Global Warming & Evolution: WHO are The Scientists?

Two things nobody knows about global warming:

1. will it be good or bad for living things on earth, and
2. nobody knows how to reverse it (if necessary)

That's my point. Nobody knows how to stop global warming

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

• The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
• This means that the ‘pause’in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2I0hfQOOs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Global warming is accelerating - no, aah - global warming has stopped. The old computer models were wrong, the new models are right.

It should be absolutely clear that this whole Global Warming story is nothing but a good mystery story. Kind of like the Loch Ness Monster. Now you see it, now you don't. Don't let anybody fool you into believing we must spend money to fix it. And a carbon tax is nothing but government greed.

The IPCC membership numbers in the thousands of scientists of all types. Their report this year will have 800 authors. There are 120 membership countries. All reports must have a 100% vote of agreement. They believe global warming is happening.

I hardly think that is "a surprising ly small group of misfits scientists"

Himalayan ice is one small point in the big picture. Single counterexamples won't break the IPCC findings that covers a huge global picture. I have no idea on how or if the Himalayas were considered in the IPCC reports.

Peer review? They are the peers! And not a small circle.

I remain of the opinion that we may well be experiencing climate-change. I'm also of the opinion that a comprehensive cause of the changing climate is unknown. I've yet to see anyone, scientist or otherwise, provide a clear statement of what the eventual outcome of climate-change will be, when it will occur, nor what the combined effect (If Any) of the IPCC "Mitigation" plans will have on that projected outcome.

I believe that the climate-change issue is being used for several purposes. (1) To enrich those offering mitigation plans that won't have much if any effect. (2) To redistribute wealth from the Western nations to those less developed ones. (3) To increase the powers wielded by the World-Governance fanatics. (4) To cripple the military, industrial, and civilian populations such that the eventual world leaders can impose enforced population-reduction in whatever manner they decide is easiest for them.

I wouldn't be that upset if the rest of the world bankrupts itself, destroys civilian freedoms, and goes to hell in a handbasket. I'd rather return the USA to what is was intended to be, maintain our powers and our freedoms, and be the ones left happy and alive when everyone else is gone.

Most journal articles use two or three reviewers. A controversial paper may go up to six reviewers. Many hundreds of scientists from 120 countries had to sign off unanimously on the IPCC report. That peer review process exceeds anything that was ever done in the history of science.

The emails at East Anglia were taken out of context. They were scrutinized by the scientific community, which found that there was no tampering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Science_Assessment_Panel

As I have said before.. denial of science is bi-partisan. The only difference is the issues affected by the denial. just being a little sarcastic..great post..

Yes, give scientists time and keep politicians away from this problem.