Originally Posted by Pollyanna
The science is exactly the opposite to what you say - the top 11 warmest years on record have all been in the last 13 years -
I find scientists more credible rather than the commentariat. The fact that journos consistently confuse climate and weather doesn't help.
I guess it depends on which "scientists" you ask and which data you refer to, and how far back your data goes. Clearly the "scientists" of the Climategate scandal aren't any more trustworthy than your average government liar or journalist (not to be redundant.)
"As the U.S. Senate prepares to consider enormously expensive cap-and-trade legislation, supposedly aimed at curbing alleged global warming caused by man-made emissions, scientists and policy makers at a conference in Chicago heard from experts in various scientific fields challenging the crumbling assumptions that have provided the foundation for global-warming alarmism."
"The scientists’ analysis is based on the natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, which is contradictory to other scientists' belief that the North Pole will be free of ice by the summer of 2013. However, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, arctic sea ice has increased by more than 26 per cent, or 409,000 square miles, since 2007, reports the Washington Times."
"Morano also notes that between 1940 and 1975, the earth's temperature cooled even though CO2 levels rose. And global warming alarmists, he notes, have failed to explain the lack of a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperatures, a theory that Al Gore promotes in his movie An Inconvenient Truth."
"None of that is necessary according to Ian Plimer, a two-time Eureka prize winner who is Emeritus professor of earth science at Melbourne University and professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide.
He says human emissions of carbon dioxide do not create global warming; he claims there is no global warming at all because temperatures are actually dropping and that geology shows that climate change is part of the earth's natural cycle."
"The question is whether anthropogenic global warming is the exclusive or dominant fact that determines our climate, or whether Corbyn is also right to insist on the role of the Sun. Is it possible that everything we do is dwarfed by the moods of the star that gives life to the world? The Sun is incomparably vaster and more powerful than any work of man. We are forged from a few clods of solar dust. The Sun powers every plant and form of life, and one day the Sun will turn into a red giant and engulf us all. Then it will burn out. Then it will get very nippy indeed."
...and so on, and so forth. I've read literally hundreds of articles over the years like this, clearly indicating that no science has been settled on the issue. It's clear that most of the rhetoric used by the "Anthropomorphic Climate Change" crowd is BS, not back by any hard science, but rather mired in intentionally botched data to favor their view, and that of the state...for obvious reasons.
It's more likely that climate and weather patterns are based on solar activity. We appear to be in a "Maunder Minimum
" where when the sun grows quiet, the earth grows cold.