The planet was warming but stopped in 2001. What these global warming liars have in fact done is eliminate hundreds of weather stations making the data more dependent on info gleaned from stations that have artificial heat sources
Odd sites (this is deceitful to say the least and immediately exposes the presence of a hidden agenda)
Odd sites like this can easily be eliminated from the databases and the same conclusions are reached. They are very aware of odd sites like these (if in fact many of these were authentic climate monitoring sites as claimed!
) and eliminate them. The top 3 databases cover the entire planet, not just the back of some airconexhaust, as you maintain.
When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect. They compare urban long term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail on the NASA website (
Hansen 2001).
They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are
cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). The point is they're aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records.
This confirms a peer review study by the NCDC (
Peterson 2003) that did statistical analysis of urban and rural temperature anomalies and concluded "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures... Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions."
Another more recent study (
Parker 2006) plotted 50 year records of temperatures observed on calm nights, the other on windy nights. He concluded "temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development".
More here
Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?
Besides this the conclusions of these lab rats are bizarre, do not correlate to known past data and patterns, rely on secret modelling that does not allow any real peer review and suggests CO2 is the cause even when the levels of CO2 do not correlate to the temperatures.
The 'secret modelling' was in part because the peer-reviewed groups did not want to bow to pressure from the psychotic, paranoid, anti-science Denialist crowd. They paid real money to collect their data, and did not feel like just handing it over to psychos who have been stabbing them in the back, yelling in their faces, and generally behaving like rabid dogs about anything to do with real climate science. Why feed pearls to pigs like these Denialist truth-benders?
I sympathise with them. Then when the Denialist fools get a hold of a few emails, "Hide the decline" is born and more conspiracy theories hatched. Way to go.
And for your information consensus and the majority do not constitute science. There are thousands of disenfranchised scientists who have been ignored simply because they have ben labelled deniers or don't agree with the masses.
Oh, poor little wittle denialists couldn't get their unscientific papers published in the peer-reviewed jouwnawls because the wasckawly truth kept getting in their wawy? Dude, I feel for the climatologists getting death threats, not 'scientists' (like dental hygienists) not getting their unqualified junk science published!
Lab tests can show anything depending on who is paying the bills
Yeah, well arguing against the heat-trapping physics of CO2 marks you as truly weird, if that is indeed what you are doing. That's like arguing that gravity doesn't exist or with the established boiling point of water at sea-level. Grow up.
CO2 is a well known 'fertilizer' for plants and that is indisputable fact played out in agriculture in every nation over 1000's of years and is not dependent on some scientists trying to confirm what his funder is trying to prove.
This myth has been dealt with extensively in this thread. Go back a few pages and you'll see.
And yet there is still no evidence to suggest mans 0.1% contribution to the CO2 levels actually makes a difference
Fail: we're on the way towards
doubling the pre-industrial revolution levels of CO2 which were at 280ppm... we're now at 400, and heading towards 500 real fast.
CO2 levels hit new peak at key observatory - CNN.com
(not that it possibly can) nor that the changes envisaged through trading CO2 as a commodity (which does nothing to reduce emissions, but makes a few wicked people very rich in the process) could make one iota of difference.
If we can agree on the effects of CO2, then we might be able to discuss what to do about it. Then. Because I agree that 'carbon trading' may not have a whole lot going for it. We may need far more drastic action from government to tinker with the so called 'free market' of energy. (Which is anything but because fossil fuel companies are so good at bargaining for discounts and externalising health costs so that taxpayers end up picking up the tab for so many other coal related costs).
Burning coal creates hundreds of millions of jobs and prevents the deaths of 10 of millions through abject poverty that is sure to follow so your argument is a dud.
Dude: grow up. If you believe coal saves lives, you're dead wrong. NUCLEAR power and renewables save lives by preventing coal dust pollution, but coal may kill as many as a million people a year worldwide. You need to read up on this, as you're sounding really ignorant right now.
1. TRY DOUBLING THE PRICE OF COAL FIRED ELECTRICITY TO FIND THE *REAL* COST
Although it is difficult to assign a cost to these numbers, estimates have suggested a 10% increase in health care costs in countries where coal makes up a significant fraction of the energy mix, like the U.S. and Europe (NAS 2010; Cohen et al., 2005; Pope et al., 2002). These additional health costs begin to rival the total energy costs on an annual basis for the U.S. given that health care costs top $2.6 trillion, and electricity costs only exceed about $400 billion. Another way to describe this human health energy fee is that it costs about 2,000 lives per year to keep the lights on in Beijing but only about 200 lives to keep them on in New York.
Guess thats just the cost of doing business
How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources - Forbes
Or, in Australia coal power + burning oil in cars costs us about $6 billion a year in health costs.
nothing new under the sun: Fossil energy costing Australia billions in health problems
2. COAL KILLS
Classic Monbiot:
.when coal goes right it kills more people than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. It kills more people every week than nuclear power has in its entire history. And thats before we take climate change into account.
The Heart of the Matter | George Monbiot
Coal kills something like 4000 times more people than nuclear power.
Deaths per TWH by energy source
You've got a gift for quoting the completely irrelevant and whacky. Now, if you want to read some real science and stop wasting our time, try googling the IPCC reports and getting your head around them.
