the worst thing that ever happened to the scientific conversation about possible man made climate change was when the term “global warming” was used. it has both confused those who are unable to understand the research/data and been used by those who hate talking about it (for a variety of reasons).
The two main reasons are, of course, money and politics.
Then what was the purpose of your comment?
You are right. Re. Al Gore for example.
Fun
Its kinda funny that we are moving into the age of aquarius right when all the global warming predictions are supposed to cause massive flooding of coastlines
That’s like thinking its fun to believe in leprechauns and unicorns.
You mean this is the science we should agree with:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate forecasts were wrong from their earliest reports in 1990. They were so inaccurate that they stopped calling them forecasts and made three “projections”: low, medium, and high. Since then, even their “low” scenario projections were wrong.
These are the people we are supposed to believe. The one’s that can’t get the predictions right on how much warming will occure. How many predictions have they made now? Err how many “corrections” to their predictions have they made?
The SPM is consequently a highly political document that fulfils policy objectives of the member governments and typically does not properly reflect uncertainties in the underlying science.
Basically once the political pencil necks get the report, they bend and twist it to meet their objectives – then the SPM is released to the public.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change procedures allow government representatives to ultimately control the underlying science reports as well by specifying that changes to the science reports may be made even after they have been approved “to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers.”
Things that make you go hmmmm. Politicians can demand and make changes to the underlying science reports to make sure it’s consistant with the message they want to put out.
?
…
Low, Medium, High represents bad science now? Fascinating. Tell us more about the methods of model predictions and how they handle error.
As far as politicians, we know when conservatives were in charge they attempted to edit the reports. Is that what you are referring to? I’ll provide a specific:
So you think it was only US republicans that tried to make edits to fit the narrative they wanted to push? And your article only points to a US EPA report. NOT the UN report that was mentioned in the article I posted.
Did I say that? No.
And? Are you fine with the conservative editing/censoring of climate reports?
Look, I’m glad you shared the opinion of the two authors of the Washington Times piece. Nice to know.
Simple. None of those things (including astrology) have anything to do with the climate.
Woooosh
Yes… still snowing in Chicago.
Here’s some truth from Tony Heller…
Just ignore the propaganda header from YouTube…
"In this video I explain the corruption of the US temperature record by NOAA and NASA - and show that their justifications for data tampering are not scientifically valid.
What makes you say that?..
Is that the sound of a failed attempt to make a point or a failed attempt at humor? It’s easy to get those two sounds mixed up.
Dayum its windy in here
and it keeps raining in Cal. 
Tony Heller is also known as Steve Goddard. Heller/Goddard is spanked here and here, for example. (YouTube warnings apply)
Heller/Goddard has no background in climate science. Has no published papers. Does not have a degree in any field associated with climate science.
All you need is a brain to see graphs from the past completely changed by to show more heating. It’s a good thing they can’t change the books in the library.
The fact that he’s not paid by the govt to study global warming just makes him more credible not less.
Why were the graphs changed?
