HAARP Engineering 'FRANKENSTORM' Hurricane Sandy - CAUGHT on SATELLITE and RADAR!!!
- Thread starter PoopyTeaBags
- Start date
GLOBAL warming stopped 15 years ago, it was claimed last night.
Met Office figures show that the average temperature between 1997 and 2012 did not rise at all and that the previous warming trend has levelled off. But critics say the Met Office put this research onto the Internet without publicity - in contrast to the attention it gave to figures released six months ago which reinforced the case for global warming.
Those figures went up to 2010 - the hottest year on record - and showed a continuing warming trend.
Campaigners yesterday slammed the Met Office tactics and questioned the Government's drive for costly green energy such as wind turbines which add about £100 a year to domestic energy bills.
Dr Benny Peiser of Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation said: "It is quite scandalous that the Met Office is misleading the public.
Article continues below this advert:
"The latest data proves beyond any doubt that that there has been no warming over the past 16 years.
"Nobody knows what this means long term and how long this pause is going to last.
"Though we are in a period of accelerating greenhouse gas emissions the climate is not responding in the way that climate models have predicted.
"Global warming is not a looming disaster. We need to reassess the Government's climate change policies such as the drive for renewable energy which is extremely expensive.
"These figures do not mean there is no problem long term but they show it is not the imminent disaster we have been told about.
"We have more time to come up with a more moderate and more realistic solution rather than just running around like headless chickens."
Professor Judith Curry, of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech University, said: "The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming."
The HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset was compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
In 2009 the CRU was at the centre of the "Climategate" scandal when leaked e-mails appeared to show scientists fiddling data to support the case for man-made global warming.
Subsequent inquiries cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing - but the e-mails, leaked just before the Copenhagen climate summit, severely damaged public confidence in climate research.
In one of the leaked e-mails the CRU's Dr Phil Jones said the "'no upward trend' has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried."
But yesterday he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period because such pauses had always been expected.
He added: "I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties."
He admitted: "We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.
"“It could be that natural variability is acting at present to counter the warming, but if it switches we could be in for more warming."
He added that the dataset was released without publicity because "it doesn't change much".
The Met Office said: "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.
"Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.
"Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC.
"However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual."
i had no trouble reading this...thnx. and yes i know what aerosol is.
besides, any upward trend would necessarily go down...it's a law.
Met Office figures show that the average temperature between 1997 and 2012 did not rise at all and that the previous warming trend has levelled off. But critics say the Met Office put this research onto the Internet without publicity - in contrast to the attention it gave to figures released six months ago which reinforced the case for global warming.
Those figures went up to 2010 - the hottest year on record - and showed a continuing warming trend.
Campaigners yesterday slammed the Met Office tactics and questioned the Government's drive for costly green energy such as wind turbines which add about £100 a year to domestic energy bills.
Dr Benny Peiser of Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation said: "It is quite scandalous that the Met Office is misleading the public.
Article continues below this advert:
"The latest data proves beyond any doubt that that there has been no warming over the past 16 years.
"Nobody knows what this means long term and how long this pause is going to last.
"Though we are in a period of accelerating greenhouse gas emissions the climate is not responding in the way that climate models have predicted.
"Global warming is not a looming disaster. We need to reassess the Government's climate change policies such as the drive for renewable energy which is extremely expensive.
"These figures do not mean there is no problem long term but they show it is not the imminent disaster we have been told about.
"We have more time to come up with a more moderate and more realistic solution rather than just running around like headless chickens."
Professor Judith Curry, of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech University, said: "The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming."
The HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset was compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
In 2009 the CRU was at the centre of the "Climategate" scandal when leaked e-mails appeared to show scientists fiddling data to support the case for man-made global warming.
Subsequent inquiries cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing - but the e-mails, leaked just before the Copenhagen climate summit, severely damaged public confidence in climate research.
In one of the leaked e-mails the CRU's Dr Phil Jones said the "'no upward trend' has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried."
But yesterday he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period because such pauses had always been expected.
He added: "I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties."
He admitted: "We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.
"“It could be that natural variability is acting at present to counter the warming, but if it switches we could be in for more warming."
He added that the dataset was released without publicity because "it doesn't change much".
The Met Office said: "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.
"Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.
"Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC.
"However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual."
i had no trouble reading this...thnx. and yes i know what aerosol is.
besides, any upward trend would necessarily go down...it's a law.
Last edited:
S
Scrappy-doo
40 year time line looks one way. 400 year time line would give you a little more perspective. 4000 year time line and you'd perhaps start to see why the skeptics are skeptical that man is causing all of this. Especially when there's lots of money to be made on carbon taxes. We live in a world that goes through cycles. Temps go up down up down up down. Seems pretty simple to me.
LOL!
reconstructed temperatures...
you pay for that education yet? (joke only)
you have an arsenal i have to admit...
reconstructed temperatures...
you pay for that education yet? (joke only)
you have an arsenal i have to admit...
Internet Disinformation Methods
Because the MSM’s bag of tricks has been so exhausted over such a long period of time, many bitter and enraged consumers of information are now turning to alternative news sources, most of which exist on the collective commons we call the internet. At first, it appears, the government and elitists ignored the web as a kind of novelty, or just another mechanism they could exploit in spreading disinformation. As we all now well know, they dropped the ball, and the internet has become the most powerful tool for truth history has ever seen.
That being said, they are now expending incredible resources in order to catch up to their mistake, utilizing every trick in their arsenal to beat web users back into submission. While the anonymity of the internet allows for a certain immunity against many of Saul Alinsky’s manipulative tactics, it also allows governments to attack those trying to spread the truth covertly. In the world of web news, we call these people “disinfo trolls.” Trolls are now being openly employed by governments in countries like the U.S. and Israel specifically to scour the internet for alternative news sites and disrupt their ability to share information.
Internet Disinformation Methods
Because the MSM’s bag of tricks has been so exhausted over such a long period of time, many bitter and enraged consumers of information are now turning to alternative news sources, most of which exist on the collective commons we call the internet. At first, it appears, the government and elitists ignored the web as a kind of novelty, or just another mechanism they could exploit in spreading disinformation. As we all now well know, they dropped the ball, and the internet has become the most powerful tool for truth history has ever seen.
That being said, they are now expending incredible resources in order to catch up to their mistake, utilizing every trick in their arsenal to beat web users back into submission. While the anonymity of the internet allows for a certain immunity against many of Saul Alinsky’s manipulative tactics, it also allows governments to attack those trying to spread the truth covertly. In the world of web news, we call these people “disinfo trolls.” Trolls are now being openly employed by governments in countries like the U.S. and Israel specifically to scour the internet for alternative news sites and disrupt their ability to share information.
Because the MSM’s bag of tricks has been so exhausted over such a long period of time, many bitter and enraged consumers of information are now turning to alternative news sources, most of which exist on the collective commons we call the internet. At first, it appears, the government and elitists ignored the web as a kind of novelty, or just another mechanism they could exploit in spreading disinformation. As we all now well know, they dropped the ball, and the internet has become the most powerful tool for truth history has ever seen.
That being said, they are now expending incredible resources in order to catch up to their mistake, utilizing every trick in their arsenal to beat web users back into submission. While the anonymity of the internet allows for a certain immunity against many of Saul Alinsky’s manipulative tactics, it also allows governments to attack those trying to spread the truth covertly. In the world of web news, we call these people “disinfo trolls.” Trolls are now being openly employed by governments in countries like the U.S. and Israel specifically to scour the internet for alternative news sites and disrupt their ability to share information.
Trolls use a wide variety of strategies, some of which are unique to the internet, here are just a few:
1) Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: An Alinsky tactic used to make people emotional, although less effective because of the impersonal nature of the web.
2) Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums — trolls pose as supporters of the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane. Here is a live example of this tactic in use on Yahoo! Answers.
The key to this tactic is to make references to common Liberty Movement arguments while at the same time babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem ludicrous by association.
In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls” have been known to make posts which incite violence — a technique obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the notorious MIAC report and other ADL/SPLC publications which purport that constitutionalists should be feared as potential domestic terrorists.
3) Dominate Discussions: Trolls often interject themselves into productive web discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the people involved.
4) Prewritten Responses: Many trolls are supplied with a list or database with pre-planned talking points designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. 9/11 “debunker” trolls are notorious for this.
5) False Association: This works hand in hand with item #2, by invoking the stereotypes established by the “Trojan Horse Troll.”
For example: calling those against the Federal Reserve “conspiracy theorists” or “lunatics”. Deliberately associating anti-globalist movements with big foot or alien enthusiasts, because of the inherent negative connotations. Using false associations to provoke biases and dissuade people from examining the evidence objectively.
6) False Moderation: Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly true into a “grey area” where the truth becomes “relative.”
7) Straw Man Arguments: A very common technique. The troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does not, and then attacks that point of view. Or, the troll will put words in the mouth of his opposition, and then rebut those specific words. For example: “9/11 truthers say that no planes hit the WTC towers, and that it was all just computer animation. What are they, crazy?”
Sometimes, these strategies are used by average people with serious personality issues. However, if you see someone using these tactics often, or using many of them at the same time, you may be dealing with a paid internet troll.
That chart only goes back 1000 years which is a blink of an eye in Earth terms.
What about this one?
What about this one?
unspoken
Member
Judith Curry is a great scientist and I'm glad we have her on our team(science). She has contributed a lot to climate science, and I would have paid double to be in one of her classes. I don't think you will find any credible scientists saying we have this all exactly figured out. People like Dr. Curry are beyond important to science, they are necessary and fundamental. I can not express enough respect. She is not saying at all the trend won't continue up. The models that we do have (while admittedly imperfect by the people who made them) do predict long periods (up to 15 years, like it says) of stalled warming. Even Dr. Curry will agree that ceteris paribus, a rise in co2 will increase global temperatures.
As far as the whole climate gate thing goes, she was one of the most outspoken critics, and even she doesn't believe there was any kind of intentional manipulation of data or anything like that, she just thought those scientists were too confident in their models without enough justification.
P.S. I paid for my education in cash up front
As far as the whole climate gate thing goes, she was one of the most outspoken critics, and even she doesn't believe there was any kind of intentional manipulation of data or anything like that, she just thought those scientists were too confident in their models without enough justification.
P.S. I paid for my education in cash up front
unspoken
Member
The best way to disarm disinformation agents is to know their methods inside and out. "This gives us the ability to point out exactly what they are doing in detail the moment they try to do it. Immediately exposing a disinformation tactic as it is being used is highly destructive to the person utilizing it. It makes them look foolish, dishonest, and weak for even making the attempt. Internet trolls most especially do not know how to handle their methods being deconstructed right in front of their eyes, and usually fold and run from debate when it occurs."
Good luck with that. I don't have any sort of agenda other than truth.
"Trolls are now being openly employed by governments in countries like the U.S. and Israel specifically to scour the internet for alternative news sites and disrupt their ability to share information." HAHA! I wish I was getting paid for this. Maybe the Illuminati will get in touch. I could use some of that .000001% money.
Good luck with that. I don't have any sort of agenda other than truth.
"Trolls are now being openly employed by governments in countries like the U.S. and Israel specifically to scour the internet for alternative news sites and disrupt their ability to share information." HAHA! I wish I was getting paid for this. Maybe the Illuminati will get in touch. I could use some of that .000001% money.
I'm not pushing any truth that I would identify as mine. I believe in evidence, so far I've seen plenty to make an educated opinion of the possible uses of HAARP.
As I said before this topic is understood way better when you understand what motivates TPB and why.
So pretty much all your namecalling and "conspiracy theorist" ridicule is stagnating the truth from coming out.
And it's not just you, others in this thread too.
As I said before this topic is understood way better when you understand what motivates TPB and why.
So pretty much all your namecalling and "conspiracy theorist" ridicule is stagnating the truth from coming out.
And it's not just you, others in this thread too.
Last edited:
S
Scrappy-doo
Unspoken what do the different colored lines represent? I can't read the text becomes blurry when I zoom. To me the way it looks I see exactly what I said. Temps go up and down in cycles. What do you believe it is demonstrating?
S
Scrappy-doo
unspoken
Member
Who did I call names? I have been posting in this thread a lot, so maybe I did and don't remember, but I don't think I've called anyone names. Conspiracy theorist, yeah, but I backed that up with a dictionary definition. I don't see that as being an inherently bad thing. We both know some conspiracy theories have been right over the years. Most of the evidence I've seen in this thread has been conjecture at best. That last video from trichrider started out promising until it ended with an angry preacher yelling at me about science he does not even understand. He shows a hole punch cloud and calls it a "haarp cloud."
unspoken
Member
Simulated temperatures during the last 1 kyr with and without anthropogenic forcing, and also with weak or strong solar irradiance variations. Global mean radiative forcing (W/m^2) used to drive climate model simulations due to (a) volcanic activity, (b) strong (blue) and weak (brown) solar irradiance variations, and (c) all other forcings, including greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulphate aerosols (the thin flat line after 1765 indicates the fixed anthropogenic forcing used in the 'Nat' simulations). (d) Annual mean NH temperature (°C) simulated by three climate models under the forcings shown in (a) to (c), compared with the concentration of overlapping NH temperature reconstructions (shown by grey shading, modified from Figure 6.10c to account for the 1500 to 1899 reference period used here). 'All' (thick lines) used anthropogenic and natural forcings; 'Nat' (thin lines) used only natural forcings. All forcings and temperatures are expressed as anomalies from their 1500 to 1899 means; the temperatures were then smoothed with a Gaussian-weighted filter to remove fluctuations on time scales less than 30 years. Note the different vertical scale used for the volcanic forcing compared with the other forcings.
Notice around 1950 on the time axis. The thick lines (with anthropogenic and natural forcing) go up and the thin lines (without anthropogenic forcing) go down. This takes into account solar and volcanic influences. Basically different models that use different input parameters compared with each other.
