http://forum.iburncorn.com/vie.....dd81#97728

Clearly there is no data to challenge the established warming trend.

“No global warming for around 10 years.”

BULLSHIT.

“A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties, which are shown as thin black bars. The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/co.....ths/2.html

“Outcome of all this is temp records down all round and 1930’s reverts to the hottest decade.”

BULLSHIT.

“Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth’s surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis (Hansen et al. 2001), 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty.”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

“Aqua satellite launched 2002 and found no hotspots in Troposphere as the inter-action between CO2/water vapour and cloud formation happens at low levels and does not create the high cirrus clouds which trap the heat.”

BULLSHIT.

Christy and Spencer released an analysis claiming that the troposphere was not warming near the tropics as predicted. This they called the “hotspot” and “AGW fingerprint”. It turns out their data was flawed, and when corrected DID show the expected warming in the troposphere above the tropics.

“A curious puzzle in the study of climate science has been solved, and that solution is helping scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) make the satellite record of global climate change more reliable than it was previously.

Research published this week by Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in Santa Rosa, Calif., identifies a problem that kept the UAH group from accurately correcting one error caused by NOAA satellites drifting in their orbits over the past 26 years.

The net result of changes in how the data are analyzed added about 0.09 C (about 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit) of global warming over the past 26 years, with most of that previously unreported warming occurring in the tropics.”

“”We’ve been pleased with the level of agreement between the two datasets, indicating a high degree of consistency,” said Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at UAH. “Over the years, however, we noticed that the satellite data didn’t seem to agree quite as well with balloon data from the tropics as it did with balloon data from other parts of the globe.”

(Note that after the error was exposed, THEN Spencer talked about how they had noticed that their tropics data was faulty – it didn’t stop them making the claim that their data proved AGW was false though!)

“”While some people might question the importance of a correction that changes the long term trend by only 0.035 C per decade, for us the most important thing is to produce a climate dataset that is as accurate and reliable as humanly possible,” Christy said. “Roy and I would argue that the political debate over climate issues should always be driven by the data, not the other way around.”"

(And yet they say they knew THEIR DATA WAS FAULTY but they still used it to drive forward their political agenda!)

“”It is fairly obvious that some portion of this warming is probably due to human influences,” said Spencer. “What isn’t clear is how much or which influences.”"
http://www.uah.edu/news/newsread.php?newsID=60

The fact is, the “hotpot” is there, and these two scientists have had to admit that. Now they are arguing about the magnitude of the warming. It seems that it doesn’t matter what they find, the answer is ALWAYS AGW is not real. If their data shows no warming – AGW is not real. If their data shows warming – AGW is not real. No matter what, the answer never changes.

“The whole thing has fallen apart and Sun Cycle 24 has yet to start producing sun spots.”

BULLSHIT.

Solar Cycle 24 has produced sunspots in fact as early as January this year!

“Cooling widely predicted…Maunder Minimum on the horizon.”

BULLSHIT.

Cooling has been “predicted” by very few scientists (in fact only two that I know of, in a paper that was rejected at peer review because the data could not support the conclusion)

All the rest has been bullshit published by bullshit artists, and not even very many of them!

“For instance there was no snow in Greenland circa 850AD to 1350AD…it was so warm the Vikings lived there…and called it Greenland because it was covered in grass.”

BULLSHIT.

The warming during that period resulted in less sea ice, which allowed some vikings to make a journey to the southern most tip of Greenland which was not covered by ice. The Greenland ice cap did not melt, and climactic conditions were no different then than they are today. Greenland was occupied both before and after the vikings by paleo-eskimo cultures. What happened to the vikings was a result of their refusal to adopt the local seafood based diet, and resulted in them destroying the little greenery in their area by attempting to graze cattle. They failed.

“The AGW’s removed this from the history books in their now infamous “hockey stick” graph.”

BULLSHIT.

“Slayed by Steve McIntyr..the guy who sorted out the NASA problem as mentioned above.”

BULLSHIT.

The “hockey stick” was not “slayed”! In fact McIntyre made serious errors in his critique, resulting in him discarding over 2/3rds of the data before he was able to come up with a graph that differed from Mann’s! In other words, he only got a different graph, by using a different dataset!

“Thefeore with no hotspots found by Aqua this should be the beggining of the end of the AGW lunacy.”

BULLSHIT.

“It does not matter…your theory has been pulled apart by Aqua and you can stuff your green taxes where a monkey puts his nuts.”

BULLSHIT.

You are conflating the science with the policy. Just because YOU don’t like the policy (neither do I) that doesn’t mean the science is wrong. It isn’t.

“Idiots like you caused Bio-fuel panic which has left millions starving.”

BULLSHIT.

That was caused by corporate farms thinking they could make more money from fuel than from food. That has nothing to do with AGW, and besides “millions starving” is hyperbolic bullshit.

“Long term we need to move from oil anyway and hydrogen based engines seem a good bet but that would be solving a problem and thus ending an excuse for green taxes.”

Which is EXACTLY what I have been saying all along. Carbon Taxes and Carbon Credits are simply the elites way of avoiding paying for the mess they made, AND has the added benefit of making idiots like you deny the science because of the policy.

Thefeore with no hotspots found by Aqua this should be the beggining of the end of the AGW lunacy.

As regards the over educated moron who can name every ppm of CO2 that ever showed up on any planet…you are talking bollocks.
It does not matter…your theory has been pulled apart by Aqua and you can stuff your green taxes where a monkey puts his nuts.
Idiots like you caused Bio-fuel panic which has left millions starving.
Long term we need to move from oil anyway and hydrogen based engines seem a good bet but that would be solving a problem and thus ending an excuse for green taxes.

Measurements on August 26 showed an ice cap of 5.26 million square kilometers (2.03 million square miles), just below the 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) observed on 21 September 2005, making it the second biggest summer Arctic ice-cap melt in history, said the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

Since the start of August, the Boulder, Colorado-based center said, the Arctic polar cap shrank by 2.06 million square kilometers (0.8 million square miles).

The melting is so fast and extensive it could shrink the ice cap to below the 4.25 million square kilometers (1.64 million square miles) reached in the summer of 2007, the smallest it has ever been observed by satellites, the center said.

Since the end of the Arctic summer and the start of the freezing autumn is several weeks away, it said, the ice cap could dwindle even more than it did in 2007.

At the end of northern hemisphere summer 2007, the Arctic ice cap was 40 percent smaller than the average 7.23 million square kilometers (2.8 million square miles) observed in 1979-2000, the NSIDC said.

The North Pole melting season begins in mid-June. The ice cap shrinks to its smallest area by mid-September and grows the most in winter by mid-March.

“The bottom line, however, is that the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent characterizing the past decade continues,” the Center said in a report.

The North Pole itself could even become free of ice by September for the first time in modern history, setting a new milestone in the effects of global warming on the Arctic ice shelf, NSIDC glaciologist Mark Serreze told AFP in late June.

“We could have no ice at the North Pole at the end of this summer. And the reason here is that the North Pole area right now is covered with very thin ice, and this ice we call ‘first-year ice,’ the ice that tends to melt out in the summer,” he explained.

Serrreze said the possibility the ice cap could vanish stood at 50 percent.

If it does happen in September, he added, “it’s possible that ships could sail from Alaska right to the North Pole”.

The Arctic has been free of ice in the geologic history of the Earth, but never in modern history, Serreze said.

“Clearly, if you look over what we have seen in the past three years and where we were headed, we are in … this long-term decline and we may have no ice at all in the Arctic Ocean in summer by 2030 or so,” he added.

Not long ago, he said, the summer disappearance of the Arctic ice was predicted to happen between 2050 and 2100.

The NSIDC said the receding North Pole ice sheet was chiefly caused by the melting of ice in the Chukchi Sea, off the Alaskan coast, and the East Siberian Seas, off the coast of eastern Russia.

The Chukchi ice sheet is one of the natural habitats of the polar bear, where it hunts for seals, and its disappearance is a direct threat to the animal’s survival.

The vanishing summer polar ice cap, however, also opens up the fabled Northwest Passage that winds through the northern Canadian islands and links the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Shipping routes using the Northwest Passage would spare very long detours through the Panama Canal and around South America’s Cape Horn.

An ice-free North Pole would also expose untold wealth of natural resources, including oil and natural gas, locked up beneath the Arctic Ocean waters, which Canada and Russia are already eagerly preparing to exploit.

I’m not surprised at all. In fact I would be surprised if a lie like that DIDN’T feature front and center in a Paul Watson article. He even forced the Armagh Observatory to waste time correcting some of his previous bullshit:

“A letter to the Belfast Telegraph, published on 2008 August 13th (link) has been picked up by other sites who give the impression that it represents the views of the Armagh Observatory. We do not know of any evidence based on Armagh observations (whether solar or meteorological) that predicts an imminent drop in global temperatures of two degrees C, nor do we know the author of the letter to the Belfast Telegraph. Peer-reviewed publications referring to the Observatory’s climate data can be found at climate.arm.ac.uk.”

http://star.arm.ac.uk/press/2008/Aug-22.html