im talking of course, about Manbearpig does exist and he will get you!
hes super-duper seriol.

“Global cooling looks more certain than Global warming.”

To a retard maybe.

“For the last two/three years temperatures have been dipping in Bombay (now renamed Mumbai).”

Well shit, if YOU say so “doctor”, it MUST be true! Retard.

“Therefore, I would anyday trust the Mexican scientists than the con Americans, who usually say the opposite and hoodwink the world.”

Of course! Why didn’t I guess that all those tens of thousands of climatologists all over the world, including India, are all actually secret American spies! Retard.

For the last two/three years temperatures have
been dipping in Bombay (now renamed Mumbai).Therefore,
I would anyday trust the Mexican scientists than the
con Americans, who usually say the opposite and hoodwink
the world.

“how ignorant and low to criticize a scientist for being mexican as if they are an inferior people.”

I agree that his nationality has nothing to do with him being wrong. He IS wrong though.

“this article is based of factual information about solar activity.”

No it is NOT. It is based on unfounded speculation and outright lies.

“it is comparing the solar activity of today with that of what happened in the late 17th century”

No it is NOT. It is saying that FUTURE solar activity will be the same as solar activity in the late 17th Century based on nothing at all but the desire to see Global Warming blamed on the sun, when it is NOT POSSIBLE. There is NOTHING unusual at all about what is happening on the Sun. There have been LONGER minimums in the last century ALONE.

“then saying that the climate may follow suit as well.”

Which is NOTHING. The “Little Ice Age” WASN’T an Ice Age, and even in the worst case scenario, the cooling that happened then would only take us back to pre-Global Warming temperatures, and even then for only 50 years. Once the Sun returned to normal the world would come straight back to where it is now PLUS 50 years of extra GHG emissions.

It is a bullshit red herring based on lies and speculation, yet people like you believe it without question. The mountain of evidence for AGW, however, is not enough for you. Why is that?

“and what you get your degree in does not identify a person’s talent, its just a piece of paper.”

So you believe climatologists are qualified to diagnose neurological disorders? If you or someone you love had cancer, you would go to a mathematician for treatment? BULLSHIT. The “piece of paper” shows that you are knowledgeable of the specific field and capable of understanding and incorporating new information based on that field’s body of work. To suggest that just anyone can do good science in any field is patently absurd.

“if he works closely with physicists and climatologists he could have easily picked up their skills.”

OK, for the sake of argument, let’s say he does work closely with such scientists. How would that qualify him to tell THOSE scientists that their WHOLE FIELD is wrong? That’s like saying if you observe enough brain surgeries, you are qualified to dispute the entire field of neurology! Another PATENTLY ABSURD assertion!

“i know a guy who never got a degree but was promoted to an engineer in a company because he was carrying out all the work of an engineer”

The two are not even remotely similar. Engineers don’t discover NEW things, they apply the knowledge learned by REAL SCIENTISTS. For example, there are Nuclear Physicists, that work out HOW atoms work, and there are Nuclear Engineers that use that knowledge to DO something. An Engineer is NOT a scientist!

Building and running a nuclear reactor is NOTHING like DISCOVERING the atom can be split.

“As put by geophysicist Philip Chapman, a former NASA astronaut-scientist and former president of the National Space Society, “It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age.”

Funny that NASA doesn’t seem to think this LIAR is a geophyscist:

“received a bachelor of science degree in Physics and Mathematics from Sydney University in 1956; and from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a master of science degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics in 1964 and a Doctorate of Science in Instrumentation in 1967.”
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/h.....an-pk.html

Why do I call him a liar? Because he has a degree in physics and a degree in mathematics and yet says:

“the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade”

Lie number one.

“This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930.”

Lie number two.

“There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold.”

Lie number three.

“It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.”

Lie number four.

“This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.”

Lie number five.

“The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.”

Lie number six

“That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.”

Lie number seven.

“There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do.”

Lie number eight.

“The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.”

Lie number nine.

“The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue.”

Lie number ten.

“We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.”

Lie number eleven (well not a lie but a total contradiction – and the real purpose for all the other lies)

http://www.theaustralian.news......83,00.html

So, ten lies… in fact pretty much everything he SAID in the article was a lie. Let’s address them one at a time.

1) The average temperature has CLIMBED by 0.1 Degree per decade over the last decade.

“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

2) In fact temperatures in 2007 were high enough to put it in the top ten hottest years on record, and were MUCH higher than 1930. See the graph on the page linked to above.

3) Intentional fudging of the facts. He mentions WEATHER events, which are a RESULT of CLIMATE. None of them actually meant 2007 was exceptionally cold GLOBALLY. As the graph above shows.

4) He straight up says that such single year data can not tell you anything about climate, but then says that based on that single year and another lie, that he CAN say something about climate. A clear lie.

5) It all depends on your definition of “soon after”. Also here is a little information on what the REAL solar scientists had been predicting:

“March 6, 2006

BOULDER—The next sunspot cycle will be 30-50% stronger than the last one and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).”

“The Predictive Flux-transport Dynamo Model is enabling NCAR scientists to predict that the next solar cycle, known as Cycle 24, will produce sunspots across an area slightly larger than 2.5% of the visible surface of the Sun. The scientists expect the cycle to begin in late 2007 or early 2008, which is about 6 to 12 months later than a cycle would normally start. Cycle 24 is likely to reach its peak about 2012.”
http://www.ucar.edu/news/relea.....spot.shtml

That was TWO YEARS before this article was written by Chapman. Why did he not mention that it started EXACTLY as predicted and that the prediction says this will be a STRONGER than usual cycle? It’s pretty clear that he didn’t because he was LYING.

6) In fact there were solar minima nearly twice as long as this one less than a century ago:

“Although minima are a normal aspect of the solar cycle, some observers are questioning the length of the ongoing minimum, now slogging through its 3rd year.

“It does seem like it’s taking a long time,” allows Hathaway, “but I think we’re just forgetting how long a solar minimum can last.” In the early 20th century there were periods of quiet lasting almost twice as long as the current spell. (See the end notes for an example.) Most researchers weren’t even born then.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headli.....otlessdays

Make sure to look at the graphs at the bottom where you see that this solar minimum is shorter than one in 1933.

7) Solar Cycle 24 did NOT fail to begin on schedule. In fact a prediction in 2006 said it would start in late 2007 / early 2008, which is exactly when it started, as even Chapman admits. But that is not the only lie. 2007 was HOTTER than 2001, even though 2001 was the solar MAXIMUM. How can a weakening Sun be cause for both cooling AND heating?

How can a cooling induced by 50 years of almost no sunspots be WORSE than a cooling caused by 50 years of almost no sunspots? An obvious LIE. If the Sun was the sole cause of the cooling, then the effects should be the same, not “much worse”.

9) Is a lie of omission. 430,000 years ago an interglacial started that lasted 28,000 years. Interestingly that is the interglacial that most closely resembles the current one. If Chapman had mentioned this, his attempt to make this one sound like it is unprecedented would have been exposed, and would have indicated that in actuality, even without human intervention this interglacial may well last thousands of years more.

“he transition from glacial to interglacial conditions about 430,000 years ago (Termination V) resembles the transition into the present interglacial period in terms of the magnitude of change in temperatures and greenhouse gases, but there are significant differences in the patterns of change. The interglacial stage following Termination V was exceptionally long-28,000 years compared to, for example, the 12,000 years recorded so far in the present interglacial period. Given the similarities between this earlier warm period and today, our results may imply that without human intervention, a climate similar to the present one would extend well into the future.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo.....a2004.html

10) for the ice to be “overdue” would mean that we can predict the beginning of an Ice Age based on previous conditions. As said above the previous conditions most closely matching these ones resulted in a 28,000 year interglacial only 430,000 years ago. atmospheric CO2 concentration has not been THIS HIGH in over 650,000 years. Claiming that we can predict the next ice Age based on past conditions, but IGNORING the past conditions, is a LIE.

11) And now we get to the REAL point of this article: “Hey, don’t fight AGW, because that is the only thing stopping us from freezing!” It is UTTER BULLSHIT.

Chapman is a lair extraordinaire.

As put by geophysicist Philip Chapman, a former NASA astronaut-scientist and former president of the National Space Society, “It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age.”

taken from:
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2.....oling.html