Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (5/5)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hp

Blogger proves NASA wrong on climate change:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2271629.ece

Next Decade 'may see no warming':
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

World leaders need to remain alert to latest scientific thought on climate change:
http://www.physorg.com/news110001435.html

Global Warming Risks Incorrect:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1328044

Major New Theory Proposed to Explain Global Warming:
http://tinyurl.com/243go5

Melting Glaciers DO NOT Prove GW claims:
http://tinyurl.com/2qy2hu

Global warming/Kilimanjaro:
http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=77779

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1225401620070612?feedType=RSS...

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/06/mt_kilimanjaro_feb_21_2000.html

Global Warming Consensus?
http://tinyurl.com/3a7b7s

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming:
http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw

NASA's Chief Questions Need to Combat Global Warming:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1

Scientific Smackdown:
http://tinyurl.com/26hzgt

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• global
• warming
• swindle
• climate
• change
• inconvenient
• truth
• weather
• al
• gore
• science
• skeptic

[qwyzl]

@traykunable most scientists are sensible people and they do have good morals and a sense of ethics. 

[traykunable]

@qwyzl because scientists are immune to human feelings such as competition and pride that could lead to potential rewards like global dominance with nukes or experimenting on babies to create the perfect eugenic human? Yeah right.the apparent lack of politics in science... the sanity.....

[jesusgray922]

This is one very "humdrum" video. =p

[MrOTLChamp]

@Diamonddavej The computer models have been an epic failure.

[freddymathis820]

Your vid went viral on Russia

[Diamonddavej]

Climate models are tested by running them against real world past measured climate. Since they work for the past, future predictions are also likely to be modelled correctly. See...

Räisänen, J. 2007. How reliable are climate models? Tellus A 59(1), 2-29.

"Nonetheless, models have skilfully simulated many large-scale aspects of observed climate changes, including but not limited to the evolution of the global mean surface air temperature in the 20th century."

[MegaPostman77]

With respect to the point below, NOTHING can predict climate in the future. All we ever have at our disposal are COMPUTER-MODELS, OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS - none of which have any meaning or significance whatsoever 50-100 years from now. Either of these methods can only describe or attempt to explain the HEAR and NOW. It's the same thing with WEATHER, which reflects the CLIMATE - IT'S A WORKS IN PROGRESS - nothing more and nothing less.

[MegaPostman77]

Computer-models are a very useful scientific tool, which nearly all scientists use to some extent or another. However, they are by no means reliable and accurate as far as the climate system is concerned. Computer-models need to be able to simulate the climate accurately with a complete understanding of the natural processes at play - of which there are thousands. Unfortunately, our understanding of these processes are not only incomplete, but in many respects even rudimentary.

[qwyzl]

if only scientists ran the world in stead of "politicians" and their puppet master string-pullers. imagine the sanity....