"Experts" claim record cold caused by global warming

[william.scherk]

The preceding comment by Jonathan reminded me of an earlier exchange I had with him on topic in -- of all places -- a Peikoff/Harriman thread. Looking back, it might be that Jonathan missed it. I don't yet see a reply.

Seriously? You don't see, or remember, a reply from me?

Maybe the problem is that you've not reread the thread closely enough to remember that it shifted over to the "Scientic Fraud becoming endemic?" thread?

In the discussion, I asked you to define what you meant by "the consensus." You replied, not with specific numbers of one single scientific model, but with the vague statement "AGW is happening."

You provided links to what "the consensus" means and how it was allegedly established "scientifically,"

I responded by revealing the unscientific slop that was used to come to that pretend consensus, and you conceded my points and backed away from your earlier implied acceptance of the slop. I continued to press for specifics on the issue of "consensus," and specifically what your views are, and you disappeared.

The only actual "consensus" that the information at your own links supports is not that "AGW is happening," but that it is only "likely" happening to one vague degree or another.

Yet here you are today, with all of that forgotten, and back to talking about a vague "consensus" again.

I'd say we know what I mean by the 'scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.' It is that increasing CO2 emissions since industrialization have had a crucial part to play in a warming of the planet's energy system, with knock-on effects. Or maybe just go with 'mainstream.' My opinions are pretty mainstream (for Canada).

I'll say that I believe that increasing CO2 emissions will lead to further warming this century of up to 2C depending on mitigation actions.

The bits I republished were to show that I had at least tried to show "which conditions would falsify their theories." I highlight your question.

I include just the pertinent parts:

Have there ever been any Anthropogenic Global Warming supporters/proponents who have identified the results which would disprove their theories? I have yet to hear of any AGWers who specifically state which conditions would falsify their theories.

For this AGWer, a demonstration that CO2 does not act as advertised in the consensus, does not contribute to a 'greenhouse' effect, does not have a relationship with Earth's long-term temperature swings, that would tend to make me question the fundamentals. [...]

More close to home, a swing to world-wide temperature decreases, a cooling ocean, a resurgence of lost icefields and glaciers, a lowering of sea levels -- despite increasing CO2 -- these would cause me to get back to my climate science homework!

Even sharper situations I can think of: if I live for another twenty-five years, say, until 2040. There is going to be a point on that road where I would get doubtful about my understanding. If the arctic regions of Canada began to experience a downward trend in warming. When the arctic processes reverse themselves, especially with regard to sea ice. If indicators begin to 'recover' in various regional frameworks (ie, ocean acidity, permafrost lake loss, pest-killing deep freeze winters).

It comes to mind that another useful question is 'what evidence helped solidify your opinion?'

I'd say that I started to indicate falsifying criteria for my mental "How Things Work." When CO2 as a warming agent is disproved by better physics -- when uncertainties resolve to show negligible effects of CO2 on warming, When processes like melting reverse.

What evidence helped solidified my opinions as they are, or which elements of 'story' helped? To be honest, it was the historical 'house-building' process story, the house being present-day climatology. It was taking time to go back to the basics and see how the edifice was put together, on what foundations, how the structure of knowledge was built over time -- complete with mysteries and struggles and controversies and many stages of input from allied fields of inquiry, from atmospheric chemistry to astrophysics, from geology to oceanography, and so on.

It was evidence from the lab (the earliest work on 'carbonic acid') converging with observation. Solid foundations that enabled further work. That CO2 is part of the atmospheric physics that keeps the Earth relatively warm (compared to say the Moon) within a fairly narrow habitable range of low to high temperatures (compared to the Moon). That there are knock-on effects of warming that can be inferred from historical and paleo-climate records, and that we see in our own worlds. I mention a few other things observed in the world above, in trying to answer the question of when my beliefs will be overturned or put to harshest empirical test.

What ultimately led to solidification was having done my best to hear out the 'other side,' the skeptics. It was a process of testing the most-reasonable skeptical assumptions, entertaining them as likely, then seeking the contra-argument, and weighing truth-values in my mind,

I said the greatest evidence against my opinions is going to come in the next twenty-odd years.

-- I'll answer the rest of Jonathan's post separately, in the interests of brevity. I'd like to see some reaction to my 'criteria' of disbelief above. And I'd like to know what kinds of 'evidence' could be said to overturn his present assumptions.

Jonathan, I can surely expand on those paragraphs above sketching further contra-evidence that would move me. What evidence from down the road would be strong enough to convince you that your opinions may need changing?

That's not quite a good question, but you probably know what I mean. Can you answer that for me? I've assembled a coherent -- if not convincing -- account of what it will take to change my mind, as you asked. I'd like a bit of feedback on that. But if not ...

Can you answer what it will take to change your mind?

Edited November 21, 2015 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When CO2 as a warming agent is disproved by better physics -- when uncertainties resolve to show negligible effects of CO2 on warming, When processes like melting reverse. ...

Like this?

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

Nasa - 2014

Now, from my perspective as an uninformed reader who has seen a pattern of rhetoric for over a decade, I am expecting the script to follow.

And what is the script?

A data dump along with an allegation that more ice in a place that was supposed to have melted by now means warmer. (And an insinuation that I am uninformed and oversimplify.)

It's a helluva story...

Michael

[william.scherk]

As Rand would advise, identify the essence of the argument, and stick with it rather than falling for inessential distractions.

When I've done so, I've never yet received a legitimate answer. I've received lots of bluffing and I'll-get-back-to-you-laters, but no naming of the possible outcomes which would disprove their positions. When I've applied persistence, and kept throwing the issue of falsifiability in their faces, despite their best efforts to squirm and skirt the issue, they tended to eventually just dry up and disappear.

I am one of the squirmers and skirters. It is good that Jonathan links to his questions. Since I am having a small run of extra mental energy lately, and since his questions are still pendant, I will put effort into finishing the overdue answers -- and do that first. Well, except for a note in the APS thread about the new APS climate-change statement whoopee. But i will have to let some excellent commentaries here pass by unremarked in the meantime.

The questions that I asked remain unanswered. They're the ones that I asked of Naomi, and included at the end of my last post, but which you clipped and didn't address:

"Okay, so, now, which single climate model and its single set of predictions represents the "scientific consensus" view and is considered to be "settled science"? Who created the model, when were its predictions made, and when were they announced publicly? How and when, and by whom, was it decided that the model's predictions had been going on long enough to have "settled" the science? How was the timeline derived for accepting the "settling" of the science? Was that timeline explicitly identified prior to the predictions being made?

"Please post graphs of the model's predictions. Include visual indicators of when the predictions began, which areas are included in the "95% certainty" range, and a line representing observations recorded in reality."

My questions from the "Scientific Fraud" thread also remain unanswered. As I've said, when AGWers are asked to identify the specific numbers from the single model which represents the "settled science," they punt. It seems to me that they don't want to get that specific because they need to rely on much more that one predicted outcome, and, in fact, they need to be able to claim ALL possible outcomes as supporting their theory.

The pseudoscience of unfalsifiabilty.

This is tough, challenging, specific -- a different type of demand from that which I responded above (the contra-evidence questions). It looks like the goal has been tightened. Above, I signaled that I would do some good-faith revisiting in threads where it looked like I dropped out and avoided some pointed inquiry. This is one of those instances where, even though I wasn't being addressed directly, having dropped out, it's due hard thinking. There are the questions pendant, too, which were addressed to me.

I am now being challenged to do some work for which I don't feel qualified. There are a few ways I can think of getting to a 'single model' with a single output, and then graphing it in a particular way. It's making me think I have a vacancy where my knowledge of 'models' should be found. It sounds like Jonathan knows something about climate models that I haven't thought of.

Um, the way I think about the 'climate models' is a kind of rendering as with CGI -- a three-dimensional mathematical space over time, with systems represented in a programmatic way, obeying physics insofar as physics can be modeled in systems. It's obviously an enormously complicated thing that which benchmarks are that it behave as a climate system will behave given the N parameters that are part of the system being 'set' ... it is kind of a storytelling CGI too, in that a narrative can be extracted along with other metrics. In a movie or a NASA animation, we can see some systems modeled just like a movie, an obviously reduced, rendered and directed scenario, whereas the models in climatology are 'run' across scenarios, with parameters set to initial conditions and expectations.

All the defects of a CGI-ish thing are built-in. It is always an approximation, a simplification, a set of physical assumptions underlying every set of parameters. Is any given model worth running in the first place? -- what is the goal of modelers? I am in over my head.

I will go back to the places in the other threads where I dropped the ball -- respond to questions addressed to me that I dodged. Thanks, Jonathan for the challenges here and your interest in setting feet to rational fire. If I let you down in the past I am sorry.

Good faith takes work, and you certainly set work in front of me!

Edited November 22, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Kinda like those hugely successful Stalin five-year plans...you know, reduced grain stock, halved the livestock and led directly to the "Holodomor" famine in the Ukraine which killed millions.

Collectivism is so warm and fuzzy, don't you think?

Several five-year plans did not take up the full period of time assigned to them (some were successfully completed earlier than expected, while others failed and were abandoned). The initial five-year plans were created to serve in the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union, and thus placed a major focus on heavy industry. Altogether, there were 13 five-year plans. The first one was accepted in 1928, for the five year period from 1929 to 1933, and completed one year early. The last, thirteenth Five-Year Plan was for the period from 1991 to 1995 and was not completed, as the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is any given model worth running in the first place?

William,

Of course climate models are worth running.

They help refine questions and brainstorm better--for later empirical testing.

They help cut testing costs, so to speak.

... what is the goal of modelers?

It should be to refine questions and brainstorm better.

But I have seen this goal move. Some modelers (and many politicians) want to use models to replace testing, call their models "settled science" and get oodles of money and power.

(Sorry I keep butting into your interaction with Jonathan. I'll try to behave more... )

Michael

[william.scherk]

Michael, I gotta drop something in here before I go to hard labour on previous questions in the record.

I am thinking a kind of friendly History of Antarctica, with a breezy run through its X million years since it was a separate continent and the zany route it took to get to the bottom of the world, and the cast of characters.

I'd hang the message on seeing on a vast time scale -- and illustrate it with species that have come and gone as if on a stage. Put vast things in perspective, see human scales as more transient. We have only begun to know this southern world. Let's give a sense of awesomeness about the southern icy mass. To encourage healthy skepticism, I'd venture that the Antarctic is Earth's last frontier,

Certainly, if in a future Earth with humans still resident in billions, an icy continent going green is just crying out for colonization. Under what conditions is the great icy south expected to thaw, I cannot say. I tend to think of it as relatively eternal in human scales of time. It is unlike the north pole arctic -- which is mostly water as noted by Wolf. It is earth and stone under that ice-cap. I hear some tell about melting around on and around its northwestern reaches, but I don't think we need cover that other than glancingly. At some point a note about forecasting. I just don't know much about Antarctica -- I am more informed on the Canadian arctic.

On that note I will point out that OL is a pretty good-natured place. There is a different tone to the Gore/Swindle thread. It might just be me getting older and slower and not catching on fire as much. I find the whole climate change schmozzle interesting still. The emotions are receding.

I am just hanging out with some OL pals telling why I think what I think and how I might yet be a fool.

On the secondary note, I give you the awful Bill Nye National Geo episode. Yes, I watched the whole thing. Yes, it is awful enough to be instructive. Not up there with pure gold awful-instructive like Humanoids from the Deep, but hey.

Edited November 22, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Bill Nye

What are his credentials William?

[Wolf DeVoon]

Bill Nye

What are his credentials William?

Wikipedia:

... comedian ... former mechanical engineer, best known as host of Disney/PBS children's science show

Five daytime Emmys according to IMDb.

Oprah Winfrey has 15, so she's three times smarter?

Oprah, Leonardo DiCaprio discuss global warming

[Selene]

Bill Nye

What are his credentials William?

Wikipedia:

... comedian ... former mechanical engineer, best known as host of Disney/PBS children's science show

He gotta have more than oops dan [forgot my ebonics/simplifed for the white man] dat!!

[Wolf DeVoon]

He gotta have more dan dat!!

Waal shore. He debated a creationist and lost.

Although Daily Beast writer Michael Schulson agreed with Nye's underlying scientific message, and allowed that Nye "had his moments," he wrote that "it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old." [Wikipedia]

[Selene]

He gotta have more dan dat!!

Waal shore. He debated a creationist and lost.

Although Daily Beast writer Michael Schulson agreed with Nye's underlying scientific message, and allowed that Nye "had his moments," he wrote that "it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old." [Wikipedia]

Is there a video of the "debate?"

Me being a paid debate judge at the upper levels of debate tournaments would love to score it.

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

[Wolf DeVoon]

Back on topic, apparently winter is going to be winter this winter.

"Temperatures across the northern Plains and Upper Midwest will plunge into the teens and 20s," stated AccuWeather Meteorologist Becky Elliott, "with some locations across Iowa, southern Wisconsin and northern Illinois dipping into the single digits."

[BaalChatzaf]

Why does Bill Nye waste his time in such "debates". They are mere rhetorical displays, not exercises in science or logic.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Why does Bill Nye waste his time in such "debates". They are mere rhetorical displays, not exercises in science or logic.

He's an entertainer. It was a profitable gig. Got lots of attaboys from mainstream press.

[Brant Gaede]

National Geo is totally committed to AGW aka CC.

So I didn't watch the video.

--Brant

the NG issue before last was 100% devoted to GW.

The current issue has a big article on the "most powerful woman in the world," ("Mary")

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

National Geo is totally committed to AGW aka CC.

So I didn't watch the video.

Notice to William!

Notice to William!

Notice to William!

This is what I am talking about.

The public needs to be re-seduced to take climate change seriously because it has been lost. Why? The AWG people have become discredited through too many instances of lousy science touted as good and even worse storytelling.

Brant is not the full public, but his comment is reflective of more and more people in today's world. This is growing, not receding. Ignore it and/or deny it if you wish, though.

Michael

[Selene]

The Bullet Of Truth Hits The Global cooling Global warming Climate Change Bubble ...

[Jonathan]

I'd say we know what I mean by the 'scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.' It is that increasing CO2 emissions since industrialization have had a crucial part to play in a warming of the planet's energy system, with knock-on effects. Or maybe just go with 'mainstream.' My opinions are pretty mainstream (for Canada).

"Mainstream" is a good term. It's accurate, where "scientific consensus" is not. "Scientific consensus" is a falsehood.

I'd say that I started to indicate falsifying criteria for my mental "How Things Work." When CO2 as a warming agent is disproved by better physics -- when uncertainties resolve to show negligible effects of CO2 on warming, When processes like melting reverse.

Is CO2 the only "warming agent"?

I said the greatest evidence against my opinions is going to come in the next twenty-odd years.

I would say that until that time, and then some, one is mistaken to have "beliefs" about AGW. One is not talking actual science if one imagines that the science can be "settled" in such a short period. Scientific experimentation is all about repeatability. It is sheer folly, not to mention unrivaled hubris, to expect, in the short span of a couple of decades, repeatable predictions about fractions of degrees projected over decades or centuries, and involving multiple, uncontrollable inputs, including unknown or possibly yet-to-be-discovered influences, over an area the size of the Earth and the systems which affect it.

What ultimately led to solidification was having done my best to hear out the 'other side,' the skeptics. It was a process of testing the most-reasonable skeptical assumptions, entertaining them as likely, then seeking the contra-argument, and weighing truth-values in my mind, I said the greatest evidence against my opinions is going to come in the next twenty-odd years.

I don't think that the idea of science is to just listen to "the other side," but, instead, not to take a side, and to bring as much doubt and skepticism as possible to the proposal under consideration. The idea isn't to entertain and weigh "skeptical assumptions" and "truth-values," but to simply observe the reality of whether or not an experiment, model, or set of predictions failed or succeeded. Did it accurately predict reality, and can it do so again? Or did it fail to account for a slowing, or a "pause" or a "hiatus"? Has it been given several passes, and amended, patched and stitched, and reset and forgiven and coddled and handed a few a do-overs?

When one of the "sides" begins talking about attempting to persecute and even prosecute the other for doubting, denying and being skeptical, it is rejecting science.

-- I'll answer the rest of Jonathan's post separately, in the interests of brevity. I'd like to see some reaction to my 'criteria' of disbelief above. And I'd like to know what kinds of 'evidence' could be said to overturn his present assumptions.

What assumptions are you accusing me of making?

Jonathan, I can surely expand on those paragraphs above sketching further contra-evidence that would move me. What evidence from down the road would be strong enough to convince you that your opinions may need changing?

My "opinions" are that the "mainstream" view of AGW has not been established as a scientific fact. What would overturn that opinion? As I've indicated above, decades of repeatable, accurate predictions in which the models haven't failed to account for anything, and haven't been "salvaged" with midstream modifications rather than being scrapped and their creators being required to start over from scratch.

Can you answer what it will take to change your mind?

I'd begin to take AGWers more seriously if, first, they were to address the issue of attempting to scientifically establish a norm or control. In other words, what temperature should be considered the norm if it were not for anthropogenic contributions to warming, and how did they arrive at that number scientifically? The next step then would be for them to identify (and I would expect them to do this eagerly rather than very reluctantly) the observations/results which they think would falsify their own theory. If man-made CO2 is being proposed as a primary factor in warming, and we know how much CO2 mankind produces, and how much the theory states that the temperature should rise accordingly, then, the temperature should indeed rise accordingly. And that prediction must be repeatable, several times over several decades, so as to factor out other potential influences. No unexplained pauses or my-dog-ate-the-expected-warming allowed.

Show me someone who has done all of the above, and I'll be happy to review the science and adjust my judgments accordingly.

J

P.S. Do you think that power, prestige and money incentivize people? Do you think that there have been any scientists in history who have strongly advocated wrong ideas because they stood to personally gain? Would you agree that it's important to remove money as a potential factor in influencing scientists? Do you think that government-funding of research into AGW is possibly incentivizing scientists -- encouraging and rewarding certain outcomes, and discouraging and punishing others? If science is the real priority, shouldn't governments be encouraging and rewarding skepticism, since skepticism is the essence of science?

If a government entity funds scientific research, shouldn't all information and communications which were entered, stored and exchanged on government equipment and at government expense be made publicly available? Since we're not talking about military science and national security secrets, what possible legitimate reasons could there be for scientists refusing to turn over all their materials and communications regarding their government-funded projects?

[Jonathan]

This is tough, challenging, specific -- a different type of demand from that which I responded above (the contra-evidence questions). It looks like the goal has been tightened.

You're right. My initial comments here were aimed at AGWers in general, but then as the conversation continued here, we've drifted more toward you and your views. My intention wasn't to target you like that. I think that some of my complaints apply to you, but when I was griping about my past discussions with AGWers, I was mostly referring to others, and not to you.

I am now being challenged to do some work for which I don't feel qualified. There are a few ways I can think of getting to a 'single model' with a single output, and then graphing it in a particular way. It's making me think I have a vacancy where my knowledge of 'models' should be found. It sounds like Jonathan knows something about climate models that I haven't thought of.

To me it's an issue of having seen the goalposts move year after year, due to advocates of AGW having access to multiple sets of differing predictions, and switching back and forth between them at their convenience. That's not science. Advocates often cite the most dire predictions of the most dire models as being our fate and doom. Then, when challenged by being shown that those predictions have not held up in reality, they switch to more recent, unfinished, and more reasonable tests and predictions, but lump them in with the dire ones. The attitude is that all AGW models are pretty much equivalent because they're all on "the same side," and therefore the doom is just as valid.

And beyond that. Not only are all AGW models inappropriately lumped together as predicting the same doom that needs fixing with the one solution of government control over people's lives, but even stagnation and cooling -- predictions outside of any AGW model -- are claimed to be evidence of AGW! There are no possible outcomes which falsify the theory.

Um, the way I think about the 'climate models' is a kind of rendering as with CGI -- a three-dimensional mathematical space over time, with systems represented in a programmatic way, obeying physics insofar as physics can be modeled in systems. It's obviously an enormously complicated thing that which benchmarks are that it behave as a climate system will behave given the N parameters that are part of the system being 'set' ... it is kind of a storytelling CGI too, in that a narrative can be extracted along with other metrics. In a movie or a NASA animation, we can see some systems modeled just like a movie, an obviously reduced, rendered and directed scenario, whereas the models in climatology are 'run' across scenarios, with parameters set to initial conditions and expectations.

All the defects of a CGI-ish thing are built-in. It is always an approximation, a simplification, a set of physical assumptions underlying every set of parameters. Is any given model worth running in the first place? -- what is the goal of modelers? I am in over my head.

I will go back to the places in the other threads where I dropped the ball -- respond to questions addressed to me that I dodged. Thanks, Jonathan for the challenges here and your interest in setting feet to rational fire. If I let you down in the past I am sorry.

No, you haven't let me down, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. My complaints really weren't aimed at you personally. Some may or may not apply to you. My purpose was not to attack you, but to suggest to others what I think is a potent course of action when dealing with "settled science" AGWers, especially those who have the wrongheaded view that science is about being opposed to skepticism, and who are of the mindset that they are being scientifically virtuous in believing that their case is made stronger if they admit to no conditions which would falsify their position, rather than recognizing that that "virtue" actually puts them in the realm of pseudoscience.

J

[Jonathan]

Everything bad or different is caused by AGW. AGW is to non-Objectivists what Kant is to Objectivists!

Last year, the decrease in the bee population was constantly in the news here in MN, and AGW was the culprit. Every fucking day we heard from the media about how the world was going to end because there wouldn't be enough bees to pollenate the crops.

Didn't happen.

This year, the bee population exploded. Good news? No! Bad news, because the cause of the bee population increase was that AGW reduced the populations of certain species of critters which feed on bees!

It's an insanely delicate system, no? If the annual global temperature shifts one way or the other just a tiny smidge of an itsy bitsy fraction of a degree, entire species are drastically affected, including in regions where the temperature didn't shift at all, or shifted differently than the global temperature!

Apparently certain species' populations are devastated when the annual temperature is, say, 53.0025473 degrees, but are just fine while another species is being wiped out by the heat of 53.0025474 degrees.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan--the matter is settled. CC is real. We're all gonna die!

Shut up! You're scaring people!

--Brant

[Selene]

Onward we go into the global future...

It said Lliuya, who is also a mountain guide, was seeking an unspecified "financial contribution" from RWE to "safety measures at the lake above the city, which has grown immensely as a result of glacial melting".

Yep, it's a lawsuit...

"Every day I see the glaciers melting and the lakes in the mountains growing," it quoted Lliuya as saying.

"For us in the valley the threat is extreme. We can't just wait and see what will happen," he added, calling on "international companies which change the climate by emitting greenhouse gases" to assume "responsibility".

His lawyer Roda Verheyen described RWE as the "top single-greatest CO2-emitter in Europe" and said it was responsible for 0.5 percent of the total emissions "since the beginning of industrialisation".

Peruvian farmer sues German energy giant over climate change...

So this comes as quite a "coincidence."

The case comes just days before the UN climate summit in Paris starting Monday with the aim of negotiating a universal pact to cap global warming.

RWE, Germany's second biggest energy company and biggest electricity producer, this month said it saw profits from its core coal and gas business plummet again in the first nine months of the year.

Like other German power giants, RWE has been hit by rock-bottom wholesale prices as it competes against subsidised renewables like wind and solar power.

No doubt it had nothing to do with fracking, etc. and the Dakotas being like Ellis Wyatt and Colorado in Atlas.

http://news.yahoo.com/peruvian-farmer-sues-german-energy-giant-over-climate-165713924.html

[Mikee]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/

[Selene]

Boy when Barry finds out about this, he is going to be furious and not going to rest until this is fixed, you know, like the VA death scandal...

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cA

Mammoth fraud ...

A...