?????Does this mean we never have to hear about ?????solving????? AGW?'

[_ldsfaqs]

Of course, I know it won't end (and so does he) and that many climate activists still want more, don't think it's enough, etc.
But, I like that he calls it "modern day witchcraft"..... lol

'Now that the United Nations has officially 'solved' man-made global warming, does this mean we never have to hear about 'global warming' fears again!? Does this mean we can halt the endless supply of federal tax dollars funding 'climate change' studies? Does this mean we can stop worrying about 'global warming's' ability to end civilization and cause wars, and increase prostitution, bar room brawls, rape, airline turbulence, etc.? Can we finally move on to other issues? I spent the last week in Paris marveling at how so many believe a form of modern witchcraft: That a UN agreement or EPA climate regulations can alter Earth's temperature and the level of storms. But now I realize that if they truly believe the UN has solved 'climate change' even skeptics should rejoice! Now that the UN treaty has 'solved' global warming, can we all just move on to something else?'

Related: Morano on UN’s 2C Limit: "We had one UK scientist, Philip Stott, who has said there are quite literally hundreds of factors governing global climate. For the UN to pick one politically-selected factor -- CO2 -- and then try to tweak it at the margins and then come up with some temperature goal 50 -100 years in the future, is akin to scientific nonsense. You could call it modern day witchcraft."

[_ldsfaqs]

by the way.... here's some examples of way's/how the "data" "proving" AGW has been manipulated.

moiaussi
What biases? You calibrate you instruments. You prove your calibration method. You determine your error margin and you include this in your calculations. None of which have been done by the warmists. What they have done is to take urban heat island readings and use 'adjustment' curves to ensure that all readings say the same thing. Of course urban heat island readings have gone up over the decades, and we have been warming out of the LIA. It's a lot of very poor science and very poor understanding of technology.

If your instruments don't say what you expect them to say then you check your science.

Bill Ingram
I had one prime example of global warming that was eventually debunked. It seems one of the major temperature sensing sites in "Ohio" was originally out in the open (early 1800's) but a town grew up around the site and buildings and roads etc grew up alongside this temperature sensing site. A Power Transformer was placed next to it in the mid 1950's which REALLY heated up the site and in retrospect, data showed the sudden rise in collected data but it was never investigated. It was just ASSUMED that it was a natural change.

Peter Thompson
40+ years ago 73% of the data collection centers were rural, now, less than 10%. They still adjusted the early data downwards to show a more significant trend upwards.

Now you Global Warming proponents..... Can you tell us how that is "science"?
It's a complete perversion of science being used to promote an Environmental Agenda rather than showing an actual problem.

[_MissTish]

Marc Morano. Now there's an unimpeachable source for truth.

[_Res Ipsa]

Still waiting for an answer to a simple scientific question, faqs: All other things being equal, what does science say happens when we add CO2 to the atmosphere?

[_MeDotOrg]

Still waiting for an answer to a simple scientific question, faqs: All other things being equal, what does science say happens when we add CO2 to the atmosphere?

The problem Brad, is you're working the problem from the inside out, starting with the problem and coming up with a solution. But the solution requires some people to let go of the paradigms that define their universe, and that implies a future which is not to their liking.The problem is that a global problem transcends the largest unit of identity conservatives are comfortable dealing with: Nationalism. Using international cooperation to attempt to solve a global problem requires letting go of nationalism a little bit, ergo CO2 does not trap heat.

We live in a universe where Americans face they can't solve by themselves. But rather than accept that, it's easier to conclude that 97% of the world's climatologists and the governments of virtually every other nation on earth can not see that they're being duped, and only Republicans (except Arnold Schwarzenegger) with heavy ties to the fossil fuel industry are the only people on earth capable of objectively evaluating the science.

[_Brackite]

We live in a universe where Americans face they can't solve by themselves. But rather than accept that, it's easier to conclude that 97% of the world's climatologists and the governments of virtually every other nation on earth can not see that they're being duped, and only Republicans (except Arnold Schwarzenegger) with heavy ties to the fossil fuel industry are the only people on earth capable of objectively evaluating the science.

Yeah, Arnold Schwarzenegger, but also Republicans Susan Collins (Maine), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.).

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ge-is-real

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/1 ... ing-group/


And also maybe Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

"I come from a state where we see a warming. We're seeing it with increased water temperatures; we're seeing it with ice that is thinner; we're seeing it with migratory patterns that are changing," she said. "So I look at this and I say this is something that we must address."

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/06/361896179/republican-sweep-highlights-climate-change-politics-in-alaska

[Guest]

by the way.... here's some examples of way's/how the "data" "proving" AGW has been manipulated.

moiaussi
What biases? You calibrate you instruments. You prove your calibration method. You determine your error margin and you include this in your calculations. None of which have been done by the warmists. What they have done is to take urban heat island readings and use 'adjustment' curves to ensure that all readings say the same thing. Of course urban heat island readings have gone up over the decades, and we have been warming out of the LIA. It's a lot of very poor science and very poor understanding of technology.

If your instruments don't say what you expect them to say then you check your science.

Bill Ingram
I had one prime example of global warming that was eventually debunked. It seems one of the major temperature sensing sites in "Ohio" was originally out in the open (early 1800's) but a town grew up around the site and buildings and roads etc grew up alongside this temperature sensing site. A Power Transformer was placed next to it in the mid 1950's which REALLY heated up the site and in retrospect, data showed the sudden rise in collected data but it was never investigated. It was just ASSUMED that it was a natural change.

Peter Thompson
40+ years ago 73% of the data collection centers were rural, now, less than 10%. They still adjusted the early data downwards to show a more significant trend upwards.

Now you Global Warming proponents..... Can you tell us how that is "science"?
It's a complete perversion of science being used to promote an Environmental Agenda rather than showing an actual problem.

You're an idiot. Exxon Mobile knew and still lied to keep their profits up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aannOZw2shY

Dr. Richard Muller was a denier before changing his mind.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo

by the way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT2pNg4oxYE

[_ludwigm]

Schwarzenegger?

- [#img] http://kep.cdn.index.hu/1/0/1055/10550/ ... 3f1_wm.gif[/img] -

[_The CCC]

Schwarzenegger?

- [#img] http://kep.cdn.index.hu/1/0/1055/10550/ ... 3f1_wm.gif[/img] -

I have lots of disagreements with "The Arnold", but he is right about Global Warming.

[Guest]

As has already been pointed out many times, given the evidence already available, refusing to do anything about slowing CO2 emissions and improving energy efficiency in the hope that the vast majority of climate scientists might be wrong is almost as bad as refusing to buy fire insurance unless we know the house is already burning--especially when we know there are positive benefits to greatly reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, even if AGW were not a serious concern.