Blowing The Hoax

Those who believe that global warming is caused by human activities are anti-science, or at the very least anti-facts.

Riddle me this- if there is melting in the Arctic, but the icepack in the Antarctic is increasing, where is the global warming?

Riddle me this - if the Atlantic is warming, but the Pacific is cooling, where is the global warming?

Riddle me this - Why has there been no global warming in the past 16 years?

I assume there will be no answer. Ignore and resume propaganda.

 

Comments

[Hugh]

Empirical data? Are you crazy? A select few are getting filthy rich off a fraudulent carbon-credits economy by championing false science, manipulating world governments and you you want to bring up empirical data?

[bubba]

But...but...but...but...but being a Denier is so RACIST!

[Spag]

No, it's "anti-science".

[the science grows]

The real riddle is "why does david rose lie?" -- the day after the article was published, the Met Office refuted it:

"It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme...

the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue."

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

[Spag]

Except they don't really refute what he said about their own chart at all. In fact, in their response they state "The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual."

The point of the article is that global temperature have been steady for the past 16 years. The chart shows that, and the response to Rose doesn't really dispute that.

[bubba]

Note "the science grows" appellation.

As if......

[obamacare is here to stay]

Spag,

"The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual."

IS NOT the same at all as:

"The point of the article is that global temperature have been steady for the past 16 years."

You have not looked at the data, nor read what else they have to say. Do both and you will understand their point and why they rightly claim that Rose is being purposely misleading.

Don't be misled by him.

As the Met point out: "Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade."

This is not a climate that is "not unprecedented". By any definition, "Eight of the top ten warmest years" is UNprecedented. The trend defines the word!

Moreover, as they also say: "As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system."

[bubba]

"As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system."

Yes, of course. That's why the creep James Hansen's 1988 predictions turned out to be a huge embarrassment to Global Warming Are Us, Inc., didn't they?

And his current hysteria isn't doing so well, either.