Page 1 of 1
Scientists admit they were wrong, changes were natural
Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:16 am
by RealJustme
Our climate models weree WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study
Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records
It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC
Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming
These 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report
Climate changes been natural and should have been expected
Pachuri, the head of the UN climate change panel announced his resignnation, he admitted that global warming was hyped and in many cases to secure money for good causes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... study.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Scientists admit they were wrong, changes were natural
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:54 am
by Malcolm
....Neil Young appeared on stage in New York recently to address his much anticipated upcoming album that will focus on Monsanto and the threat the multinational corporation poses to the country’s food supply.........
Re: Scientists admit they were wrong, changes were natural
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:20 am
by RealJustme
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures. Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.
Already scientific studies based in the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.
But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.
Thus far several global warming studies have been debunked as efforts to raise large amounts of money that can be used for what the authors considered, good causes that have been under funded.