>Why did the IPCC remove the Midieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from their graph?

Written by on August 8, 2009 in Rest of Europe with 1 Comment

>It’s interesting that since watching a few youtube videos tonight and learned a few things relating to the global warming hysteria that appears to be getting worse, more false and everything else.

An article released today by CNN stated about how the world’s glaciers are melting. Then again, how can we believe this? Why do the IPCC appear to shift and alter the goalposts depending upon what’s happening at the time. During times of hot weather and heat waves, it’s global warming! During hurricanes or increased hurricane activity, it’s global warming! During times of increased, tornadic activity, yes.. it’s global warming! Yet during a summer with certainly what I have seen, has been few global heatwaves and yes although July was “warm”, guess what, that may have something to do with time of the year! What’s interesting is that during periods where it’s colder than normal, take the July across the US this year, that was a case of global warming, made it less cool!! Hum.. What a stupid statement, No. 1, where is the proof that that is the case, what would have happened without global warming as not only “a reason for blame” but all of a sudden global warming is our friend.. Without our good friend “global warming” we would have had snowstorms in New York then?
Why does so-called “experts” fail to be interviewed? Avoiding the real truth or affraid of being cornered in their world of fraudulent money making.

I find it extremely odd and disturbing for several reasons, why in the IPCC graph, the Midieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age was removed, therefore leaving the “perfectly man-made and false” hockey stick grpah of a literal straight line and sharp upward turn.. There is scientific proof at which Greenland and the pknet was warmer than what we have seen the past 30 years and that the earth’s temperature in the mid to upper levels hasn’t warmer much at all over the last 30-50 years to which could possibly support the global warming theories.
What’s against us science truth seekers is that people such as Al Gore, have a profile, a government which grapped ahold of the world’s media and plastered this nonsense into our homes in such as clever, devious way, that millions believe and are paying into a lost, and fearful theory which is utter garbage.
I say, garbage in, garbage out to man-made warm biased computer modeling which NOAA and NASA are producing which is programmed to make-up a false and very different outcome to reality.

Those our my thoughts and now I head to bed for two more days off world before a welcome two days off Tuesday, Wednesday. I shall post more thoughts and ideas tomorrow as well as update on the heat across the eastern third. Which of course is “global warming”. By the way CO2 is scientifically proven to be higher in the past and during the early part of the last 100 years, CO2 levels were very low as industrial revolution was in its early days, earth’s temperature (globally) was HIGHER than it is today, after 1940 there was a cooldown at the same time CO2 levels increased as industry and cities grew across the world. Now, things appear to be scientifically cooling off again AS CO2 CONTINUES TO INCREASE, explaination? NATURAL CYCLES OF EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEM AS WELL AS THE SOLAR CYCLE.

Good night and thanks for reading.

Follow us

Connect with Mark Vogan on social media to get notified about new posts and for the latest weather updates.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

1 Reader Comment

Trackback URL Comments RSS Feed

  1. Leif says:

    >The climate game may be very difficult to analyse, one has to consider many aspects – changing atmospheric composition (what gains most news headlines in relation to human activities), the change in albedo of the planet (ice, desert and forest coverage), the radiation input from the sun, then, of course, the major circulatory pattern on Earth (the movement of air masses, ocean currents, the thermohaline circulation etc etc) and I'm sure there are many more aspects.

    Whilst this blog suggests that 'global warming' does not exist and that politicians have invented this phenomenon for personal agendas, whatever the temperature statistics quoted. Human activities should still be regulated. Perhaps we are entering a period of cooling related to low solar activity, the statistics will eventually tell but that does not mean to say that human beings can do as they please.

    They should try to maintain as close to the natural level of CO2 in the atmosphere as possible.

    If politicians say don't drive, then that doesn't mean it is solely because they want to stop 'global warming', there are other reasons – principally, the fact that we are burning finite resources.

    You cannot argue in favour of deforestation, not that you have tried, but this is a terrible act, namely, because of the loss of wildlife, but also due to the ability to adsorb carbon from the atmosphere.

    I don't see that there are many political gains to be made from the invention of 'global warming'.

Leave a Reply