This isn't science. It is politics. Lie to gain power and then abuse the power for financial gain.

Meanwhile arctic sea ice and antarctic sea ice are measurably decreasing every year. So how do you explain away the measurable fact that the ice is disappearing? Are some crafty scheming scientists holed up in the arctic chisseling away to support their conspiracy? Damned idiot.

source: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/resea...
more source: http://www.noaa.gov/feature...

History did not start in 1979. You have just chosen the year when the temperature reached a low point and then started climbing again, just as normal[1,2,3].

[1 ]Arctic sea-ice: models versus reality http://i59.tinypic.com/242w...
[2] 1979 coldest since records began: http://i41.tinypic.com/s4m8...

[3] Temperature log of Angmagssalik over last hundred years http://data.giss.nasa.gov/c...

[4] Antarctic sea-ice highest since records began. https://sunshinehours.files...

[4] Antarctic sea-ice reaches new record maximum http://www.nasa.gov/content...

[5] Global sea-ice highest since records began. http://www.climatedepot.com...

Also I wanted to follow up that I can't believe you used climate depot and tinypic as sources. Very academic of you.

Forgive him, he's out of practice. Apparently he did use to work as an educator of some description but for whatever reason had to give it up.

"I can't believe you used climate depot and tinypic as sources"
Wow, the stupid continues! Tinypic merely is a type of bulletin board to post graphics. But in your delusional fantasy la-la land I guess that makes a graph from a peer reviewed report invalid if it is posted there! ROTFLMAO!

I understand what tiny pic is. However your graphs do not site any respectable Source. I could make a graph in SAS right now that says pancakes make you evil and put it on tinypic. Ahah! Evidence!!

"However your graphs do not site[sic] any respectable Source."
That's pure male bovine excrement. My source was the University of Illionis Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences.
You are so FOS. Typical for you scientifically illiterate duped doomsday climate cult zealots. So sad.

This'll be the same stupid that declared as a FACT on another thread that Canada just had its coldest ever February, I presume?

Some of the smarter ones among us - the real sceptics, if you will - like to be able to verify the source for any data or graphs that we post. You would do well to learn from this.

That was eastern Ontario and Quebec stupid.

Yes it was, wasn't it. Even though you claimed as a FACT with a capital FACT that it was all of Canada. I think we can all see who the stupid one is here.

Yes, when a mistake is pointed out to me, I admit it and correct it. That is what an honest person does.
When a mistake is pointed out to you ideologically blinded climate cultists, you cling to it, making it a lie, like Hermit is doing here with her mistaken claim that global sea level is rising exponentially.

You still won't admit to your mistaken claim that UHI was properly corrected in the Providence, RI temperature record. So sad. So dishonest.

Wow, so you still haven't got it into your thick skull yet that the corrections for Providence were primarily due to station moves? The station was moved FROM the city centre TO to airport. You really are extraordinarily dim.

But well done for (eventually) admitting your mistake with the Canada temperatures. Perhaps better to check first before claiming things as FACT.

Wow, still dishonestly clinging to your Providence RI mistake, turning it into a lie. So sad.

Weather is not climate. One differing value does not reverse a trend. If Canada has 11 months that are warmer than average and 1 month that is colder than average that is still a net warmer year. Even 7 months warmer and 5 months cooler is still a net warmer year (I am simplifying here). Please go take a basic high school science class.

And furthermore idiotic politicians bringing a snowball to congress also does not disprove climate change.

Hahahaha. Pop your cork dupe, he's one of your fellow doomsday climate cultists, moron.

If the graphic posted is ripped from context and posted without credits, permissions or source in order to obfuscate the fact that it is outdated, biased or misleading, then the use of third party sources is invidious - although I can understand someone of your shifty-eyed persuasion and deeply delusional state approving such dishonesty.

Global sea ice records are not the higehst since records began. Despite growth in antarctic ice it is far outpaced by losses in arctic ice.
http://www.nasa.gov/content...
FTA:
“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.

Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).

The single-day maximum extent this year was reached on Sept. 20, according to NSIDC data, when the sea ice covered 7.78 million square miles (20.14 million square kilometers). This year's five-day average maximum was reached on Sept. 22, when sea ice covered 7.76 million square miles (20.11 million square kilometers), according to NSIDC.

Sorry, that global warming propaganda piece does not support your stupid claim: "arctic sea ice and antarctic sea ice are measurably decreasing every year"
Here is the graph of global sea ice: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.ed...
Such an alarming "death spiral"! ROTFLMAO as your stupid continues!

Damned nasa propaganda. Let me guess you don't believe the moon landing was real either? Anything that disagrees with your delusional political beliefs must be propaganda. Evidence is evidence. Facts are facts. 97% of phd climate scientists agree on this. You think you know better.

Ah a Lewandowski-ite conspiracy ideationist! Fits the rest of your delusional scientifically illiterate beliefs.
Go back to your climate cult meeting dupe. They can brainwash you some more.

“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said. - Nasa.

But sure. you're smarter than Nasa scientists. and 97% of phd climate scientists, because you are incapable of understanding graphs and context, and completely ignoring obvious evidence.

"97% of phd climate scientists"
ROTFLMAO @ your stupidity! Man you are gullible swallowing that rubbish propaganda!

"completely ignoring obvious evidence"
There is absolutely NO empirical data showing that anything other than natural climate variability is happening.
It's so sad that you are such an ignorant deluded duped climate cult zealot that you deny that reality.

There is not a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent warming in the late 20th century.

There is much empirical evidence that the late 20th century warming was caused by natural climate variability, primarily more solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface due to reduced global mean cloud amount.

1) The mean level of solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods.
"The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years." - Usoskin2003 This is confirmed in Tapping2007, Pelt2012, Scafetta2009, Krivova2010 and Krivova2011 and is graphically shown here: http://www.climate4you.com/...

2) The reduction in global mean cloud amount during the late 20th century is graphically shown here: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/...

3) Most of the warming in the last half century occurred from 1984-2000. - evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org...

4) Hatzianastassiou2005 found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. - evidence: Hatzianastassiou2005

5) Your own IPCC ghg forcing formula shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe. (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) - evidence: your own IPCC reports

This shows that there was over ten times more natural solar forcing on the Earth's surface during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from your exaggerated claimed ghg forcing.

6) This was confirmed by Pinker(2005) which showed 2.9W/m^2 more solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface from 1983-2001 due to reduced global mean cloud amount.

7) This was confirmed by Herman(2013) which showed 2.7 W/m^2 more solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface from 1979-2011 due to reduced reflectivity of clouds and aerosols.

That shows 6-10 times more natural solar forcing than ghg forcing over that time period.

8) Warm phases of ocean cycles contributed to the late 20th century warming:
• warm phase PDO,
http://admin.weathertrends3...
& http://www.intellicast.com/... ;
• predominance of El Ninos, bit.ly/19UbT00
• warm phase of AMO,
http://www.climate.gov/site...
& http://www.intellicast.com/...

Natural climate variability was the primary cause of the global warming of the last half century, just as it has been the primary cause of climate change throughout the entire history of the planet.

The fact that 50% more human CO2 (over 500 billion tons) has been added to the atmosphere in the last 17 years than had been added in the entire previous history of the planet has caused NO global warming shows that anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming.

The fiddling with the temperature data was the basis of the UK Serious Fraud Office investigation NFRC101000240510, (though dating originally from 2004), and which turned out to be part of the global fraud. Presumably the matter is so politically sensitive in the UK that David Green has blocked the investigation, which was quite advanced by 2009, until after the General Election and probably after the Paris meeting. Why do the BBC and most of the newspapers not report on the fraud investigations? Instead of an investigation there just seems to be a smear campaign against the whistleblowers.

"Why do the BBC and most of the newspapers not report on the fraud investigations?"

Because they don't exist. They're a product of your imagination.

That is total nonsense. The "fiddling with the temperature data," as Booker terms it, is simply the normal, documented processing of the data to take account of station moves, etc. The raw data, adjusted data and the reasons for and methods of adjustment are freely available on the internet for anyone who is interested. There was and is no fraud or conspiracy by the scientists.

This is just part of the right-wing war against science, in which, sadly, the Daily Telegraph is playing a major role.

The "War Against Science" is a product of your imagination. The "War against Sceptics" is real and is currently hottest in the form of smear tactics and dismissal from post of anybody who dares to blow the whistle. The SFO investigation is very real. If you are not co-operating in the investigation of this fraud you are part of it.
Now, do you have any credible suggestion as to why the BBC are not exposing the fraud?

You're just some bloke who knows nothing about science trying to tell scientists they're wrong.

The BBC are not exposing the fraud because there is no fraud to expose! Who, for example, has been dismissed from their post for whistle-blowing?

As for smears, I think you'll find they come from your side, like this little piece of nastiness, for example:

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

"A leading Canadian climate scientist and current B.C. MLA has been awarded $50,000 in a libel suit against The National Post newspaper.

Andrew Weaver sued the Post over four articles published between December 2009 and February 2010. He alleged that the stories aimed to destroy his international reputation."

Weaver was exposed as using his trusted role in the IPCC to further his activism in Green politics by perpetuating the fraud. His downfall was a product of his own folly.

At least after his downfall[1] , taking the IPCC's credibility with it, he is now pursuing a career in politics rather than pretending to be a scientist. Trying to use the law courts was sour grapes.

Any any attempt to "do science" in the law-courts[2] is doomed to failure, as the courts are required to come up with some verdict in a tight time period with limited access to information and in the face of repeated lies and omissions on the part of witnesses.

[1] Terence Corcoran, “Climate agency going up in flames: Exit of Canada’s expert a sure sign IPCC in trouble” http://www.freerepublic.com...

[1] Weaver v. Corcoran, 2015 BCSC 165 http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca...

Hello? Are you living in some alternate universe? Weaver wasn't exposed, he was vindicated. He won his libel suit because Corcoran, among others at the Post, was telling lies about him. Corcoran is, officially, a liar.

I'm still waiting for your list of whistle-blowers who have been dismissed from their posts.

He won his libel suit because he lost his job having being exposed as a political activist who was abusing his post at IPCC as a "climate scientist". Burke has not vindicated Weaver in the slightest. She is not a climate scientist. As I said, the court-room is the place for law and politics, not science.

Forget him Suffolk. He's an idiot. You're wasting your time.

Weaver won his libel suit because he was the victim of a smear campaign by Corcoran and the National Post. It was a smear campaign that did indeed have nothing to do with science, but was aimed solely at attempting to discredit Weaver as an academic. They were simply lying.

This is exactly the kind of dirty trick that you accused the mainstream scientists of at the start of this conversation, but for which you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever. Where are the libel suits by smeared anti-AGW campaigners? Where are these whistle-blowers you were talking about? I'm still waiting.

It is hardly news that Mr. Booker is a well known anti-science charlatan. His opinions can be totally dismissed for the lies they are.

Rather relevant National Geographic cover this month concerning the ongoing war on science:

http://wp.production.patheo...

Yep, quite relevant, as it shows that a once decent magazine has become a tabloid religious propaganda rag, putting strawman on its cover "Climate change doesn't exist" , exploiting conspiracy ideation "Moon landing never happened".
Too bad is slick or it could be used for toilet paper.

Are there any scientific publications that are exempt from the right-wing war on science?

There is much empirical evidence that the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century was natural, just like every other warming period in the history of the planet.
Here is some of that evidence that the late 20th century warming was caused by higher solar activity, more solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface because of reduced global mean cloudiness, and warm phase of ocean cycles:

1) The mean level of solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods.
"The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years." - Usoskin2003 This is confirmed in Tapping2007, Pelt2012, Scafetta2009, Krivova2010 and Krivova2011 and is graphically shown here: http://www.climate4you.com/...

2) The reduction in global mean cloud amount during the late 20th century is graphically shown here: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/...

3) Most of the warming in the last half century occurred from 1984-2000. - evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org...

4) Hatzianastassiou2005 found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. - evidence: Hatzianastassiou2005

5) Your own IPCC ghg forcing formula shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe. (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) - evidence: your own IPCC reports

This shows that there was over ten times more natural solar forcing on the Earth's surface during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from your exaggerated claimed ghg forcing.

6) This was confirmed by Pinker(2005) which showed 2.9W/m^2 more solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface from 1983-2001 due to reduced global mean cloud amount.

7) This was confirmed by Herman(2013) which showed 2.7 W/m^2 more solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface from 1979-2011 due to reduced reflectivity of clouds and aerosols.

8) Warm phases of ocean cycles contributed to the late 20th century warming:
• warm phase PDO,
http://admin.weathertrends3...
& http://www.intellicast.com/... ;
• predominance of El Ninos, bit.ly/19UbT00
• warm phase of AMO,
http://www.climate.gov/site...
& http://www.intellicast.com/...

Natural climate variability was the primary cause of the global warming of the last half century, just as it has been the primary cause of climate change throughout the entire history of the planet.

As greenhouse gasses build, solar irradiance increases due to re-emitted infra-red. So your graph of solar irradiance disproves your entire damned point. Stop talking about things you are clearly clueless on.

Here's a nice simple powerpoint for you, maybe you will learn something!: http://www.atmos.washington...

Wow, so much ignorance displayed in your post.
"Solar irradiance is a function of the greenhouse effect. As the greenhouse gases build, solar irradiance increases due to re-emitted infra-red."
That is so stupid it's pathetic. Solar irradiance in no way increases due to re-emitted ingra-red because the wavelengths of the longwave IR from ghgs in the atmosphere is totally outside the incoming solar radiation spectrum: https://chriscolose.files.w...

Thanks for the link though. It explains how all ghgs do is slow the rate of heat loss from the Earth's surface. They do NOT transfer any heat energy to the Earth's surface, as the IPCC claims in their cartoons depicting 324W/m^2 of 'backradiation' heat energy being "Absorbed by Surface" of the Earth. http://www.ipcc.ch/publicat...

It's too bad that you don't even understand the science in the links that you post. I'm constantly amazed by the abject stupidity of the CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult zealots who defended their debunked religion with jihadist zeal (Dr. Lindzen).

97% of scientists believe Global warming is being caused by humans http://www.scientificameric...

The media is hardly a place for scientists as lies are a way of life for the media because lies increase readership/viewing figures. Never the twain shall meet.
The number of comments for this article proves my case.

Fight over semantics, but here's the reality of it;
Global warming is real. Thousands of peer reviewed studies prove it.
There's no debate.

Articles like this do nothing but poison the well, and confuse the facts - which is incredibly irresponsible with such significant exposure.

no big surprise

Yeah, the ice caps are melting and the permafrost has already reached the surface and has started exploding into the atmosphere. That means the earth is getting colder? Hello?

All these deniers would rather believe a joker who throws a snowball in the US Congress to "disprove" climate change than the 99% of scientists who have studied the phenomenon and agree climate change is real and caused by human activity.

"FIDDLING" turns out to be an appropriate title for this article. Isn't that was Nero did (figuratively) while Rome burned? Better to fiddle with the facts before your eyes than to make the drastic changes required to save the food supplies around the world, the populations living in coastal regions, and the flora and fauna essential to human survival.
The ship is sinking, and the passengers are arguing whether the water coming in is real or not, whether the rupture was caused by human activity, and whether the engineers and contractors warning something needs to be done really know anything about what to do (while scrambling to reach the upper decks, believing that will save them).

All these scientifically illiterate duped CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cultists would rather believe their flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, than the empirical evidence. So sad.

Sorry, but the empirical evidence is on the side of the people you disparaged. The models themselves are built on the empirical evidence.

Sorry, but the empirical evidence is on the side of those skeptical of the CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2.
There's not a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

There is much evidence that the primary cause of the late 20th century warming was natural, just like every other warming period in the history of the Earth. Here is some of it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

LOL. There was a paper that just came out that said the very thing you say didn't happen: http://www.forbes.com/sites...