and programmes of the United
Nations system to support the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change;

8. Encourages the convening of conferences on climate change,
particularly on global warming, at the national, regional and global levels in
order to make the international community better aware of the importance of
dealing effectively and in a timely manner with all aspects of climate change
resulting from certain human activities;

9. Calls upon Governments and intergovernmental organizations to
collaborate in making every effort to prevent detrimental effects on climate
and activities which affect the ecological balance, and also calls upon
non-governmental organizations, industry and other productive sectors to play
their due role;

10. Requests the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological
Organization and the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment
Programme, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, immediately
to initiate action leading, as soon as possible, to a comprehensive review and
recommendations with respect to:

(a) The state of knowledge of the science of climate and climatic
change;

(b) Programmes and studies on the social and economic impact of climate
change, including global warming;

(c) Possible response strategies to delay, limit or mitigate the impact
of adverse climate change;

(d) The identification and possible strengthening of relevant existing
international legal instruments having a bearing on climate;

(e) Elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention
on climate;

11. Also requests the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution
to the attention of all Governments, as well as intergovernmental
organizations, non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the
Economic and Social Council and well-established scientific institutions with
expertise in matters concerning climate;

12. Further requests the Secretary-General to report to the General
Assembly at its forty-fourth session on the implementation of the present
resolution;

13. Decides to include this question in the provisional agenda of its
forty-fourth session, without prejudice to the application of the principle of biennialization.

****************************************************************************

The reference to human influence on climate is far more subdued and part of a much larger set of directions than your description would lead us to believe.

As to where research money might be going to, I would very much like to know on what factual information you base your conclusions and whether or not you have any logical rationale behind the idea that (let's speak bluntly) denier research should be as well funded as mainstream science. Whether or not you and yours agree, Ian, to the rest of the world, AGW is firmly established and research proposals attempting to find some way to refute it are very likely to be considered a waste of time and money.

Aren't they.

 

[Crick]

Funny:

You still haven't answered the question as to why when we had 7,000ppm CO2, the earth still cycled, glaciation, warm ups, and back to ice, why didn't we burn up like you think its going to do now? IF your Left wing premise were true, we should have been dead already..

By the way, AL Gore's clock to dooms day hits bottom at midnight tomorrow.. Funny how were still seeing snow and all those things he said would be gone along with massive runaway heat... You guys like failure..

You know, I was reading your post and the whole time I thought you were Crusader Frank.

 

[mamooth]

You still haven't answered the question as to why when we had 7,000ppm CO2, the earth still cycled, glaciation, warm ups, and back to ice, why didn't we burn up like you think its going to do now? IF your Left wing premise were true, we should have been dead already..

I've answered it for you many times. I can show the links if you'd like. But being that you're a pathological liar, you pretend you've never been given an answer.

The answer is ... the sun was significantly dimmer. You're just so damn ignorant of the basic science, and so proud of that ignorance.

By the way, AL Gore's clock to dooms day hits bottom at midnight tomorrow.. Funny how were still seeing snow and all those things he said would be gone along with massive runaway heat... You guys like failure..

Being Al Gore didn't say or imply the world will end, why are you lying and claiming he said that? That is, are you lying because you're an 'effin retard, or are you lying because your cult told you to lie, and you're too chickenshit to disobey?

Why are all almost deniers such pissguzzling wusses? Were you deniers castrated before joining the cult, or was that part of the initiation ceremony?

 

[Roudy]

Don't make me look. What is "LW"?

Left Wing.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You still haven't answered the question as to why when we had 7,000ppm CO2, the earth still cycled, glaciation, warm ups, and back to ice, why didn't we burn up like you think its going to do now? IF your Left wing premise were true, we should have been dead already..

I've answered it for you many times. I can show the links if you'd like. But being that you're a pathological liar, you pretend you've never been given an answer.

The answer is ... the sun was significantly dimmer. You're just so damn ignorant of the basic science, and so proud of that ignorance.

By the way, AL Gore's clock to dooms day hits bottom at midnight tomorrow.. Funny how were still seeing snow and all those things he said would be gone along with massive runaway heat... You guys like failure..

Being Al Gore didn't say or imply the world will end, why are you lying and claiming he said that? That is, are you lying because you're an 'effin retard, or are you lying because your cult told you to lie, and you're too chickenshit to disobey?

Why are all almost deniers such pissguzzling wusses? Were you deniers castrated before joining the cult, or was that part of the initiation ceremony?

What an Idiot...

Snageltooth cant take that Al Gore Lies have all failed to become reality.. And now that his predictions are failing in prime time light, he has his panties in a knot...

 

[francoHFW]

Link? lol

 

[francoHFW]

Ted Danson? Check coral around the world. Going or gone...

 

[ScienceRocks]

2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says

Helloooo?

Why would you choose that data set? Do you lack logical reasoning skills?

Maybe because the noaa funds most of the meteorological infrastructure that makes such observations possible in this country?

You are an anti-science bullshitter.

Why? you're the one that doesn't want this country to maintain the temperature record and calls it all a fraud. Who are you trying to kid?

 

[Muhammed]

2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says

Helloooo?

Why would you choose that data set? Do you lack logical reasoning skills?

Maybe because the noaa funds most of the meteorological infrastructure that makes such observations possible in this country?

You are an anti-science bullshitter.

Why? you're the one that doesn't want this country to maintain the temperature record and calls it all a fraud. Who are you trying to kid?

Anti-science activists like yourself should do some research. And no, "research" does not mean looking for crap on the internet that supports your preconceived global warming bullshit.

Don't drink the kool-aid, dumbass.

 

[Crick]

Don't make me look. What is "LW"?

Left Wing.

Ah... the political paranoia.

 

[Crick]

You still haven't answered the question as to why when we had 7,000ppm CO2, the earth still cycled, glaciation, warm ups, and back to ice, why didn't we burn up like you think its going to do now? IF your Left wing premise were true, we should have been dead already..

I've answered it for you many times. I can show the links if you'd like. But being that you're a pathological liar, you pretend you've never been given an answer.

The answer is ... the sun was significantly dimmer. You're just so damn ignorant of the basic science, and so proud of that ignorance.

By the way, AL Gore's clock to dooms day hits bottom at midnight tomorrow.. Funny how were still seeing snow and all those things he said would be gone along with massive runaway heat... You guys like failure..

Being Al Gore didn't say or imply the world will end, why are you lying and claiming he said that? That is, are you lying because you're an 'effin retard, or are you lying because your cult told you to lie, and you're too chickenshit to disobey?

Why are all almost deniers such pissguzzling wusses? Were you deniers castrated before joining the cult, or was that part of the initiation ceremony?

What an Idiot...

Snageltooth cant take that Al Gore Lies have all failed to become reality.. And now that his predictions are failing in prime time light, he has his panties in a knot...

O contraire mon petit pot de pisse, I'd say he's got you right on the money. Hard to believe a degree'd atmospheric physicist could entertain such ignorant misconceptions, but there you go.[/QUOTE]

 

[SSDD]

Crick you poor idiot....can you tell me when, and under what circumstances the curvature of space time due to gravity is so trifling that it can be discounted as non existent?

 

[SSDD]

Crick you poor idiot....can you tell me when, and under what circumstances the curvature of space time due to gravity is so trifling that it can be discounted as non existent?

Nothing? That's what I thought. So your claim of what I supposedly believe is just another instance of you talking out your ass...like when you claim that there is actual empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming. Can you explain why, if that claim is true that the temperature has not increased since 2000 even though mankind has poured fully 30% of all the CO2 we ever created into the atmosphere since 2000?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick you poor idiot....can you tell me when, and under what circumstances the curvature of space time due to gravity is so trifling that it can be discounted as non existent?

Nothing? That's what I thought. So your claim of what I supposedly believe is just another instance of you talking out your ass...like when you claim that there is actual empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming. Can you explain why, if that claim is true that the temperature has not increased since 2000 even though mankind has poured fully 30% of all the CO2 we ever created into the atmosphere since 2000?

Then there's the NOAA telling us that 1997 was actually 62, which is 4F WARMER than this 2015, the "WARMERERERST EVAH!!!!" at a paltry 58

 

[mamooth]

Crick you poor idiot....can you tell me when, and under what circumstances the curvature of space time due to gravity is so trifling that it can be discounted as non existent?

How about you first explain to us what that has to do with anything? That's because it looks like just another desperate deflection on your part, one you're throwing out because you're getting humiliated again.

And Frank, stop trying to pull off your baseline-swapping fraud. Everyone already knows you're an open fraud, so there's no need to keep confirming it.

Like so many threads here, this thread is now just the same perpetually-butthurt cult fruitloops impotently shaking their tiny fists at the sky. Fruitloops, do you have any plans for the future beyond shaking your fists at the sky? While doing so might make you feel better, you should have noticed that your years of shaking your fists at the sky have only cemented your reputations as cult fruitloops, and therefore a new tactic might be in order.

 

[jc456]

2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says

Helloooo?

Why would you choose that data set? Do you lack logical reasoning skills?

Maybe because the noaa funds most of the meteorological infrastructure that makes such observations possible in this country?

You are an anti-science bullshitter.

Why? you're the one that doesn't want this country to maintain the temperature record and calls it all a fraud. Who are you trying to kid?

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand what you were going for here? Did you mean you wan the country to maintain temperature recordsssssssss or did you want the US to hold the record forever?

 

[jc456]

Crick you poor idiot....can you tell me when, and under what circumstances the curvature of space time due to gravity is so trifling that it can be discounted as non existent?

Nothing? That's what I thought. So your claim of what I supposedly believe is just another instance of you talking out your ass...like when you claim that there is actual empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming. Can you explain why, if that claim is true that the temperature has not increased since 2000 even though mankind has poured fully 30% of all the CO2 we ever created into the atmosphere since 2000?

Then there's the NOAA telling us that 1997 was actually 62, which is 4F WARMER than this 2015, the "WARMERERERST EVAH!!!!" at a paltry 58

hey Frank, doesn't that validate the 18 year pause?

And Billys assertion of it getting cooler? Interesting. Well I mean as long as 58 isn't > 62

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick you poor idiot....can you tell me when, and under what circumstances the curvature of space time due to gravity is so trifling that it can be discounted as non existent?

How about you first explain to us what that has to do with anything? That's because it looks like just another desperate deflection on your part, one you're throwing out because you're getting humiliated again.

And Frank, stop trying to pull off your baseline-swapping fraud. Everyone already knows you're an open fraud, so there's no need to keep confirming it.

Like so many threads here, this thread is now just the same perpetually-butthurt cult fruitloops impotently shaking their tiny fists at the sky. Fruitloops, do you have any plans for the future beyond shaking your fists at the sky? While doing so might make you feel better, you should have noticed that your years of shaking your fists at the sky have only cemented your reputations as cult fruitloops, and therefore a new tactic might be in order.

So NOAA got the temperature wrong -- in 1997??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick you poor idiot....can you tell me when, and under what circumstances the curvature of space time due to gravity is so trifling that it can be discounted as non existent?

Nothing? That's what I thought. So your claim of what I supposedly believe is just another instance of you talking out your ass...like when you claim that there is actual empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming. Can you explain why, if that claim is true that the temperature has not increased since 2000 even though mankind has poured fully 30% of all the CO2 we ever created into the atmosphere since 2000?

Then there's the NOAA telling us that 1997 was actually 62, which is 4F WARMER than this 2015, the "WARMERERERST EVAH!!!!" at a paltry 58

hey Frank, doesn't that validate the 18 year pause?

And Billys assertion of it getting cooler? Interesting. Well I mean as long as 58 isn't > 62

Can you imagine how cold it really must be if even after adding the magical excess heat eaten by the oceans they're STILL 4F below 1997?