oops climate changers are wrong again

[RollingThunder]

BTW, the idiotic lying OP that started this thread was completely debunked on the first page in post #12. Only the fact that the dingbat denier cultists are all too retarded to realize that fact keeps this moronic thread alive.

 

[naturegirl]

Global Cooling, err Global Warming, errrr Climate Change is a HUGE money maker especially for people like Algore.

The left is using their heart instead of their head, they have been programed well. How else can all those globalists get money if they don't keep the brainwashed supporting this farce with taxpayer money?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

<snip>
According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn&#8217;t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for &#8220;green energy.&#8221;

Yea, the government has invested heavily in "green energy" the last few years. Let's not forget about private money for speaking engagements that "climate scientists" get paid to do.

It's all about the money, not about the truth. Where is the benefit to the taxpayer for this out of control spending??

Wanna talk about the number of Eagles the "green" wind farms killed last year, yea I didn't think so.

 

[testarosa]

“The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, [Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California] who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice.’” At the time, the prediction was claimed to be a “conservative” forecast.

Not sure how you get more “conservative” then “no ice”, but I digress. In fact, BBC’s forecast was so far off that new satellite imagery shows that the Arctic has60 percent more ice now than it did in 2007 –one million miles more to be exact.

So yeah.. wrong again

Using 2007 is called cherry picking a date. The following are a couple of excerpts from a very long and informative article written by those who study these things rather than those who cherry pick statistics. Read it you may learn something. Among them that the date for an ice free arctic may be only a few years off the original prediction.

".......The annual minimum extent usually occurs during the month of September and the lowest monthly average was measured in September 2007. The monthly figure was 40.8 percent below the average for the period 1979-1990......."


..."The accelerating rate of decline of ice volume may be a more accurate indicator than the rate of decline of ice extent when attempting to predict the time horizon for an ice-free Arctic Ocean....".

"........Ice volume data helps to put the recovery of sea ice extent since the 2007 minimum into perspective. Sea ice volume continues to decline rapidly and has occurred at an exponential rate since 1979........."

".......... If this trend persists over the coming years we could experience an ice free Arctic Ocean by the summer of 2015............."

The Arctic Institute - Center for Circumpolar Security Studies

Talk about cherry picking dates.

There you go talking about 1979 again. You know, 1979 when the earth was created.

 

[Vox]

Global Cooling, err Global Warming, errrr Climate Change is a HUGE money maker especially for people like Algore.

The left is using their heart instead of their head, they have been programed well. How else can all those globalists get money if they don't keep the brainwashed supporting this farce with taxpayer money?

The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria - Forbes

<snip>
According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”

Yea, the government has invested heavily in "green energy" the last few years. Let's not forget about private money for speaking engagements that "climate scientists" get paid to do.

It's all about the money, not about the truth. Where is the benefit to the taxpayer for this out of control spending??

Wanna talk about the number of Eagles the "green" wind farms killed last year, yea I didn't think so.

Of course it is about the money.
That's why the AGW brainwashed are lying so loudly. In the 70s when the scare of New Ice Age was not converted to money making machine it did not have much attention - as it should be - the prediction was wrong, as it is wrong now, but there were no emotions involved because there was no money making involved.

 

[zeke]

"man has caused none of it"
HAHAHAHAHA
Runoff from development warms the rivers and streams, that is undisputed fact.
1 billion vehicles in use daily in the world.
Go and start your vehicle and put your hand on the exhaust and feel the nice cool air coming out.
There's your sign!
Glaciers are melting at a rate hundreds of times faster than they have for tens of thousands of years and folks believe man plays NO part.
Not claiming man plays ALL THE PART OF IT, maybe not even a majority of it but to make the claim that man has played NO part in polluting the earth and that direct correlation to warming is ignorance of the highest order.
Man in fact plays a role. To deny that is ignorance.

I really enjoy it when I have to change my opinion (for the better) of a poster on this board.

I always have to ask when in the course of earths long history, man burned trillions of tons of carbon (in the form of oil and coal) put those resulting gases back into the atmosphere and found that these gases caused no harmful effect.

When did that happen? Before the last 100 years or so.

I guess the global warming deniers will admit that once, a long time ago, the earth did warm considerably. And man had nothing to do with it. But those pesky huge volcanoes did.

And what was it those volcanoes were spewing you might ask? Carbon. Lots and lots of carbon dioxide.

So man has taken the place of these volcanoes. Spewing trillion of tons of carbon dioxide and other fine green house gases from the burning of oil and coal.

But man has nothing to do with this warming trend. Right? you right wing wack jobs?

 

[Redfish]

"man has caused none of it"
HAHAHAHAHA
Runoff from development warms the rivers and streams, that is undisputed fact.
1 billion vehicles in use daily in the world.
Go and start your vehicle and put your hand on the exhaust and feel the nice cool air coming out.
There's your sign!
Glaciers are melting at a rate hundreds of times faster than they have for tens of thousands of years and folks believe man plays NO part.
Not claiming man plays ALL THE PART OF IT, maybe not even a majority of it but to make the claim that man has played NO part in polluting the earth and that direct correlation to warming is ignorance of the highest order.
Man in fact plays a role. To deny that is ignorance.

I really enjoy it when I have to change my opinion (for the better) of a poster on this board.

I always have to ask when in the course of earths long history, man burned trillions of tons of carbon (in the form of oil and coal) put those resulting gases back into the atmosphere and found that these gases caused no harmful effect.

When did that happen? Before the last 100 years or so.

I guess the global warming deniers will admit that once, a long time ago, the earth did warm considerably. And man had nothing to do with it. But those pesky huge volcanoes did.

And what was it those volcanoes were spewing you might ask? Carbon. Lots and lots of carbon dioxide.

So man has taken the place of these volcanoes. Spewing trillion of tons of carbon dioxide and other fine green house gases from the burning of oil and coal.

But man has nothing to do with this warming trend. Right? you right wing wack jobs?

nice rant, but there is no long term warming trend. I know that you clowns can prepare some charts to show one, but the real data contradicts your false charts.

the temp of the earth has been cycling up and down for millions of years and will be doing so millions of years from now. Man did not cause it in 300,000 BC and will not be causing it in 3535 AD.


but please go ahead and send some money to the prophet algore---he needs a new private jet.

 

[Peterf]

I hope you all know that the Nobel PEACE prize is awarded by Norway. And that the absurd travesty of it's being given to con-man extraordinaire Al Gore had absolutely nothing to do with us Swedes.

 

[zeke]

"man has caused none of it"
HAHAHAHAHA
Runoff from development warms the rivers and streams, that is undisputed fact.
1 billion vehicles in use daily in the world.
Go and start your vehicle and put your hand on the exhaust and feel the nice cool air coming out.
There's your sign!
Glaciers are melting at a rate hundreds of times faster than they have for tens of thousands of years and folks believe man plays NO part.
Not claiming man plays ALL THE PART OF IT, maybe not even a majority of it but to make the claim that man has played NO part in polluting the earth and that direct correlation to warming is ignorance of the highest order.
Man in fact plays a role. To deny that is ignorance.

I really enjoy it when I have to change my opinion (for the better) of a poster on this board.

I always have to ask when in the course of earths long history, man burned trillions of tons of carbon (in the form of oil and coal) put those resulting gases back into the atmosphere and found that these gases caused no harmful effect.

When did that happen? Before the last 100 years or so.

I guess the global warming deniers will admit that once, a long time ago, the earth did warm considerably. And man had nothing to do with it. But those pesky huge volcanoes did.

And what was it those volcanoes were spewing you might ask? Carbon. Lots and lots of carbon dioxide.

So man has taken the place of these volcanoes. Spewing trillion of tons of carbon dioxide and other fine green house gases from the burning of oil and coal.

But man has nothing to do with this warming trend. Right? you right wing wack jobs?

nice rant, but there is no long term warming trend. I know that you clowns can prepare some charts to show one, but the real data contradicts your false charts.

the temp of the earth has been cycling up and down for millions of years and will be doing so millions of years from now. Man did not cause it in 300,000 BC and will not be causing it in 3535 AD.


but please go ahead and send some money to the prophet algore---he needs a new private jet.

Damn you must hate it that you have no common sense.

I will try and simplify the question, because you dodged the first one ; How can burning trillions of tons of carbon (oil and coal) NOT have an effect on climate and weather?

If volcanoes spewing carbon caused temps to rise a long time ago, how can man spewing carbon not do the same?

You do understand that in the physical world there is always cause and effect. No matter how wishful your thinking.

And maybe you understand that there is no big ole chimney letting those nasty gases out into space.

So what are those gases doing? Besides raising temperatures.

 

[auditor0007]

I love how people keep repeating my post. Yet none of you have proven that humans are the direct cause of Global Warming.

There is no "absolute" proof that the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause, but there is more than enough evidence out there to suggest that it is the most likely cause. Here's the problem; even if we proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that the burning of fossil fuels was the cause, it wouldn't change a thing, because the vast majority of the developing world and even the developed world is going to continue burning fossil fuels for a very long time.

What bothers me more than people denying that it's happening is people sticking their head in the sand to the consequences. We need to prepare for those consequences and how we're going to react to them. If a good percentage of Florida ends up under water at some point, what are we going to do with all the people who once lived there? The oceans are going to rise, but by how much? The southwestern US is going to begin losing water; where will they get their water from in the future. How can we support 10 million people living in Arizona if the water is gone? With a great threat of losing fresh water reserves, are new desalinization processes realistic and will they be cost effective enough to make water reasonably priced should we need to begin getting some of our fresh water from the ocean?

We know the earth is getting warmer. No matter what the cause, it will come with changes that we are going to have to adapt to.

 

[Redfish]

I really enjoy it when I have to change my opinion (for the better) of a poster on this board.

I always have to ask when in the course of earths long history, man burned trillions of tons of carbon (in the form of oil and coal) put those resulting gases back into the atmosphere and found that these gases caused no harmful effect.

When did that happen? Before the last 100 years or so.

I guess the global warming deniers will admit that once, a long time ago, the earth did warm considerably. And man had nothing to do with it. But those pesky huge volcanoes did.

And what was it those volcanoes were spewing you might ask? Carbon. Lots and lots of carbon dioxide.

So man has taken the place of these volcanoes. Spewing trillion of tons of carbon dioxide and other fine green house gases from the burning of oil and coal.

But man has nothing to do with this warming trend. Right? you right wing wack jobs?

nice rant, but there is no long term warming trend. I know that you clowns can prepare some charts to show one, but the real data contradicts your false charts.

the temp of the earth has been cycling up and down for millions of years and will be doing so millions of years from now. Man did not cause it in 300,000 BC and will not be causing it in 3535 AD.


but please go ahead and send some money to the prophet algore---he needs a new private jet.

Damn you must hate it that you have no common sense.

I will try and simplify the question, because you dodged the first one ; How can burning trillions of tons of carbon (oil and coal) NOT have an effect on climate and weather?

If volcanoes spewing carbon caused temps to rise a long time ago, how can man spewing carbon not do the same?

You do understand that in the physical world there is always cause and effect. No matter how wishful your thinking.

And maybe you understand that there is no big ole chimney letting those nasty gases out into space.

So what are those gases doing? Besides raising temperatures.

If you fart in a small room do the other people in room smell it? If you fart in New york, do people in Tokyo smell it? Its called gas dispersion.

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere. It is that % today and it was that % in the year zero. ice cores and tree rings prove it.

but as I said, keep sending money to algore so he can continue to fly around the world speading lies.

 

[Redfish]

I love how people keep repeating my post. Yet none of you have proven that humans are the direct cause of Global Warming.

There is no "absolute" proof that the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause, but there is more than enough evidence out there to suggest that it is the most likely cause. Here's the problem; even if we proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that the burning of fossil fuels was the cause, it wouldn't change a thing, because the vast majority of the developing world and even the developed world is going to continue burning fossil fuels for a very long time.

What bothers me more than people denying that it's happening is people sticking their head in the sand to the consequences. We need to prepare for those consequences and how we're going to react to them. If a good percentage of Florida ends up under water at some point, what are we going to do with all the people who once lived there? The oceans are going to rise, but by how much? The southwestern US is going to begin losing water; where will they get their water from in the future. How can we support 10 million people living in Arizona if the water is gone? With a great threat of losing fresh water reserves, are new desalinization processes realistic and will they be cost effective enough to make water reasonably priced should we need to begin getting some of our fresh water from the ocean?

We know the earth is getting warmer. No matter what the cause, it will come with changes that we are going to have to adapt to.

you really got close that time. change it to "the climate of the earth is continually changing and no matter the cause we will have to adapt to it" and you will be right on.

 

[Katzndogz]

Warmer temperatures cause glaciers to melt. Glaciers aren't melting but growing.

That's total bullshit, you lying retard. The large majority of glaciers around the world are melting, retreating and losing ice mass.

NORTH CASCADE GLACIER CLIMATE PROJECT
Mauri S. Pelto, Director
Nichols College, Dudley, MA

Recent Global Glacier Retreat Overview

In recent years I have been asked to write the section on Glacier and Ice Sheets for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Annual State of the Climate report, for example BAMS State of the Climate 2008, 2009 and 2010. This forces me to keep up with investigations of glacier terminus change around the globe. This article documents some of the observations. In historic times, glaciers grew during the Little Ice Age, a cool period from about 1550 to 1850. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as climate warmed. Glacier recession declined and reversed, in many cases, from 1950 to 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. Since 1980, glacier retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that it has threatened the existence of many of the glaciers of the world [1]. This process has increased markedly since 1995, leading to such bizarre steps as covering sections of Austrian alpine glaciers with plastic to retard melting. The World Glacier Monitoring Service [2] has noted 19 consecutive years of negative mass balances, that is volume losses. If a business had 19 consecutive losing years they would be bankrupt. This can lead to the disappearance of a glacier as seen below with Milk Lake Glacier and Lewis Glacier, North Cascades, Washington. Which melted away between 1988 and 1995, creating Milk Lake. It also raises the need to forecast survival of individual smaller alpine glaciers. The below is a regional overview to review the retreat of individual glaciers examined one at time look at the 150 posts in the glacier change blog.

As has been posted, MANY times, the arctic ice has packed on an increase of 60% of its ice mass. Last winter came early. This winter is coming earlier than last winter. Too all indications, this winter is going to be record breaking bitter cold. I'd post the links, again, but they are posted numerous times in this thread already.

The same scientists that sounded the global warming klaxon now admit they were wrong.

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

Blog: Those darn scientists who got global warming wrong

Global warming forecasts wrong, says UN report | News.com.au

Global Warming Wrong? Record Ice Growth in 2013 | Deus Nexus

These are links in addition to all those that have already been provided.

The information you are relying on is from before the scientists were forced to admit they were wrong.

I'm not going to call you a liar. I'm not a liberal and have no need to run around calling people liars just because they are wrong. If I were YOU, I'd have to say that you were a liar. I'm not you, I'll just say you are clinging to old, outdated, proven wrong material and desperately misinformed.

 

[Vox]

I hope you all know that the Nobel PEACE prize is awarded by Norway. And that the absurd travesty of it's being given to con-man extraordinaire Al Gore had absolutely nothing to do with us Swedes.

We do

We also know perfectly well that peace award is a political cookie award and is meaningless

 

[Vox]

nice rant, but there is no long term warming trend. I know that you clowns can prepare some charts to show one, but the real data contradicts your false charts.

the temp of the earth has been cycling up and down for millions of years and will be doing so millions of years from now. Man did not cause it in 300,000 BC and will not be causing it in 3535 AD.


but please go ahead and send some money to the prophet algore---he needs a new private jet.

Damn you must hate it that you have no common sense.

I will try and simplify the question, because you dodged the first one ; How can burning trillions of tons of carbon (oil and coal) NOT have an effect on climate and weather?

If volcanoes spewing carbon caused temps to rise a long time ago, how can man spewing carbon not do the same?

You do understand that in the physical world there is always cause and effect. No matter how wishful your thinking.

And maybe you understand that there is no big ole chimney letting those nasty gases out into space.

So what are those gases doing? Besides raising temperatures.

If you fart in a small room do the other people in room smell it? If you fart in New york, do people in Tokyo smell it? Its called gas dispersion.

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere. It is that % today and it was that % in the year zero. ice cores and tree rings prove it.

but as I said, keep sending money to algore so he can continue to fly around the world speading lies.

The AGW chanting choir is so incredibly ignorant that it thinks our globe has a hermetic box aroun it and the heat buidup in the atmosphere does not dissipate to outer space. So I have provided the links from NASA most recent report which does talk about that. Obviously the chant choir didn't pay any attention to anythig they are not given the sound bites.

Politicizing scientific concepts happen all the time, unfortunately unintended consequences often result in general skepticism toward new concepts.

Science and hysteria don't blend well. But if monetary gain is visible, hysteria is turned higher

 

[zeke]

nice rant, but there is no long term warming trend. I know that you clowns can prepare some charts to show one, but the real data contradicts your false charts.

the temp of the earth has been cycling up and down for millions of years and will be doing so millions of years from now. Man did not cause it in 300,000 BC and will not be causing it in 3535 AD.


but please go ahead and send some money to the prophet algore---he needs a new private jet.

Damn you must hate it that you have no common sense.

I will try and simplify the question, because you dodged the first one ; How can burning trillions of tons of carbon (oil and coal) NOT have an effect on climate and weather?

If volcanoes spewing carbon caused temps to rise a long time ago, how can man spewing carbon not do the same?

You do understand that in the physical world there is always cause and effect. No matter how wishful your thinking.

And maybe you understand that there is no big ole chimney letting those nasty gases out into space.

So what are those gases doing? Besides raising temperatures.

If you fart in a small room do the other people in room smell it? If you fart in New york, do people in Tokyo smell it? Its called gas dispersion.

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere. It is that % today and it was that % in the year zero. ice cores and tree rings prove it.

but as I said, keep sending money to algore so he can continue to fly around the world speading lies.

Fuk me. You are trying to compare people farting in a room to the burning of billions of tons of carbon each and every day of the year.

You have now proven that YOU are to fuking stupid to continue responding to.

btw, ice core sampling DOES not prove what you contend. Just the opposite. But why in the fuk would anyone try and educate you. That's a waste of time.

Off to work. You should try it.

 

[zeke]

Damn you must hate it that you have no common sense.

I will try and simplify the question, because you dodged the first one ; How can burning trillions of tons of carbon (oil and coal) NOT have an effect on climate and weather?

If volcanoes spewing carbon caused temps to rise a long time ago, how can man spewing carbon not do the same?

You do understand that in the physical world there is always cause and effect. No matter how wishful your thinking.

And maybe you understand that there is no big ole chimney letting those nasty gases out into space.

So what are those gases doing? Besides raising temperatures.

If you fart in a small room do the other people in room smell it? If you fart in New york, do people in Tokyo smell it? Its called gas dispersion.

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere. It is that % today and it was that % in the year zero. ice cores and tree rings prove it.

but as I said, keep sending money to algore so he can continue to fly around the world speading lies.

The AGW chanting choir is so incredibly ignorant that it thinks our globe has a hermetic box aroun it and the heat buidup in the atmosphere does not dissipate to outer space. So I have provided the links from NASA most recent report which does talk about that. Obviously the chant choir didn't pay any attention to anythig they are not given the sound bites.

Politicizing scientific concepts happen all the time, unfortunately unintended consequences often result in general skepticism toward new concepts.

Science and hysteria don't blend well. But if monetary gain is visible, hysteria is turned higher

So there is a big ole chimney out in space? Where is it? Do we have a big ole exhaust fan as well. You know. to dissipate all those nasty global warming farts that redfish is concerned about? LMFAO.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The IPCC joins the ranks of deniers

There's no Global Warming, so, of course, they go back and change all their models.

This is how Bernie Madoff operated

 

[Redfish]

Damn you must hate it that you have no common sense.

I will try and simplify the question, because you dodged the first one ; How can burning trillions of tons of carbon (oil and coal) NOT have an effect on climate and weather?

If volcanoes spewing carbon caused temps to rise a long time ago, how can man spewing carbon not do the same?

You do understand that in the physical world there is always cause and effect. No matter how wishful your thinking.

And maybe you understand that there is no big ole chimney letting those nasty gases out into space.

So what are those gases doing? Besides raising temperatures.

If you fart in a small room do the other people in room smell it? If you fart in New york, do people in Tokyo smell it? Its called gas dispersion.

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere. It is that % today and it was that % in the year zero. ice cores and tree rings prove it.

but as I said, keep sending money to algore so he can continue to fly around the world speading lies.

Fuk me. You are trying to compare people farting in a room to the burning of billions of tons of carbon each and every day of the year.

You have now proven that YOU are to fuking stupid to continue responding to.

btw, ice core sampling DOES not prove what you contend. Just the opposite. But why in the fuk would anyone try and educate you. That's a waste of time.

Off to work. You should try it.

as I said, if you want to believe it, fine, go right ahead. last time I checked, thought control had not yet been implemented..

as to work, no thanks. I did it for over 40 years. lots of 12 hour days, lots of world wide travel, lots of money, time to sit back and enjoy.

BTW, "fuck" has a "c" in it.

 

[Vox]

If you fart in a small room do the other people in room smell it? If you fart in New york, do people in Tokyo smell it? Its called gas dispersion.

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere. It is that % today and it was that % in the year zero. ice cores and tree rings prove it.

but as I said, keep sending money to algore so he can continue to fly around the world speading lies.

The AGW chanting choir is so incredibly ignorant that it thinks our globe has a hermetic box aroun it and the heat buidup in the atmosphere does not dissipate to outer space. So I have provided the links from NASA most recent report which does talk about that. Obviously the chant choir didn't pay any attention to anythig they are not given the sound bites.

Politicizing scientific concepts happen all the time, unfortunately unintended consequences often result in general skepticism toward new concepts.

Science and hysteria don't blend well. But if monetary gain is visible, hysteria is turned higher

So there is a big ole chimney out in space? Where is it? Do we have a big ole exhaust fan as well. You know. to dissipate all those nasty global warming farts that redfish is concerned about? LMFAO.

idiots like you never have heard about thermal conductivity?

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Forbes

 

[Vox]

The IPCC joins the ranks of deniers

There's no Global Warming, so, of course, they go back and change all their models.

This is how Bernie Madoff operated

which is NORMAL. It happens ALL THE TIME in a scientific world.

what does not happen all the time is the monetary gain from a temporary model prediction - and when the time comes to change it because it is wrong and new data prove it being wrong, the uneducated low-information hysterical libtard choir gets all up in arms because it is all too much confusing for their microscopic minds.