http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/weather?s=t

weather
[weth -er]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture, pressure, etc.
2.
a strong wind or storm or strong winds and storms collectively:
We've had some real weather this spring.
3.
a weathercast :
The radio announcer will read the weather right after the commercial.
4.
Usually, weathers. changes or vicissitudes in one's lot or fortunes:
She remained a good friend in all weathers.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate?s=t

climate
[klahy-mit]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
2.
a region or area characterized by a given climate:
to move to a warm climate.
3.
the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place:
a climate of political unrest.

Don't worry about it. It's not like climate change could hurt us or anything. Now, please excuse me while I go feed my pet dinosaur.

Climate is about trends .... trends of temperatures are climate............ 😛

Still leaves you with a slight problem..

Another supposed "trend" we were warned about a few years ago was more frequent hurricanes ....Whiff.

And another whoops, hurricanes aren't weather? Weather is not climate!!!!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/13/hurricane-season-inaccurate-forecasts

How many predictions must be missed before a person starts to get a little skeptical? The list is quite long.

Doesnt matter. Just occurred to me that the biggest idiots are concentrated at elevations that will be inundated first. So bring on the climate change, NOW!!!!!

Climate is about trends .... trends of temperatures are climate............ 😛

Still leaves you with a slight problem..

The URL on that chart indicates that it came from Remote Sensing Systems. If you go to their website and click on "Climate," this is a bit of what it says...

Climate is the average weather in a given location, averaged over a fairly long time period, at least 10 years. When we talk about climate, we often talk about average values of meteorological or oceanographic variables, such as air temperatures, precipitation, humidity, wind speed or ocean temperature at a given location at a given time of year. If the climate changes over time, it can directly affect human activities by altering the crops that can be grown, the supply of fresh water, or the mean level of the ocean. It can also affect natural ecosystems, causing deserts to expand, wildfires to become more prevalent, or permafrost to melt.

Over the past two decades, there has been growing concern about the effects of human-produced greenhouse gases and other environmental pollutants on Earth's climate. These changes are predicted by climate models, which are also used to project changes into the next centuries. Satellite data records are beginning to be long enough to evaluate multi-decadel changes. These changes can be examined for evidence of climate change, and used to see if climate models can do a good job when used to "predict" the changes that have already occurred.

In order to produce a data record that extends long enough for climate change studies, measurements from different satellites must be intercalibrated with each other and then combined together into a single record. We have completed this process for atmospheric temperature and total column water vapor, and are about to release an intercalibrated wind speed product.

Compared to in situ measurements, the main advantage of satellite data records from polar orbiting satellites is the nearly complete global coverage and homogeneous data quality. The in situ data record is fairly sparse in regions located away from industrialized countries, which are concentrated on the land masses and in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes. For example, there are very few weather balloons launched in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, even though this region is where the changes in Sea Surface Temperature due to the El Nino - Southern Oscillation cycle are largest.

Then a little further down...

There are three tropospheric temperature datasets available from RSS, TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere), TMT (Temperature Middle Troposphere), and TTT (Temperature Tropical Troposphere, after Fu and Johansen). Using these datasets, we can investigate whether there have been significant changes in the tropospheric temperature over the last 35 years, and whether or not the spatial patterns of these changes agree with those predicted by climate models.

Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:

Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

But....

The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.

Full page here: http://www.remss.com/research/climate

Interesting stuff, for sure.

Climate is about trends .... trends of temperatures are climate............ 😛

Still leaves you with a slight problem..

The URL on that chart indicates that it came from Remote Sensing Systems. If you go to their website and click on "Climate," this is a bit of what it says...

Climate is the average weather in a given location, averaged over a fairly long time period, at least 10 years. When we talk about climate, we often talk about average values of meteorological or oceanographic variables, such as air temperatures, precipitation, humidity, wind speed or ocean temperature at a given location at a given time of year. If the climate changes over time, it can directly affect human activities by altering the crops that can be grown, the supply of fresh water, or the mean level of the ocean. It can also affect natural ecosystems, causing deserts to expand, wildfires to become more prevalent, or permafrost to melt.

Over the past two decades, there has been growing concern about the effects of human-produced greenhouse gases and other environmental pollutants on Earth's climate. These changes are predicted by climate models, which are also used to project changes into the next centuries. Satellite data records are beginning to be long enough to evaluate multi-decadel changes. These changes can be examined for evidence of climate change, and used to see if climate models can do a good job when used to "predict" the changes that have already occurred.

In order to produce a data record that extends long enough for climate change studies, measurements from different satellites must be intercalibrated with each other and then combined together into a single record. We have completed this process for atmospheric temperature and total column water vapor, and are about to release an intercalibrated wind speed product.

Compared to in situ measurements, the main advantage of satellite data records from polar orbiting satellites is the nearly complete global coverage and homogeneous data quality. The in situ data record is fairly sparse in regions located away from industrialized countries, which are concentrated on the land masses and in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes. For example, there are very few weather balloons launched in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, even though this region is where the changes in Sea Surface Temperature due to the El Nino - Southern Oscillation cycle are largest.

Then a little further down...

There are three tropospheric temperature datasets available from RSS, TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere), TMT (Temperature Middle Troposphere), and TTT (Temperature Tropical Troposphere, after Fu and Johansen). Using these datasets, we can investigate whether there have been significant changes in the tropospheric temperature over the last 35 years, and whether or not the spatial patterns of these changes agree with those predicted by climate models.

Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:

Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

But....

The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.

Full page here: http://www.remss.com/research/climate

Interesting stuff, for sure.

Hey, but that's all just scientific gibberish, which everyone but you liberal commies knows is useless information of no value except to leftist fear mongering extremists. We don't need no science; it snowed somewhere in the world last winter, proof positive there is no global warming.

Climate is about trends .... trends of temperatures are climate............ 😛

Still leaves you with a slight problem..

The URL on that chart indicates that it came from Remote Sensing Systems. If you go to their website and click on "Climate," this is a bit of what it says...

Climate is the average weather in a given location, averaged over a fairly long time period, at least 10 years. When we talk about climate, we often talk about average values of meteorological or oceanographic variables, such as air temperatures, precipitation, humidity, wind speed or ocean temperature at a given location at a given time of year. If the climate changes over time, it can directly affect human activities by altering the crops that can be grown, the supply of fresh water, or the mean level of the ocean. It can also affect natural ecosystems, causing deserts to expand, wildfires to become more prevalent, or permafrost to melt.

Over the past two decades, there has been growing concern about the effects of human-produced greenhouse gases and other environmental pollutants on Earth's climate. These changes are predicted by climate models, which are also used to project changes into the next centuries. Satellite data records are beginning to be long enough to evaluate multi-decadel changes. These changes can be examined for evidence of climate change, and used to see if climate models can do a good job when used to "predict" the changes that have already occurred.

In order to produce a data record that extends long enough for climate change studies, measurements from different satellites must be intercalibrated with each other and then combined together into a single record. We have completed this process for atmospheric temperature and total column water vapor, and are about to release an intercalibrated wind speed product.

Compared to in situ measurements, the main advantage of satellite data records from polar orbiting satellites is the nearly complete global coverage and homogeneous data quality. The in situ data record is fairly sparse in regions located away from industrialized countries, which are concentrated on the land masses and in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes. For example, there are very few weather balloons launched in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, even though this region is where the changes in Sea Surface Temperature due to the El Nino - Southern Oscillation cycle are largest.

Then a little further down...

There are three tropospheric temperature datasets available from RSS, TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere), TMT (Temperature Middle Troposphere), and TTT (Temperature Tropical Troposphere, after Fu and Johansen). Using these datasets, we can investigate whether there have been significant changes in the tropospheric temperature over the last 35 years, and whether or not the spatial patterns of these changes agree with those predicted by climate models.

Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:

Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

But....

The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.

Full page here: http://www.remss.com/research/climate

Interesting stuff, for sure.

Hey, but that's all just scientific gibberish, which everyone but you liberal commies knows is useless information of no value except to leftist fear mongering extremists. We don't need no science; it snowed somewhere in the world last winter, proof positive there is no global warming.

You are right. Thanks for that. Now I am going to buy a farm in the Sahara!

Climate is about trends .... trends of temperatures are climate............ 😛

Still leaves you with a slight problem..

The URL on that chart indicates that it came from Remote Sensing Systems. If you go to their website and click on "Climate," this is a bit of what it says...

Climate is the average weather in a given location, averaged over a fairly long time period, at least 10 years. When we talk about climate, we often talk about average values of meteorological or oceanographic variables, such as air temperatures, precipitation, humidity, wind speed or ocean temperature at a given location at a given time of year. If the climate changes over time, it can directly affect human activities by altering the crops that can be grown, the supply of fresh water, or the mean level of the ocean. It can also affect natural ecosystems, causing deserts to expand, wildfires to become more prevalent, or permafrost to melt.

Over the past two decades, there has been growing concern about the effects of human-produced greenhouse gases and other environmental pollutants on Earth's climate. These changes are predicted by climate models, which are also used to project changes into the next centuries. Satellite data records are beginning to be long enough to evaluate multi-decadel changes. These changes can be examined for evidence of climate change, and used to see if climate models can do a good job when used to "predict" the changes that have already occurred.

In order to produce a data record that extends long enough for climate change studies, measurements from different satellites must be intercalibrated with each other and then combined together into a single record. We have completed this process for atmospheric temperature and total column water vapor, and are about to release an intercalibrated wind speed product.

Compared to in situ measurements, the main advantage of satellite data records from polar orbiting satellites is the nearly complete global coverage and homogeneous data quality. The in situ data record is fairly sparse in regions located away from industrialized countries, which are concentrated on the land masses and in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes. For example, there are very few weather balloons launched in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, even though this region is where the changes in Sea Surface Temperature due to the El Nino - Southern Oscillation cycle are largest.

Then a little further down...

There are three tropospheric temperature datasets available from RSS, TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere), TMT (Temperature Middle Troposphere), and TTT (Temperature Tropical Troposphere, after Fu and Johansen). Using these datasets, we can investigate whether there have been significant changes in the tropospheric temperature over the last 35 years, and whether or not the spatial patterns of these changes agree with those predicted by climate models.

Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:

Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

But....

The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.

Full page here: http://www.remss.com/research/climate

Interesting stuff, for sure.

Hey, but that's all just scientific gibberish, which everyone but you liberal commies knows is useless information of no value except to leftist fear mongering extremists. We don't need no science; it snowed somewhere in the world last winter, proof positive there is no global warming.

All I'm sayin' is that "No global warming" graph is one of the three measurements used, in this case, the Temperature Lower Troposphere. Ya gotta like, put these together with other measurements, and stuff.

It seems we do not have a consensus on… anything.

The threads title remains true: Climate Change is a hoax.

And don't send me any more stupid PM's advising me not to feed trolls. Talk about a waste of time.

[Edited on 8/4/2015 by alloak41]

Yeah, I know. I have been feeding a troll this evening. Tell me, do you spend your entire day on here? Every time I come onto the site, you are logged in. You should consider getting a life.

What any of this has to do with climate change is anybody's guess. No surprise there.....

My streak of 31 consecutive years of uninterrupted full time employment is still alive. My time spent here is cyclical, sort of like the Earth's temperature. But since you concern yourself with that, how much time would you allow me to spend here? I value your opinion a great deal.

"Keep a clean nose
Watch the plain clothes
You don't need a weather man
To know which way the wind blows"

Another supposed "trend" we were warned about a few years ago was more frequent hurricanes ....Whiff.

And another whoops, hurricanes aren't weather? Weather is not climate!!!!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/13/hurricane-season-inaccurate-forecasts

How many predictions must be missed before a person starts to get a little skeptical? The list is quite long.

________________________________________________________________________

Ah those pesky little facts.

According to their leader Al Gore, New York City and the entire state of Florida would be underwater by now.

I guess if you pay some “scientist” enough of the tax-payer’s money they will write a report that says what you want it to say.

In 2007 it was predicted that all Arctic Ice would be gone by 2014......Whiff.

But...but...Computer models said so!!!

In 2007 it was predicted that all Arctic Ice would be gone by 2014......Whiff.

But...but...Computer models said so!!!

Got proof of that? No? I didn't think so.

In 2007 it was predicted that all Arctic Ice would be gone by 2014......Whiff.

But...but...Computer models said so!!!

Got proof of that? No? I didn't think so.

You did?

http://www.naturalnews.com/042074_Al_Gore_global_warming_predictions.html

In 2007 it was predicted that all Arctic Ice would be gone by 2014......Whiff.

But...but...Computer models said so!!!

Got proof of that? No? I didn't think so.

You did?

http://www.naturalnews.com/042074_Al_Gore_global_warming_predictions.html

In stead of just reading the headline, you should have read the article. Then you shoiuld look up the meaning of the word "could". And then should realize that there were more than one prediction as to the date of the ice cap disappearing. For example, one prediction was 22 years. Let's see, 2007 + 22 =2029. Hmmmm. reading is difficult, alloak, isn't it?

keller is still trying to understand the meaning of what "is"... is.

Throughout the 2000's climate alarmists have been predicting that snowfall in the UK was soon to be a distant memory, that a snowball would be a thing of the past. Kids wouldn't even know what snow was and the ski industry was finished.

Whiff....

The 2000's have marked periods of record snowfall. The ski industry? In 2013 many areas were could not be opened due to the sheer amount of snow buildup, and in 2014 some Scottish ski areas remained closed because the lifts were buried under the snow...Whoops!

After these predictions went terribly wrong the same scientists blamed the immense snowfall on? You guessed it, Global Warming!

Not enough snow - Global Warming/Too much snow - Global Warming.

Get it?

Throughout the 2000's climate alarmists have been predicting that snowfall in the UK was soon to be a distant memory, that a snowball would be a thing of the past. Kids wouldn't even know what snow was and the ski industry was finished.

Whiff....

The 2000's have marked periods of record snowfall. The ski industry? In 2013 many areas were could not be opened due to the sheer amount of snow buildup, and in 2014 some Scottish ski areas remained closed because the lifts were buried under the snow...Whoops!

After these predictions went terribly wrong the same scientists blamed the immense snowfall on? You guessed it, Global Warming!

Not enough snow - Global Warming/Too much snow - Global Warming.

Get it?

The first thing you need to do is learn exactly what is meant by "global warming" . Every time you post, you show you know what the words "global" and "warming" mean, but you have no idea what the concept of climate change is. Seriously, you do not understand the science behind it. Go back and read the links that Bhawk provided. That would be a good start. Then, maybe, you could (notice I said could and not would) sound like you understand things.

Throughout the 2000's climate alarmists have been predicting that snowfall in the UK was soon to be a distant memory, that a snowball would be a thing of the past. Kids wouldn't even know what snow was and the ski industry was finished.

Whiff....

The 2000's have marked periods of record snowfall. The ski industry? In 2013 many areas were could not be opened due to the sheer amount of snow buildup, and in 2014 some Scottish ski areas remained closed because the lifts were buried under the snow...Whoops!

After these predictions went terribly wrong the same scientists blamed the immense snowfall on? You guessed it, Global Warming!

Not enough snow - Global Warming/Too much snow - Global Warming.

Get it?

The first thing you need to do is learn exactly what is meant by "global warming" . Every time you post, you show you know what the words "global" and "warming" mean, but you have no idea what the concept of climate change is. Seriously, you do not understand the science behind it. Go back and read the links that Bhawk provided. That would be a good start. Then, maybe, you could (notice I said could and not would) sound like you understand things.

Nice swerve.

Why do these so-called experts miss on prediction after prediction after prediction? Why?

This is supposed to be "settled science'" so why are these computer models constantly so fouled up they often predict the exact opposite of what comes to pass?

The biggest question of all is how on Earth people can continue to fall for it?

Throughout the 2000's climate alarmists have been predicting that snowfall in the UK was soon to be a distant memory, that a snowball would be a thing of the past. Kids wouldn't even know what snow was and the ski industry was finished.

Whiff....

The 2000's have marked periods of record snowfall. The ski industry? In 2013 many areas were could not be opened due to the sheer amount of snow buildup, and in 2014 some Scottish ski areas remained closed because the lifts were buried under the snow...Whoops!

After these predictions went terribly wrong the same scientists blamed the immense snowfall on? You guessed it, Global Warming!

Not enough snow - Global Warming/Too much snow - Global Warming.

Get it?

The first thing you need to do is learn exactly what is meant by "global warming" . Every time you post, you show you know what the words "global" and "warming" mean, but you have no idea what the concept of climate change is. Seriously, you do not understand the science behind it. Go back and read the links that Bhawk provided. That would be a good start. Then, maybe, you could (notice I said could and not would) sound like you understand things.

_______________________________________________________________________

keeler is having trouble justifying a lie.
He also doesn’t understand the difference between actual science and paid-for reports.

Meanwhile folks who know the climate is changing rapidly are making big bucks, while the mouthbreathers of the world are still arguing about it: The Arctic is opening up, you don't need computer models to know that, the Northwest Passage has been open for years, and there is an oil rush for the new open waters.

just some basic info from wiki:

"In the 21st century, major changes to the ice pack due to climate change have stirred speculation that the passage may become clear enough of ice to permit safe commercial shipping for at least part of the year. On August 21, 2007, the Northwest Passage became open to ships without the need of an icebreaker. According to Nalan Koc of the Norwegian Polar Institute, this is the first time the Passage has been clear since they began keeping records in 1972. The Northwest Passage opened again on August 25, 2008.

The first commercial cargo ship to have sailed through the Northwest Passage was the SS Manhattan in August 1969."

In 2005 it was predicted that sea level rises due to man made ________ (choose your
term) that some 50 Million "climate refugees" would be frantically fleeing the Caribbean
and various low-lying Pacific Islands by 2010.

Whiff....

By 2010 the total population in these areas was actually growing, in some places
exploding.

What happened? The experts and computer models missed again??

Damn, maybe they'll get the next one.....

Why is it so important for you to deny reality? You know d*mn well things are changing fast! Unless you live in a bubble.

I don't view this in a political way. The signs of huge climate change have been obvious for years. I hate to say it again, I don't think humans can do a d*mn thing about it. And even on the off chance they could affect it, they won't do anything anyway.

Not wanting to pay for a fix seems to be the biggest reason why people deny climate change. Well, there will be folks capitalizing on this, pro or con, climate change or not. Crooks will profiteer off this, for sure, all that carbon trading is total bullsh*t.

Nothing can be done about it, it is way too big, but pretending it isn't happening won't make it go away.

Market tip: Big future in pontoons.

"The Pacific is fighting for its survival. Climate change has already arrived," said Christopher Loeak, president of the Marshall Islands, which will host the Pacific islands' annual summit, attended by most of the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases, including the US, China and the EU.

"I say 'welcome to climate change' when people come here," said President Loek whose home island of Buoj has almost been washed away in the last few years. "We will not stop telling people that it is a real issue for humanity. We will be the first to feel it, but it will come to them and they should realise it."

Throughout the 2000's climate alarmists have been predicting that snowfall in the UK was soon to be a distant memory, that a snowball would be a thing of the past. Kids wouldn't even know what snow was and the ski industry was finished.

Whiff....

The 2000's have marked periods of record snowfall. The ski industry? In 2013 many areas were could not be opened due to the sheer amount of snow buildup, and in 2014 some Scottish ski areas remained closed because the lifts were buried under the snow...Whoops!

After these predictions went terribly wrong the same scientists blamed the immense snowfall on? You guessed it, Global Warming!

Not enough snow - Global Warming/Too much snow - Global Warming.

Get it?

The first thing you need to do is learn exactly what is meant by "global warming" . Every time you post, you show you know what the words "global" and "warming" mean, but you have no idea what the concept of climate change is. Seriously, you do not understand the science behind it. Go back and read the links that Bhawk provided. That would be a good start. Then, maybe, you could (notice I said could and not would) sound like you understand things.

Nice swerve.

Why do these so-called experts miss on prediction after prediction after prediction? Why?

This is supposed to be "settled science'" so why are these computer models constantly so fouled up they often predict the exact opposite of what comes to pass?

The biggest question of all is how on Earth people can continue to fall for it?

It wasn't a swerve at all. You are arguing a subject that your posts say you do not understand. Keep cherry picking what you will. The facts are that we are in a serious climate change and your denying it means nothing.

Why is it so important for you to deny reality? You know d*mn well things are changing fast! Unless you live in a bubble.

Changing fast for the better? This is the governments own data...

http://humanevents.com/2013/02/07/debunker-wildfires-droughts-storms-oh-my/

Throughout the 2000's climate alarmists have been predicting that snowfall in the UK was soon to be a distant memory, that a snowball would be a thing of the past. Kids wouldn't even know what snow was and the ski industry was finished.

Whiff....

The 2000's have marked periods of record snowfall. The ski industry? In 2013 many areas were could not be opened due to the sheer amount of snow buildup, and in 2014 some Scottish ski areas remained closed because the lifts were buried under the snow...Whoops!

After these predictions went terribly wrong the same scientists blamed the immense snowfall on? You guessed it, Global Warming!

Not enough snow - Global Warming/Too much snow - Global Warming.

Get it?

The first thing you need to do is learn exactly what is meant by "global warming" . Every time you post, you show you know what the words "global" and "warming" mean, but you have no idea what the concept of climate change is. Seriously, you do not understand the science behind it. Go back and read the links that Bhawk provided. That would be a good start. Then, maybe, you could (notice I said could and not would) sound like you understand things.

Nice swerve.

Why do these so-called experts miss on prediction after prediction after prediction? Why?

This is supposed to be "settled science'" so why are these computer models constantly so fouled up they often predict the exact opposite of what comes to pass?

The biggest question of all is how on Earth people can continue to fall for it?

It wasn't a swerve at all. You are arguing a subject that your posts say you do not understand. Keep cherry picking what you will. The facts are that we are in a serious climate change and your denying it means nothing.

Great non-answer, and the thread is not about me.

Throughout the 2000's climate alarmists have been predicting that snowfall in the UK was soon to be a distant memory, that a snowball would be a thing of the past. Kids wouldn't even know what snow was and the ski industry was finished.

Whiff....

The 2000's have marked periods of record snowfall. The ski industry? In 2013 many areas were could not be opened due to the sheer amount of snow buildup, and in 2014 some Scottish ski areas remained closed because the lifts were buried under the snow...Whoops!

After these predictions went terribly wrong the same scientists blamed the immense snowfall on? You guessed it, Global Warming!

Not enough snow - Global Warming/Too I much snow - Global Warming.

Get it?

The first thing you need to do is learn exactly what is meant by "global warming" . Every time you post, you show you know what the words "global" and "warming" mean, but you have no idea what the concept of climate change is. Seriously, you do not understand the science behind it. Go back and read the links that Bhawk provided. That would be a good start. Then, maybe, you could (notice I said could and not would) sound like you understand things.

Nice swerve.

Why do these so-called experts miss on prediction after prediction after prediction? Why?

This is supposed to be "settled science'" so why are these computer models constantly so fouled up they often predict the exact opposite of what comes to pass?

The biggest question of all is how on Earth people can continue to fall for it?

It wasn't a swerve at all. You are arguing a subject that your posts say you do not understand. Keep cherry picking what you will. The facts are that we are in a serious climate change and your denying it means nothing.

Great non-answer, and the thread is not about me.

You make it about you by the way you respond. Whatever. You are the expert on global warming. You have all of the answers. Carry on, I bow to your superior intellect.

Changing fast for the better? This is the governments own data...

Hah !!! That sounds dangerously close to a concession that climate change is indeed occurring, which is what you have been denying all along! BUSTED!!!!!!

Better, worse, depends on where you live I suppose. The thread isn't about whether climate change is good or bad, it is about whether or not it is happening at all!

WHIFF!