End Times and Current Events
June 27, 2017, 02:10:44 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome To End Times and Current Events.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...

Shoutbox
June 21, 2017, 05:50:35 pm Romans 8 says: Mark, I don't want to flood your pm box. But just wanted to say I emailed bro Scott about this issue.
April 29, 2017, 05:20:18 am Christian40 says: What i'm thinking a strike on North Korea possible on some occultic date May 1? the aftermath of WW3 will bring in the Antichrist? Yeah Mayhem in May?
April 20, 2017, 04:55:44 pm Mark says:
April 06, 2017, 09:26:29 pm Mark says: TRUMP LAUNCHES 50+ MISSILES AIMED AT SYRIA
March 05, 2017, 01:16:17 am Christian40 says: i hope the rapture is this year i encourage You to keep working for the Lord
March 05, 2017, 01:06:24 am Christian40 says: i'm glad that the summer is over in Australia the heat was making me feel crazy its a good month to be in now
February 19, 2017, 07:55:44 am Romans 8 says: The month of February just FLIES BY, doesn't it? It being a < 30 day month helps too! (Unusually warm this month too!)
January 24, 2017, 09:38:51 pm Romans 8 says:
January 16, 2017, 07:17:24 pm Romans 8 says:
October 24, 2016, 03:38:23 am Christian40 says: i'm here again i get bonus time on the Net today Smiley
View Shout History
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...  (Read 2210 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20789



View Profile
« Reply #120 on: May 07, 2017, 08:05:55 pm »

Another Arctic ice panic over as world temperatures plummet

Inevitably, when even satellite temperatures were showing 2016 as “the hottest year on record”, we were going to be told last winter that the Arctic ice was at its lowest extent ever. Sure enough, before Christmas, a report from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was greeted with such headlines as “Hottest Arctic on record triggers massive ice melt”. In March we had the BBC trumpeting another study that blamed vanishing Arctic ice as the cause of weather which led to the worst-ever smog in Beijing, warning that it “could even threaten the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022”.

rest: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/another-arctic-ice-panic-world-temperatures-plummet/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #121 on: June 03, 2017, 06:11:03 pm »

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=81438
6/3/17
The EU Has Just Proven That The Paris Climate Accord Was Never About Climate!! Look What Was Discovered

Please share this and expose the truth!

President Trump announced that the United States was withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord on Thursday but he also stated the U.S. would be willing to renegotiate the terms of the accord and enter a new agreement.
However, the leaders of Europe made it clear that there would be no renegotiation.


If the accord is so dire and the U.S. withdrawing would cause cataclysmic damage to the world then how could they be opposed to renegotiating? Only if the true drive behind the accord isn't really about saving the world.


Independentsentinel.com reported: The European Union has rejected Donald Trump’s offer to renegotiate the Paris Treaty, proving it was always about bleeding the U.S. dry and appointing globalists as our governing bodies.

The Paris climate agreement is written so as to be an endless drain on the U.S. economy. If they cared about the climate, they’d work with us. It doesn’t help that we have traitors within our own country.

The leftists in this country will be not be dissuaded. A corrupt deal has been worked out with U.S. states and major corporations who will betray the President of the United States.

New York state and New York city, Pittsburgh, California, Washington, and Silicon Valley, among others have vowed to abide by the treaty that was never legally implemented by Barack Obama. The three states that signed up so far account for 25% of the U.S. GDP.

If the Paris treaty signatories can accept some of our states and municipalities, why can’t it be renegotiated? I guess it can be after all.

The treaty – which is recognized as a treaty by every other signatory – was never ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate. Former dictator Barack Obama ignored the Senate and simply called it an accord with the help of a complicit U.N.

The guardian reported that Angela Merkel, who is destroying her country’s sovereignty, said “nothing will stop us”; France’s Macron said he “respects this decision” but he thinks Trump made a “mistake for the U.S. and the planet”; and Theresa May of Britain is disappointed.

While 195 nations say they support the agreement, not all have signed and most, if not all will not abide by it if history is precedent. Most nations don’t have to do a thing for more than a decade. The U.S. bore the burden and now our own countrymen will betray us to the globalists.

The non-binding climate pact called for voluntary compliance which most, probably all nations won’t carry through.

The Paris signatories believe Trump will be ousted in 2020 and this is only a bump in the road. They will hold out until then as they wait for the ultimate goal of having the U.S. to transfer the wealth and resources earned and developed by Americans.

The Paris agreement included the Green Climate fund which is, as President Trump described, one of the scams that demanded an immediate $100 billion from the U.S. and would increase over time. That is in addition to the billions we already send overseas.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20789



View Profile
« Reply #122 on: June 12, 2017, 07:10:07 pm »

Trump’s EPA Chief Backs Approach to Science That Could Upend the Global Warming ‘Consensus’

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt reignited a long simmering debate over a method of scientific inquiry that could upset the supposed “consensus” on man-made global warming.

In an interview with Breitbart’s Joel Pollak on Monday, Pruitt said he supported a “red team-blue team” set up to test climate science. Pruitt was inspired by an op-ed by theoretical physicist Steven Koonin, but others have been pushing this idea as well.

“If truth is what we are all after, why would any scientific organization object to an independent look at the claims of the climate establishment?” climate scientist John Christy said.

Christy has testified on the value of “red teams” for climate science many times in the past decade. This time, however, environmentalists and “consensus” scientists are worried Congress will take him seriously.

Red teams would challenge blue teams on global warming hypotheses on “what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world,” Pruitt told Breitbart.

The military commonly using this method to challenge strategies and improve their overall effectiveness. Many climate scientists, however, say it has no place in their field. After all, 97 percent of climate scientists supposedly believe humans are the main cause of global warming.

“Science already has a red team: peer review,” David Titley, a climate scientist and retired rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, told The Washington Post.

“This just feels to me … like another way to skirt the tried and true scientific process that has worked for years in our field and many others,” said Marshall Shepherd, an atmospheric science professor at the University of Georgia who called the idea a “gimmick.”

Consensus scientists say the red team setup could manipulate public understanding of the science, giving a false impression of uncertainty and delay action on global warming. Skeptics, like Christy, say the other side is afraid the method will expose the weakness of the supposed “consensus” on global warming.

“My own analysis concerning 102 climate model runs is as clear as it can be—the theory has failed the simplest of scientific tests,” Christy said. “None of the august scientific societies crunched through the huge volumes of model output and observational data to perform such tests.”

“In the normative scientific method, when our theory fails, we are supposed to go back and modify or reject the theory and test again,” Christy said. “In this modern way of doing science, as best I can tell, the proponents of a failed theory simply yell louder, schedule marches on Washington, and attempt to quash any dissent.”

Consensus scientists say peer review works just fine, but skeptics point out the problems with climate models and many of their predictions. In fact, many articles have been written about the problems with scientific journals and peer review.

Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. says peer review has become politicized, where  “gatekeeping” plays a role in who gets published and who doesn’t. Skeptics usually get the wrong end of that deal.

Pruitt can only do so much to change how the EPA conducts research, and it’s uncertain how much traction this idea will gain in Congress, especially with other major issues, like the Russia investigation and Obamacare repeal, sucking up political capital.

“I can understand why political organizations would object—because their deeply held beliefs may be shown to be in error and thus set a foundation to undo their attempts to set rules for the ‘hoi polloi,’” Christy said.

“Claiming that the truth has already been determined regarding ‘climate change,’ and thus red teams are not needed, is an argument made by someone who has not examined the theory,” he said.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/08/trumps-epa-chief-backs-approach-to-science-that-could-upend-the-global-warming-consensus/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20789



View Profile
« Reply #123 on: June 21, 2017, 04:58:04 pm »

SHOCKER=> Global Warming Computer Models Were Wrong, the 'Pause' Is Real

It turns out, the theorized “pause” related to global warming is real and all of our fancy computer models that predicted dramatic increases in temperature failed us.

A paper published for Nature Geoscience titled “Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates” admits in shocking detail the shortcomings of climate scientists and their computer models. The most shocking element of all, is the fact that the paper’s lead author is Ben Santer, a man who will go down as one of the most vocal alarmists. James Dellingpole points out in his long form Breitbart piece that this topic was exposed in the “Climategate emails”.

Read the paper’s abstract below:

    In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone.

    We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability.

    The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

Climate change continues to be debunked. We are living in an age wherein we can acquire so much of the information and yet our scientists, encouraged by the government to find evidence of climate change, global warming, etc., simply make things up in order to receive funding each year. In a bid to receive a paycheck, they have resorted to lying to the world.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/shocker-global-warming-computer-models-wrong-pause-real/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines