sunsettommy

I see that YOU hate CO2 so much. Then you should tape your mouth and nose completely shut.

Actually 5 postings.

Then we have this listing to ponder over: The '96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists The Exxon smears and others smears made by the environmentalist camps are getting the replies they deserved.Skeptics are getting tired of their lies.

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil? The answers are from the skeptical scientists themselves.

Here is another rebuttal against the Exxon funding claims: Rebuttal to "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil" Excerpt:

Roy Spencer has published papers on the climate.Here are examples: Satellite and Climate Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Change This one was posted in the Journal of Climate, Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A SimpleModel Demonstration Has posted this report on his website, Strong Negative Feedback from the Latest CERES Radiation Budget Measurements Over the Global Oceans

More about Fred Singer: emphasis mine AND, LINK

Yeah about 22 years ago.When the first mutterings of the consensus claptrap first showed up. It is worthless then and it is worthless now. Try the idea of following validated empirical science research instead.

Your fact free post is noted for what it is. Nothing. Fred Singer Bio is HERE.From Wikipedia: bolding my emphasis Unusually prominent Scientist. Not convinced yet? Try Roy Spencer.From HERE.From Wikipedia: bolding mine I suggest that you slink away,before the troll master finds you. You are really ignorant.

Here is a CH3 Headlines thread full of links showing that Ocean acidification,is not a concern to worry about. Based on "peer reviewed" research. The phrase Ocean Acidification" is misleading.The Oceans are currently strongly Alkaline and have been for a very long time.

No it is your ignorance of the practice,that is being displayed there. This LINK has Dr. Motl explaining what really transpired there: Editors, reviewers, and bias Selected excerpts: Go ahead and read the link.

Massive climate funding exposed Climate money: Monopoly science and the one that is being talked about here: Climate money: Big government outspends big oil A few skeptics gets a pittance.While Greenpeace gets over Two BILLION a year.Part of it used to attack skeptics with.

Sunsettommy originally wrote: I DID post the GLOBAL TEMPERATURES data to make that chart.What the hell are YOU talking about? This is what you originally stated: To what I posted HERE I posted using UAH data.You are talking HadCRUT. ??? You are a mess! Since you never disputed the actual data and chart.I have posted.Why give me the B.S? Here is the full post I made that you feebly replied to in the first place. YOU never factually disputed any of it. Not only that it clearly states it is a WARMING trend.All I did was to show that most of the warming was in just a few years of the 32 years shown in the chart.The rest of the time it was almost flat. I showed that using the UAH data from 1979 to 2011 as a warming trend.But Using HADCRUT data for just the years 2001 to 2011.It is cooling. Yet YOU keep making dumb statements,that does NOT even dispute what I wrote.I posted valid temperature data and you post in replies with B.S. against them. Why are you doing it Mike?

I gather you have no idea what the IPCC is about. You have been making a lot of replies,indicating that you know so little about it.Yet when I post links to base information.You seem to just blink and make mostly irrelevent replies. Cherrypicking complaint is one example of your refusal to see the point I made.I had to repeat my point several times before you caught on. You went on and on over Steve's undeniable no change in the warming trend since 1880 point.You complained that he did not post the CO2 along with the temperature series.Anyone who actually read the information.Would already have known that CO2 rise from 1880 to 1940 was very small.Far less than the last 60 years. Most AGW believers concentrate on the CO2 increase from 1970 onward,because that is the common dateline they say AGW is visible and accelerating.The dateline they think really matters. You have a strong tendency to post replies that are free of data or relevance to what we are talking about.Just post nitpicking stuff is all you have. How about you stop pretending that you what you are talking about and try discussing it instead of continually being adversarial in your factless replies?

Hadley Crut shows a clear cooling since 2001. But RSS shows a flat rate. UAH shows a slight warming rate. They are all well below the IPCC 2001 projected (based on the AGW hypothesis) modeled temperature increase rate to year 2050 and beyond.For the first decade ending later this year.It was projected to be a .2 C increase.This is the LOW end of the projected temperature increase. UAH shows about half that. That means the AGW hypothesis is failing.It is way too warm. When will that ever sink into your head? It take you have never read the IPCC reports making the temperature projections.They published it in 2001 and essentially the same projections again 2007.It is a list of climate models super imposed on a chart.Showing the projected temperature ranges.Based on the AGW hypothesis. Try this LINK and see for yourself what a prominent Lukewarmer thinks about the temperature trends and the data behind it. IPCC Central Tendency of 2C/century: Still rejected. It is undeniably warming from the mid 1800's to now.But the last 10 years it is not.A data based refutation of the IPCC temperature projections for the first decade. Why give me this unsubstantiated B.S? It is NOT "constantly" being revised.The IPCC reports are supposed to be the Gold standard and supporter of the AGW hypothesis.The 2007 report temperature models has not changed much from the 2001 report. HERE is a link showing the small changes. Hadley Crut is the favored temperature data center,by the IPCC group 2001-2011

I never said it wasn't. However the point he makes is so obvious,that even YOU should be able to understand it. There has been NO CHANGE IN THE TREND LINE SINCE 1880! The warming continues to fall on the trendline. It is NOT accelerating or decelerating. There is no discernible CO2 effect visible in the trend.Quoting Steve over what you fail to understand: That is the point he was making. 1880 to 1940 CO2 went from 280 ppm to about 315 ppm LINK That is only a 35 ppm increase in FIRST 60 years.Far less than the yearly rate of increase after 1940,which is more than doubled,to about 65 more ppm.That after the NEXT 60 years produced twice as much total increase. Getting it?

The 2001 IPCC projected temperature models to 2050 and beyond shows a wide temperature variation.But they show at the bottom end of the projected rise to be about .2 C for the first decade. HadleyCrut RSS UAH Cooling,Flat to a slight warming of about .1C The IPCC are too warm by a lot and this is based on the AGW hypothesis. The warming trend since the mid 1800's continues on a linear trendline.There is no accelerating warming trend ongoing at all.Still falls within the "natural" warming trend of the last 150+ years. By the way how can you know it it is grossly underestimated,when those 50 years have not happened yet?

This has to be one of the DUMBEST post ever! Just a sampling of people who has done climate science research.By way of the "peer reviewed" process.It is from the list you irrationally disparaged: Roy Spencer, University of Alabama Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2 Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1 S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1 That is enough to prove your post was dead on arrival.

Sigh, I wonder if you even looked at the link I gave you. It clearly shows a WARMING trend since 1880.I have not disputed it. The point Steve was making was that the warming trendline from 1880 to 2010 is unchanged.No acceleration in warming or a slowing down of warming is evident.Since 1880. Steve did not dispute the warming trend either.But he shows that all the CO2 additions since 1880,has not at all increased the warming trend. Gawad! There has been a recent cooling trend.It has been cooling for months now.It was warmer last year at this time than now. From 2001 to now.There is a slight cooling trend.But essentially ZERO because it is so close to the zero trendline. But even if it is indeed NO warming or cooling trend since 2001.That alone is very damaging to the 2001 IPCC temperature modeling projections for the first decade of the 21st century. They had projected a .20C increase for the decade.Based on the AGW hypothesis. Not even close. The IPCC is the source of the AGW hypothesis and the driver of the global warming hysteria. Most of the science groups endorse the AGW hypothesis and global warming. Do you live in a cave?

You need to see the link again.It shows the undeniable zero trend from 1979-1994.It is a GREEN line. The 1998 event is a step up warming.Then from 2001 to now,it is back to about zero.That is the BLUE line. This is based on the satellite data. Most of the warming that significantly effected the trend.Occurred in 1977 and 1998.They are called STEP warming.Where the trendline was abruptly lifted upward to a new level.

The IPCC,NAS,Environmentalist groups and the media all liked it.

Why can't you see the obvious point he made? The warming trend from 1880 to now,is falling on a straight linear line. The warming trend is unchanged,over the time frame.

A warming trend that consist of 4 1/2 years out of 31 years.1994-1998. The rest of the time.The trend is about ZERO.

I have no idea what Ann C. said about radiation. Did you know that it is NORMAL for oil to be in the Gulf of Mexico waters? Oil is seeping in rather large amounts into the waters. That there are microbes that eat the seeped oil.

Going to call this cherrypicking? LINK He he...