Estais chalados.
El mayor contaminante del planeta empieza a plantearse (y me la sudan os motivos) una reducción en su grado de contaminación DEL PLANETA DE TODOS, y vosotros empezais a discutir sobre el sexo de los ángeles.

Que dejen de fundirse los recursos, y si la causa es que se han convertido al satanismo, que son reptilianos, o que la abuela fuma, me da igual.

Ademas de liberales de salón, sois de un poco práctico que acojona.

Sin duda.

__________________

Tócate los huevos, y se queda tan ancho el tío!!

¿Una ingeniosa descontextualización de quotes es la respuesta?

¿Eres de la LOGSE?

Arctic ice proves to be slippery stuff
The extent of the sea-ice is now half a million square kilometres more than it was this time last year, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:30PM BST 05 Sep 2009


BBC viewers were treated last week to the bizarre spectacle of Mr Ban
Ki-moon standing on an Arctic ice-floe making a series of statements so laughable that it was hard to believe such a man can be Secretary-General of the UN. Thanks to global warming, he claimed, "100 billion tons" of polar ice are melting each year, so that within 30 years the Arctic could be "ice-free". This was supported by a WWF claim that the ice is melting so fast that, by 2100, sea-levels could rise by 1.2 metres (four feet), which would lead to "floods affecting a quarter of the world".

Everything about this oft-repeated item was propaganda of the silliest kind. Standing 700 miles from the Pole, as near as the stubbornly present ice would allow his ship to go, Mr Ban seemed unaware that, although some 10 million square kilometres (3.8 million square miles) of sea-ice melts each summer, each September the Arctic starts to freeze again. And the extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km (190,000 sq m) greater than it was this time last year – which was, in turn, 500,000 sq km more than in September 2007, the lowest point recently recorded (see the Cryosphere Today website). By April, after months of darkness, it will be back up to 14 million sq km (5.4 million sq m) or more.

Mr Ban seems equally unaware that, even if all that sea-ice were to melt, this would no more raise sea-levels than a cube of ice melting in a gin and tonic increases the volume of liquid in the glass. If he is relying for his "100 billion tons" on land ice melting in Antarctica and Greenland, he should note that much of their ice sheets are growing rather than shrinking. His "100 billion tons" is fantasy.

Similarly worthy of the Booker Prize for fiction was WWF's claim that sea levels might rise by four feet (twice the most extreme guess by those UN computer models), let alone the ludicrous claim that this would flood "a quarter of the world". But Mr Ban was indulging in this childish publicity stunt for the same reason the BBC, the Royal Society and others have lately been banging on about various mad schemes for "climate engineering", such as putting up vast mirrors in space to keep out the sun's rays or lining our motorways with artificial trees to suck deadly CO2 out of the air, to be taken away and buried in holes in the ground.

Why are they all going off their heads like this, in emulation of the "projector" that Gulliver met on his travels, in the Academy of Lagado, who had designed a scheme for extracting sunbeams from cucumbers? It is because they are desperately trying to whip up alarm over global warming before December's planned "climate treaty" in Copenhagen, when all evidence suggests that they are not going to get the successor to the Kyoto Protocol they want.

The countries of the developing world, led by China, India, Russia and Brazil, continue to insist that, since global warming is all the fault of the already developed countries of the West, it is up to the West to cut its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent, while the rest of the world is allowed to catch up. Some, such as China, are prepared to make token emission cuts, but only so long as they are compensated by the West to the tune of trillions of pounds a year. As some of the gloomier warmists admit, Copenhagen looks to be a dead duck.

According to Government figures, however, we in Britain are already committed to spending, under the Climate Change Act, £18 billion every year between now and 2050 on this nonsense – daft light bulbs (see below), electricity blackouts and all. In other words, we are only beginning to see some of the nastier consequences of this crazy make-believe, based on nothing more substantial than the kind of gibberish we got last week from Mr "Light Bulb" Ban and the BBC.

Arctic ice proves to be slippery stuff - Telegraph

Unas gráficas bien ilustrativas:







Las fuentes están en el artículo
FAEC - El Pasado y el Futuro del Clima

Yo también estuve en esa situación.

Hace 10 años yo no ponía la calefacción e iba por casa con un gorro de lana para "luchar contra el cambio climático".

Hoy...

http://www.burbuja.info/inmobiliaria...to-global.html

http://www.burbuja.info/inmobiliaria...-115-anos.html

__________________

Ayer el presentador "del tiempo" de tv3 comentó la influencia de las manchas solares en la temperatura, con la evolución histórica de las mismas incluyendo el periodo frío que ya habeis comentado. Según dijo, de cumplirse las previsiones, no sólo dejarán de subir las temperaturas sinó que bajarán.

Lo sé, no es gran cosa, pero no deja de sorprenderme que de vez en cuando hablen en la tele de según que cosas que pueden ir contra lo que nos quieren hacer creer tan insistentemente.

Y no digo que no haya un cambio climático, hay evidencias de que lo hay, pero quizás no sea como nos cuentan, el dolar es el dolar.

__________________

Esta claro que los que procesan la toma de datos, mediante errores, correlaciones y demás filigranas pueden hacer lo que les de la gana, cualquiera se fia de nada.



rojo - estación revisada
azul - estación no revisada

33% de las estaciones, revisadas (404 en concreto)




Este cuadro del principio de este hilo, es demoledor:

__________________

Scientists pull a temporary about-face on global warming

By Lorne Gunter, Canwest News ServiceSeptember 15, 2009

(...)

When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?

Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference -- an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change -- Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.

"How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."

But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.

While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers ever predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.

Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030.

In the past year, two other groups of scientists -- one in Germany, the second in the United States -- have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth's upper oceans, but it will resume.

But how is that knowable? How can Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?

My point is they cannot.

It's true the supercomputer models Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. But getting the future correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Scientists pull a temporary about-face on global warming