Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago, Reveals Met Office Report

  • The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
  • This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

DailyMailUK  By David Rose

PUBLISHED: 13 October 2012

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

global temperature changesglobal temperature changes

 

Research: The new figures mean that the ¿pause¿ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg melting in Eastern Greenland Research: The new figures mean that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg melting in Eastern Greenland

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29Pf5YiT7
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This entry was posted in Global Warming Hoax. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago, Reveals Met Office Report

  1. Caroline K. says:

    For whatever reason the Illuminati got behind the global warming phenomena, but one never knows what they are up to. Sometimes they do things to scare people, too, or they have a long-range plan in mind. However, it still doesn’t mean that global warming isn’t real. I have to say this is the first and only story that says global warming is not true, and it is not by a climate scientist. I do believe our climate is warming. I see the signs for myself. I don’t need to refer to someone else to know this.

    Maybe the Illuminati are trying to cover something up, I don’t know. When they do something it is done for many reasons, and they sometimes support things that are true because in some way it supports their agenda, which is very complex to say the least. What most people don’t understand is that climate science is extremely complex and complicated, and it is very hard to prove global warming, but the majority of climate scientists (97%) believe the climate is warming. And they are not idiots. Government science is another matter and affected by lobbyists, etc.

    I have talked with many scientists in other fields who say even they don’t understand climate science, and I have talked to many climate scientists who say it is not an exact science but, yes, they believe the climate is warming, but it is a difficult thing to prove. Many things we know are true, but we may not have all the facts always.

    There are signs in nature that make this argument, too. Why are people so quick to think everything the Illuminati does is the opposite? We are not dealing with idiots or simplified situations. This story itself could even be an Illuminati plant. Do they play both sides of the coin? Yes, sometimes they do. Is it possible for them to back global warming with glee, and then some time after to say it isn’t true? Absolutely.

    Just a few of the signs I have see for myself over the years: The glaciers are melting at an alarming rate. I used to live in Alaska, and Portage Glacier has receded at an amazing rate in only a decade. I remember talking to middle-aged Native American man up here in the White Mountains in AZ and he said his father used to remember the glaciers in this area that are gone now, and the snow used to be so deep in the winter that there would be dead sheep (they had a sheep heard) up in the trees after the snow melted in the spring. We never have winters like that anymore. Another sign of climate change is that the trees start disappearing because of disease and they are. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. When the climate warms, it makes trees, everything, more susceptible to disease, it compromises immune systems.

    There is also the argument for climate warming as a precursor to the ice age. The climate does warm up before an ice age, but apparently the majority of the climate scientists feel this is not a precursor to the ice age.

    What are the Illuminati up to? They are up to something because something IS wrong with our climate. Maybe they needed to side long enough with global warming to distract people from other issues. I don’t know. But time will probably reveal more.

    People think the Illuminati are easy to read, but nothing could be further from the truth. These people are masters at deception. They have been doing it for eons and are very good at it, and they are extremely intelligent in many cases.

    I think that people also need to look at what indigenous people and farmers and other people who pay close attention to the Earth are saying because they see a change in climate, too. It isn’t just what climatologists are saying, but what people who are close to Earth are saying, who see the changes day in and day out, and know something has changed.

    • Global warming is a hoax. Read comments from Richard N. Haass of the Council of the Foreign Relations. He stated that global warming and terrorism will be used as an excuse to dissolve the sovereignty of nations. He wrote in his article “State sovereignty must be altered in a globalized era,” that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. “Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function,” asserts Haass. “Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves…” In a report titled “The First Global Revolution” (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, is this: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

      Thus, he is admitting that man-made global warming is a scam concocted in order to further the globalists’ agenda for one-world government.

      The idea appears to have emerged from the Iron Mountain Report. This was authored by a group of intellectual elitists in 1966 who were asked to devise methods by which a government could become more powerful, [1]. War, they wrote, would be impossible under a single, world government, so other methods for controlling populations would be required. A new enemy that posed a threat to life on earth was needed.

      After considering a number of possibilities, including a staged space-alien invasion, which they decided was too far-fetched, they concluded that the environmental pollution model was the one most likely to succeed. This model, they wrote, could be related to observable conditions like pollution and predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios. Accuracy was not important – what mattered was that it was believable, as the intent was to frighten, not to inform.

      The group concluded that the benefits of this model were huge for the elite, as it could be used to justify expansive and authoritarian government, as well as impoverish citizens, thereby greatly widening the gap between the leaders and followers.
      Have you seen the excellent documentary by Dr Michael Coffman PhD on this subject? GLobal Warming or Global Governance?

      Reference:
      7. Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, (2007), a documentary by A. Jones, is available at Google Video & the infowars.com online shop.

      There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming…-it-stopped-in-1998.html

      • Caroline K. says:

        I’m in the middle of something else, so I apologize for this really garbles sentence, which you probably can’t read or understand, sorry: “I don’t any reference to science at by climate scientists (the majority of who believe there is global warming). Nor is there any reference to the observation of farmers and indigenous people.”
        It should have been: “I don’t see any reference to science by climate scientists (the majority of who believe there is global warming), nor is there any reference to the observation of farmers and indigenous people.”

      • Do the majority of climate scientists believe there is “global warming” now? Anyway, science is not based on consensus, but on objective measurement and as the Climategate emails revealed global warming is not happening, but scientists are being put under political pressure to claim it is.
        Dr Coffman, CEO of Sovereignty International, who headed a multi-million dollar research effort in the early-1990’s that studied the effects of global warming on ecosystems in the US, says there’s a cadre of scientists on “soft money” who are out of a job if they “don’t show a global-warming connection.” He said he could not find evidence it was happening. He said the US government is pouring an astronomical US$4 billion per annum into this research because on an elite political level, where the real power lies, there’s an agenda to establish a fascist one-world government. Refer: Global Warming or Global Governance?, (2007), documentary by Dr M. Coffman.

        The UN, which is controlled by the elite, is preparing to take over as the government for all the world’s nations under the pretext of saving the planet from “global warming.” It aims to implement Agenda 21, which is supposedly about “sustainable development.” On cursory inspection, 21 looks reasonable, however, as Dr Michael Coffman who has taken the time to read UN documents, pointed out that the intention of the 40-chapter document is to reorganize the world around socialist, command and control regulation, as the elite view humans as earth’s primary contaminants. It will be a living nightmare for us if the elite have their way.

        Also, Caroline Jesse Ventura did a program on global warming, believing it to be happening. By the end of his research he concluded it was not real and a hoax perpetrated by self-interested groups interested in power and money who control the mainstream media. There is an interview with Dr Tim Ball (done anonymously) in the program. He said he has been threatened and fears for his life for speaking the truth – that man-made global warming is not happening.

        The Great Global Warming Swindle? is an excellent documentary. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647

      • Caroline K. says:

        Did you look at David Rose’s credentials? The man who wrote the piece for the Telegraph that denies global warming with little evidence, and the least scientific of anything I have seen so far? Rose has worked for Fox news, a well-known PTB news station. He is seen as a disinfo agent. He has absolutely no science background. Sigh. The distinction people aren’t making because they are only dealing in surface and unresearched science is that global warming exists whether the PTB support it or not.

        The PTB are just using it as an excuse to blame it on the rest of humanity. That doesn’t make it not true. There is a big distinction there. They are twisting it for their own purposes, and to deny that there is global warming is going to make all of our futures worse. No one is saying the PTB isn’t using it for their purposes, but to deny it out of sheer stubborness with no science is being just as dangerous as the PTB.

      • If man-made “global warming” does exist, why is it that even the most fundamental assumption of the theory of man-made global warming – that carbon dioxide causes the temperature to get higher, is not supported by the evidence. Contradicting claims that, “when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer,” ice core data shows that as the temperature rises, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follows, with a lag of about 800 years.
        If you may recall, Al Gore kept the two variables, temperature and carbon dioxide on separate graphs in An Inconvenient Truth, because if they are put together, they expose that man-made global warming is an outright hoax, unsupported by even the basic evidence.

      • Caroline K. says:

        I’m not supporting Al Gore. He is up to whatever he is up to. The PTB support both sides, like they support both parties. That’s why voting is superfluous. I just gave you a ton of science that supports global warming. Why haven’t you looked at it? You need expand your science on core samplings because it isn’t proving anything.

      • Caroline K. says:

        You have still not shown me the respect i have shown you Clare and read what I have written and looked at the sites I have listed. You have STILL not done this. Dr. Grey does “niche modeling.” He doesn’t deal in climate science, but “niche modeling,” which is “iffy” in relationship to climate science. NIche modeling deals in the distribution of species and conservation biology, ecology, and evolution. It is not proof that global warming does not exist. When are you going to read my posts and the sites I gave to you?

        Climategate didn’t blow the lid off anything. You are STILL not reading my posts Clare. You can’t expect me to read yours, if you never bother to read mine or look at the sites I have given you. Climategate is full of holes and if you look at the responses to Climategate (I don’t deny that the PTB are up to something, but I have said that before), you will see this, but you won’t even read my posts or sites.

        NIWA also supports global warming: http://www.niwa.co.nz/education-and-training/schools/students/change#change1 and http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/coasts/research-projects/all/physical-hazards-affecting-coastal-margins-and-the-continental-shelf/news/hazard#global

        Do you really want me to go into the scientists that Mr. Ventura used? OK. Lord Christopher Monckton, British politician, business consultant, policy advisor, writer and inventor–climate scientist, ah, no; Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, professor of meteorology at MIT and author who alleges political pressure on climate scientists (“alleges” means he doesn’t have any proof–and he is also a lone wolf in the climate scientist community representing less than the 3 percent that doesn’t stand behind climate change); Amit Chaterjee, founder and CEO of Hara Software, an environmental startup backed in part by Al Gore’s venture capital firm–so this guy was backed by Al Gore, see anything wrong with that?; Ben Santer, climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (this is a known Illuminati research organization and after the war was associated with Nazis and illegal governmment programming of individuals) ; Noel Sheppard, associate editor of NewsBusters.org–climate scientist, ah, no; “Dr. X,” an eminent climatologist who wants to protect his identity for his family’s safety–oh boy, not a good sign that this guy has any credentials at all; George Hunt, a UN whistleblower–climate scientist, ah no; and author; and Martin Durkin, producer and director of the UK Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle–climate scientis, ah no.

        There is only one “top” scientist Clare, and he is like in the 3% of climate scientists. You are just grasping at straws Clare.

      • Of course Climategate blew the lid off everything. To quote James Corbett: http://www.infowars.com/climategate-is-still-the-issue/

        Few have read the 2005 email from Climategate ringleader and CRU head Phil Jones to John Christy where he states “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” Or where he concludes: “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

        Or the email where he broke the law by asking Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame to delete a series of emails related to a Freedom of Information request he had just received.

        Or the email where he wrote: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

        Or the other emails where these men of science say they will re-define the peer review process itself in order to keep differing view points out of the scientific literature, or where they discuss ousting a suspected skeptic out of his editorial position in a key scientific journal, or where they fret about how to hide the divergence in temperature proxy records from observed temperatures, or where they openly discuss the complete lack of warming over the last decade or any of the thousands of other emails and documents exposing a laundry list of gross scientific and academic abuses.

        Of course, the alarmists continue to argue–as they have ever since they first began to acknowledge the scandalÑthat climategate is insignificant. Without addressing any of the issues or specific emails, they simply point to the “independent investigations” that they say have vindicated the climategate scientists.

    • Caroline K. says:

      Yes, 97% of climate scientists believe there is global warming Clare. Did you look at any of the science or try to understand it? Because most people only argue that it is a hoax without any science behind it—just as complete opinion. Climategate is very questionable because it only addresses the government programs, which we all suspect have issues. No one is arguing that. But Climategate makes no scientific claims of any depth and uses a sort of science of ignorance to try to make their point.

      Did you read any of the information I gave you? Real Climate is an independent group of scientists that get together because they are geek climate scientists. They do it because they know their subject and like to explore it between each other. You would have seen that if you had read the sites I gave you. They go into it in depth and the responses are by other scientists in the field. I know you didn’t read any of the sites I posted with any depth or even bothered to look at them. It is a very friendly community. They share their kids pictures even. It is what scientists do that are knowledgeable in science commuties. I am disappointed that you chose not to read any of it because I think would see the proof of my argument.

      Why are people so afraid to explore the actual science and make a determination for themselves?

      Dr. Coffman is no where near a qualified climate scientist and has NO credentials for climate science. Why would you use him as a source? He has no background in the subject. In fact the organization he represents has very little to do with climate science at all: “Sovereignty International helps many different organizations to bring a positive message of how national sovereignty, free market enterprise, private property rights, and traditional values are superior to the global treaties and agreements leading to global governance being proposed by the United Nations in September, 2000.”

      Obviously the US government is spending money on climate because they are backed by the PTB, and the PTB wants to blame it on humanity. You are not making that distinction Clare. I know you didn’t read what I posted, otherwise you would have made that distinction. That STILL does not prove that global warming is not real. Please thoroughly read the sites I gave you Clare. Try to understand them, and explore them. These are not scientists that have been paid to do this, and they ARE gainfully employed at universities all over the globe (I gave you a site that included that). They do it because they love and are passionate about their work.

      I know all about Agenda 21 and the UN, but that does not invalidate global warming. For goodness sake, read the science I have provided. I used to work for an independent think tank in Washington, DC. Not government sponsored in any way, but that abstracted global documents that were esoteric and often not documented in any other form, and they provided information and research for higher university studies, scientific, nonprofit and industrial research. Among these documents were UN publications. So I have read many, many UN documents over the years, as well as World Bank Documents, which we know are PTB, but there were other legitimate orgainizations, and anything you could imagine–original info on GMO work done, which we all detest, but at least it got the info out there. None of this information proves that global warming is false. This is NOT proof that global warming doesn’t exist. It is only proof, and, we all KNOW this, that the PTB has a very sinister agenda. Please read what I wrote. Not only did you not read the sites I posted, but you did not read my full post. I can tell, otherwise you would not be responding with more of the same.

      Jesse Ventura is not know for his cerebral capacity. It is not a secret. He doesn’t even come close to having the analytical capacities of climate scientists. He has NO science background. He is a very nice man, but his background is in professional wrestling. A cat fart could blow a thousand holes in his research for goodness sake.

      The video you provide is, again, from the Telegraph, which I have already pointed out is no where close to a scientific journal. I really don’t think you read anything I posted. Please read it and give it some consideration Clare. I don’t think that is too much to ask. I have taken your posts point by point, and I don’t think it’s too much for me to ask in return.

      • According to Dr Vincent Gray, a New Zealander who has worked as a reviewer for the IPCC since its inception, there’s actually no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are harming the climate and global warming is a politically motivated hoax. Please refer: DR VINCENT GRAY UPDATES ‘GLOBAL WARMING SCAM’ PAPER Dr Vincent Gray, expert reviewer of IPCC Assessment Reports since their inception, has up-dated his extensive paper “The Global Warming Scam”, (to August 2009), in which he shows that none of the evidence presented by IPCC confirms a relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. Link: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=369&Itemid=1

        How can “97% believe it when Climategate blew the lid of the whole thing? NZ had its own Climategate of sorts also. NIWA was exposed as committing fraud to make it look as if there was warming, when there was not. Refer: WHAT IS RISING – THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURE? OR THE TEMPERATURE RECORDS? Posted 28 September 2012 http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/temp.homogenization.pdf This paper given by Dr David R B Stockwell, of Central Queensland University to the recent Australian Environment Foundation Conference in Sydney, proves a logical circularity undermines the validity of a commonly used method of homogenizing surface temperature networks. High rates of type I error due to circularity may explain the exaggeration of surface warming found in official temperature networks. This topic is of interest in view of the recent High Court action by the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust seeking to invalidate NIWA’s temperature record in New Zealand

        So what if Jesse Ventura has “no science background.” Top scientists were interviewed for the show and the show team engaged in honest reporting.

  2. Pingback: Al Gore can't stop laughing.... - Christian Forums

  3. Caroline K. says:

    I hope I wasn’t rude Clare. I could have been, but I hope not. I have a great deal of admiration for both you and your site. You have a tremendous site. One the most impressive out of so many when there are so few speaking out. You are one of my heroes because you keep going and don’t give up. If I was in anyway offensive, I apologize, but I can’t yield on this point.

    Though, it is very hard to prove, global warming is not a hoax. It’s not exactly like proving God exists, but it falls in a difficult zone like that. I don’t any reference to science at by climate scientists (the majority of who believe there is global warming). Nor is there any reference to the observation of farmers and indigenous people. I was researching the effects of methane on our atmosphere via natural gas drilling a while back (which the PTB, and the US government is so keen on, which is really a bad idea, just as oil and nuclear plants are also so extremely bad for the environment) and I ran across these folks as well as many others, but this site is backed by climate scientists all over the world and they back up the criteria for their data and with vitaes for their many scientists in the sites below–this mainly refers to the dangers of methane as a result of natural gas: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/methane-hydrates-and-global-warming/

    Here is further info they provide, and they are the real deal as far as climate scientists. I think if you look at it, you will see the validity of this:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/contributors/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/skeptics/
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/archives/
    https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/about/contribute-climate-data-guide
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/global-dimming-and-global-warming/

    Whatever Mr. Haass admits or doesn’t admit has nothing to do with what is coming out of climate science and years of interaction with the climate by small farmers and indigenous people. It doesn’t look like Mr. Haass uses any science at all, but mostly opinion. Also the Daily Mail is known as a “rag” by most “real” scientists, and the Telegraph is no resource for solid/expert scientific advice. In fact, I believe it is Illuminati backed because it has run articles promoting pedophilia for goodness sake and how the general public needs to be compassionate about the needs of these people. What? I definitely do not look to them or most mainstream media as sources for science or, in a lot of cases, sources for anything because they are PTB owned.

    Whether the PTB are using it (global warming) as an excuse to do bad things or not does not mean it does not exist. Water shortages and famine are not a hoax either. All these things are true, and it was caused by the PTB. They created it, not humans (although humans are guilty of promulgating it out of an unawakened state, but mainly the demise of our planet and climate and atmosphere has been engineered by the PTB—i.e., CO2 via oil drilling and petroleum and cars, etc.) and now they are using it as an excuse to further promote their agenda, but it doesn’t mean the problem does not exist.

  4. Caroline K. says:

    Sorry Clare, I’m still going. Answer this question. Why is it the majority of US politicians, including the Bushes, up until this year or so have blantantly denied global warming? It was not until very recently that most politicians acknowledged it at all. Now they are embracing it suddenly with open arms? Why? Because now it is useful to their agenda. Up until recently the oil industry, including Koch brothers, opposed it.

  5. Caroline K. says:

    I forgot to reply on Tim Ball. He lists individuals who are opposed to global warming. And guess what? None of them are climate scientists–and it’s a long list. But, it does not prove that climate change is not happening. I see a lot of his information is erroneous on his site. I find it hard to believe people who list a lot of erroneous information. I find it hard that people don’t see that they are being manipulated by the PTB once again by denying climate change, and that so many people are being duped by ignorant facts and information.

    Do people actually believe that all the pollutants that have been poured into the atmosphere have had no effect at all? I thought people were working to wake up and come out of denial about what is happening to them.

    Follow the plans of the PTB: Bushes and the majority of politicians vehemently opposed climate change here in the US, then all of a sudden they are supporters of climate change? Koch brothers who have been criminal in their behavior to promote their oil businesses (as Congress turned a blind eye and handed out oil subsidies), and who poured millions into anti-climate change agendas have now seen the light? BP that has destroyed some of the most pristine parts of this planet one drilling after another is now in support of climate change? What changed? Nothing, except now they need climate change to promote their agenda of destroying humanity and whatever else they are up.

    How better to take the heat off of themselves? How delicious that now the elite (and the oil companies, and the coal companies, and the nuclear plant companies of the elite) can turn the blame on the public rather than themselves? Think about it because I don’t want to come back here and say: I told you so. People don’t seem to get it when I say the PTB are absolute geniuses at manipulation. Think about it. Please Clare. Global warming never changed. It’s real, but the politicians and the PTB changed their agenda and once again the agenda of the public, didn’t they? We need to save ourselves AND the planet because they want to save themselves and screw the planet because they have plans to protect themselves and the technology to do it.

    Are you a part of the PTB agenda Clare? I would hate to believe that. Why are you so vehement about something that you can’t find ultimate proof for? The PTB didn’t make up global warming, they were opposed to it and opposed to it destroying their oil money, etc., but when they found a use for it? They will still pollute and do whatever they want, but now they can blame humanity, and they can begin to destroy humanity piece by piece while the planet still suffers.

    Humanity is evil now, not the PTB, but the planet is in real danger, still. They will use the climate change to their advantage, and they will split people via climate change. Conquer and divide. They don’t care about the planet, but we NEED our planet to be healthy in order to survive–they don’t. They promote perpetual war. You think they actually care about the planet? They will live in underground bunkers or use the technology they hoard if they have to in order to destroy the majority of the population because the fact that we outnumber them IS a threat to them. And f a sick planet kills off more people, all the better.

    • OK, so you think “global warming is real” in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. If the earth warms as it has done throughout history, that is a good thing. The earth flourishes when it gets warmer. Why do you have such a fear of it getting warmer?

      • Caroline K. says:

        You still have not bothered to review the sites I have given you or addressed the information I have given you. I’ve given up on you because you can’t even look at the evidence that others give to you. I’m sorry that you are unable to review that evidence.

  6. Caroline K. says:

    I take that back about Jesse Ventura being a nice man. After looking at the bogus panel he had for his TV program against climate change I find after not much search that Jesse Ventura was on Raw wearing a illuminati jacket that has a Rothschild crest and the 33rd degree emblem on the back of the jacket. Hmm. Here’s a site with the video of him wearing the jacket: http://adventofdeception.com/connection-jesse-ventura-illuminati/

    • No ad hominem attacks please.
      Definition of AD HOMINEM
      1
      : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
      2
      : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

      • Caroline K. says:

        I think you are transferring your agenda onto me. You have not been attacked, but you have turned it that way. I only asked a question. I’m sorry you have taken this so personally Clare.

  7. Caroline K. says:

    Clare the evidence you provided was not germane to the point. There was a lack of any professional evidence, and I pointed that out, point by point, but you chose to ignore that. I don’t know why, but for whatever reason you chose to ignore that your evidence was not sufficient and not backed by any professionals in the field. Did you look at the data I provided you regarding carbon dioxide? No. Where is you article for the core findings?

  8. Caroline K. says:

    Here’s what Corbet said (you might want to review it again): ” … the latest release of thousands of emails showing that the “science” behind the global warming scare is far from being settled.” This hardly makes a blanket statement that climate change is false.

    Using research and falsely interjection ones own opinion doesn’t make for valid research,

    Still, nothing definitive, and you even use this quote: “If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.”

    Regarding Climategate:

    “Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honoring freedom of information requests.[16]”

    These were the scientists involved, and they were involved with the government (which neither of us trusts)–not independent scientists:

    “According to an analysis in The Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, with most of the remainder of the emails being sent from mailing lists. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high-profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[21]”

    The main challenge went to a scientist using tree-ring dating, which I wouldn’t use for support anyway because it is iffy: Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used “Mike’s Nature trick” in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization “to hide the decline” in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising.”

    The information I sent you, which you still have not reviewed does not use “tree-ring” data and welcomes additional date input. Still, you haven’t replied to that or even looked at. Second-hand, non-scientific data, and from questionable people is not proof as much as you try to puff them up to meet your arguments.

    This is the last entry I will make because you never showed me the courtesy of reading and reviewing the information I sent you, but only gave me non-scientific and questionable sources of information that still doesn’t prove climate change does not exist. I have reviewed everything you have put forth and don’t need any more of the same especially when I am not getting any response on the information I have sent you. Best regards.

    • You state: “This hardly makes a blanket statement that climate change is false.”

      I hope it does not. Climate change is occurring. It always has and it always will. Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter. The main driver of climate change is the sun. Carbon dioxide, which is essential for the process of photosynthesis, and is not a dangerous toxic gas as Al Gore implies, has been at a higher level than it is now. When it is higher plants grow better, which is why some greenhouses up the carbon dioxide levels.

      WHY THE SUN IS MAIN DRIVER OF CLIMATE CHANGE The Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.
      http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/svensmarkfriis-christensenseptember2007.pdf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s