It's been over two years since I posted

It's been over two years since I posted to my blog, but I'm going to try to start up again.

NOAA Repots Worlds Oceans Cooling

NOAA 5 years ago decided that it would be a good idea to monitor our oceans temperatures since the Climate Warming Modelers all predicted that our oceans would show significant warming trends even higher then land air temperatures. In order to monitor the oceans temperature, NOAA launched 3000 robots in the oceans which would monitor the oceans temperature on a continuous basis and send the information back to NOAA scientists.



Here's the link to location of those robots. http://sos.noaa.gov/videos/Buoywaterfall2.mov



So whats the outcome of this 5 year study....Ocean temperatures over the past 5 years have actually slightly decreased. That means no global warming. That means the main indicator of global warming that the IPCC has been so worried about has shown zero change in ocean temperatures.

But again when ever any information or scientific paper surfaces to contradict the myth of Global warming, the global warming alarmists squirm and actually try to find reasons why the reality does not match their predisposition to believe all things in their own flawed science.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025



One can't help but smile as these two scientists squirm in this NPR interview. Notice how they talk about how much there is to learn about our climate. Do you ever hear these same scientists parse thier words when it comes to talk about how the climate is warming?

Antarctic Cooling

The IPPC 2007 report didn't mention Antarctica except to say there were no measurable changes there. But as usual the IPPC wanted to cherry pick research. A 2004 study of Antarctica found that since 1850 the average temperature has dropped 2 degrees C. That's 3.6 degrees F. Seeing how the IPPC frets about a .5 degree rise in temperature anywhere else in the world, interesting they don't want to even think about a 3.6 degree drop.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j358561157054466/

The IPCC and it's Fuzzy Math

"It is likely (IPCC defines the word "likely" as 66% probability) that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent"

"It is very likely (IPCC defines the "very likely" as 90% probability) that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy rains will continue to become more frequent.

You can find it here
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf

Now you have to remember that in developing their climate modals they use the weather data from the last 150 years to test the modals, if the model is a close match to the climate over the last 150 years, then they use the modal to predict the future. So what they are saying is that their models match the past with a 66% probability, but for some reason even though their confidence in the models is only 66% they are 90% confidante of the answer (future climate).

So in summary, what would you say if I showed you a mathematical formula and said to you that I'm 66% percent confident that the formula is accurate, and then proceeded to tell you that although I'm only 66% confident of the formulas accuracy, I'm 90% confident of the result are right. Would that make any sense?

Greenland Cooler today then in 1940

A new scientific study has just been complete by the Danish Meteorological Institute, which compiled temperatures records for Greenland for the last 250 years. The results of the study show that temperatures in Greenland today are in reality lower then they were in the 1940's, thus the temperatures have been on average stable there for the last 70 years.

You can find the report here http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf

Thier conclusions are on page 9.

THERE IS NO CONSENSUS

You'll see this word in almost every newspaper article on global warming..."consensus". But is there really one in the scientific community? In 2003 Professor Dennis Bray of the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany did a poll of the some of the worlds leading climatologists. And published the results to his poll in this paper.... http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Bray.htm

In summary almost as many climatologists disagree at some level that our current global warming cycle is caused by man as agree with it.

50/50 is not a consensus.

208 YEAR SOLAR CYCLE

HERE'S A TID-BIT THAT THE IPCC FORGOT TO MENTION. IN THE EARLY PART OF THE 8TH CENTURY THE MAYA OF THE YUCATAN PENINSULA WERE AT THERE PEAK, A CIVILIZATION ESTIMATED AT 15 MILLION, THEN SOMETHING HAPPENED, THE CIVILIZATION COLLAPSED ALMOST OVERNIGHT. A PROLONGED DROUGHT DECIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY AND CAUSED IT'S TOTAL COLLAPSE. THIS CHANGE IN RAIN PATTERNS HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE SEDIMENTATION RECORD ALL OVER THE WORLD. IT'S A WELL DOCUMENTED 208 YEAR SOLAR CYCLE. NOW DO A LITTLE MATH 925AD PLUS 5 CYCLES AT 208 YEARS AND WHAT DO YOU GET; ABOUT THE START OF OUR CURRENT GLOBAL WEATHER PATTERN CHANGES. FUNNY HOW THE IPCC WANTS TO DISCOUNT SOLAR FORCING ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5520/1367

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0313_030313_mayadrought_2.html

60 GLOBAL WARMING ADVOCATES GO SKEPTIC

NO NEED TO SAY MUCH MORE THEN WHAT THESE 60 TOP CANADIAN SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING TO THEIR GOVERNMENT.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=1E639422-7094-4972-83AF-EE40EE302D41

SO THE PRESS ISN'T BIASED?

LOOK UP THE WORD JOURNALIST ON WIKIPEDIA.COM AND HERE'S WHAT YOU FIND...

"A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people."

OKAY SO FAR, BUT THEN IT CONTINUES TO DEFINE....

"Reporters find the sources for their work, their reports can be either spoken or written, and they are generally expected to report in the most objective and unbiased way to serve the public good."

OKAY..SO THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE OBJECTIVE AND UNBIASED. SO IF THAT'S THE CASE WHY WOULD YOU FIND A GROUP OF "ENVIRONMENTAL JOURNALISTS" THAT BELONG TO A GROUP LIKE THE 'SOCIETY OF ENVIRONMENTAL JOURNALISTS' THAT HAVE ON THEIR WEB PAGE (http://www.sej.org/resource/index18.htm) A LIST OF CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICS AND DENIERS. AND WHO HAS 'RATED' AND SMOKED OUT THESE EVIL DOERS, WELL NO ONE ELSE BUT THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS FOR ONE.
WHAT'S ALSO INTERESTING IS THAT THERE ARE OVER 1300 MEMBERS, BUT GUESS WHAT YOU CAN'T FIND A LIST OF THEIR NAMES UNLESS YOUR A MEMBER. SOUNDS LIKE A SECRETE SOCIETY TO ME.

IT'S COOLING,NO HEATING,NO COOLING, NO HEATING..PRESS CAN'T GET IT RIGHT

HERE'S TWO CBS NEWS STORIES 4 MONTHS APART FROM 2002. I'LL LET THE HEADLINES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

Antarctic Warming Alarms Scientists
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/14/tech/main508926.shtml

Antarctica Grows Colder, But Why?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/14/tech/main324261.shtml