Another scientists has refuted global warming, Do you think there will ever be an end to the constant bickering over this subject?

Quote by James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: "Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story."

Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist....Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets....The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists....some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts....In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”

Quote by Claude Culross, organic chemistry: “Dire predictions of catastrophe from that bottomless pit of disasters du jour, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are based solely on computer models that amount to poorly crafted mathematical opinions, not experimental proof....There is no proof that man-made carbon dioxide causes additional warming, or that carbon-dioxide reduction would reduce warming.”

CO2 control of our temperatures has been scientifically proven false, as far as the Earth is concerned. But the greedy scam sharks get rich and powerful by this lie. Why on earth would they give up a scam like this?

It has been proven to these power mongers long ago that their science is bogus but every time it is proven they increase the hype even more. It is in direct imitation of Goebbels:

Joseph Goebbels,

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

They are defending the goose that layed the golden egg

Patrick Michaels has not published this as proper research, because he knows that what he says is not scientifically valid. He uses a technique called the 'cherry pick', where he denies most of the data and only picks little bits of it that he can twist to support his opinion. Then he refuses to use proper statistical analysis that shows his claims are not supported by the data.

You can do some of the analysis yourself thanks to handy tools like this one:

http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php

He says that global warming happened from 1977 to 1998. Using the Cowtan & Way data, which are global (unlike HadCRUT, RSS, UAH), the trend is +0.133 C/decade (with a statistical range of about 0.12 C/decade either way)

That trend is now faster. From 1977 to the latest data point the warming trend is +0.171 C/decade, with a statistical range of about 0.05 C/decade either way.

Statistically, it's much more likely that warming from 1977-now is faster than it was from 1977-1998. But Patrick Michaels refuses to do the analysis like that. He cherry picks individual years (like the very hot 1998, following a super-strong El Nino). A similar thing is true with what he says about Arctic sea ice: the data fit the melting trend, but he doesn't look at this. He also ignores our measurements of the oceans and rising seas, which show Earth is warming by about 4 Hiroshima nukes worth of heat every second.

Patrick Michaels works for the Cato Institute. This is a political pressure group campaigning against global warming. It is not interested in science, but it pays people like Michaels to produce PR for its politics.

He's been paid to do this for years. In 1992 he made a load of similar statements and was wrong about almost everything.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/1992-skeptic.html

But he said it very confidently, because he's paid to produce PR, not science.

Climate change has and always will occur. However we do not have the means to accurately confirm this theory. Twenty even one hundred years is not a sufficient amount of time to measure climate change. Is the burning of fossil fuels the cause? Maybe. No one model has ever proven or disproven this theory. I do believe natural climate change is occurring as we exit the last ice age.

I can tell you we should all be worried about air pollution more than global warming.

Why do people listen to Al Gore? What the hell does he know about science? I didn't realize he has a science degree.

The world is like a cancer patient in remission. Currently there are no symptoms, but it doesn't mean it's cured. It would be extremely rash to assume that because there's been a brief pause, global warming is over.

Whether or not global warming is real, the sensible way to proceed is to invest heavily in renewables, garner our existing reserves of fossil fuels, and find an energy solution that will work for the next 1000 years.

However, simply exploiting all our energy reserves now because we can is profligate - once they're gone they're gone and what will we tell our grandchildren?

The source is a right-wing organization but the alarming thing is how Mr. Patrick Michaels picks and chooses data at a very superficial level.

What people should know is that the earth's temps are somewhat difficult to gauge. The north poles have the most rapidly increasing temps but aren't included into the averages. It's also important to know that the ice melt in the North Pole and Greenland are decreasing faster than the ice growth in Antarctica.

There are also some pollutants and natural events that cool. Those pollutants, mainly in china, are being curtailed. Natural events such as increased volcanic activity and la nina should at some point have less impact on global cooling (or stabilization) at which point the planet should resume its long-term heating trend.

Why did you say "Another", and then bring up Patrick Michaels? Isn't he paid by the Cato Institute to deny it?

Don't you love Sagebrush's "experts" on weather, James Spann and Tom McElmurry? The first is a TV weatherman (not a scientist) and the other is a pastor that hasn't been involved in meteorology for more than 40 years. Now he spends his time writing books about the end of days. Here's his chart that shows when the Rapture will occur, I just can't figure out the "axes" on his chart--probably why we haven't seen it in any of the science journals yet:

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/pu/pu321.html

no, because the term can be broken down into so many sub-divisions and knowledge increases with every time frame passed as all predictions are proven to be correct/incorrect or half right. research/predictions into the effects of constant burrowing into the ground and sea from every location would be interesting to see too.

Clearly Dr. Michaels needs to be taken to the woodshed, have his name denigrated, his work insulted, called some 'right wing hack' who watches fox news, takes money from the Koch Bro's and listens to Rush Limbaugh. Clearly anyone who has scientific research that proves so-called "global warming" is just a natural trend needs to have their scientific credentials pulled. This is why they have peer review - to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Perhaps we should be worrying more on what street level pollution in our cities is doing to our health, more than bickering about 'global warming'.

Thermometers don't lie. No refuting necessary, just accept the raw data.