Am I still allowed to question climate change?

This paper is worth a read, explaining that we're still coming out of the LIA.

Some of the graphs on page 11 are very enlightiening. Especially the one showing IPCC alarmist predictions

http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileName=NS20101100004_10739704.pdf&paperID=3217

PS anyone need a dictionary definition for cooling .

This paper is worth a read, explaining that we're still coming out of the LIA.

 

Some of the graphs on page 11 are very enlightiening. Especially the one showing IPCC alarmist predictions

 

http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileName=NS20101100004_10739704.pdf&paperID=3217

 

 

PS anyone need a dictionary definition for cooling .

wikicat does as obviously global doesn't apply to the UK. Even though the predictions were for our own temperatures to continue to rise.............

I don't think i ever heard predictions of cooling.

This paper is worth a read, explaining that we're still coming out of the LIA.

 

Some of the graphs on page 11 are very enlightiening. Especially the one showing IPCC alarmist predictions

 

http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileName=NS20101100004_10739704.pdf&paperID=3217

 

 

PS anyone need a dictionary definition for cooling .

Yes I think Jibbo needs a dictionary if he thinks the planet is cooling whilst NASA is declaring the hottest meteorological year on record.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/nasa-2010-meteorological-year-wa.html

As for coming out of the LIA. The paper contains many falsehoods like the claim temperatures have not risen over the last 10 years, when clearly they have. He also doesn't explain any causes, the label LIA recovery appears to him to be sufficient. Without considering that the warming trend over the last 3 decades is not explainable by any other cause than the greenhouse effect.

As for the graph on page 11 what it shows is temperatures recorded being higher than IPCC predictions. Perhaps you might explain to me why the IPCC is alarmist when its predictions are exceeded or on the boundaries of their maximum?

There is a basic discussion of this person's views here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-basic.htm

Also look along the tabs and you can read intermediate and advanced discussions too.

The get out clause is a good one in that link,

 

"Figure 2(a) illustrates that there is a good chance that 2010 as a whole will be the warmest year in the GISS analysis. Even if the December global temperature anomaly is unusually cool, 2010 will at least be in a statistical tie with 2005 for the warmest year"

Get out clause?

".... good chance that .... Even if ... 2010 will at least be ... "

I don't see any back-down here.

Explicitly from elsewhere on the NASA website ...

"January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade"

There is no qualification of conclusions or data that undermines these definitive statements.

"To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from three sources: weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world; satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer program, which is available for public download from the GISS website."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

PS Still waiting for your definitive sources of hard data.

Get out clause?

 

".... good chance that .... Even if ... 2010 will at least be ... "

 

I don't see any back-down here.

 

Very scientific how much have they spent to come to those conclusions.

Very scientific how much have they spent to come to those conclusions.

The point is that the conclusions are based on fact and no conclusion has been drawn about December, or the whole year yet as it's not complete ... der!!!

That's the point about science.

It's based on fact.

That's perhaps why you have no respect for science.

You have no respect for facts.

The point is that the conclusions are based on fact and no conclusion has been drawn about December, or the whole year yet as it's not complete ... der!!!

 

That's the point about science.

 

It's based on fact.

 

That's perhaps why you have no respect for science.

 

You have no respect for facts.

Even if That's the point about science.

".... good chance that.....It's based on fact.

It's 'the hottest year on record', as long as you don't take its temperature

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8211948/Its-the-hottest-year-on-record-as-long-as-you-dont-take-its-temperature.html

It's 'the hottest year on record', as long as you don't take its temperature

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8211948/Its-the-hottest-year-on-record-as-long-as-you-dont-take-its-temperature.html

And as the comments reveal the article is a load of nonsense.

NCDC has just released its data saying it is the hottest 12 months too.

Still what do you really expect from the Telegraph which knowingly lies about what scientists have said?

http://www.badscience.net/2009/01/the-telegraph-misrepresent-a-scientists-work-on-climate-and-then-refuse-to-correct-it-when-he-writes-to-them/

Even if That's the point about science.

 

".... good chance that.....It's based on fact.

You're mistaking conclusions for data.

The conclusions are qualified based on incomplete facts for December.

The facts that are in speak for themselves.

The climate change deniers have NOBODY anyone can trust who can compile a set of data ANYBODY can take seriously.

You're bereft of any credibility or substance.

I'd be :hihi: myself if your misinformed opinions were without consequence.