In response to:

Al Gore Warming

canetoad Wrote: Jan 19, 2013 5:53 PM
Are you trying to tell us John, that the Koch (aka Heartland Institute) backed research by Richard Muller is also not worth the paper it is written on. “What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees?” Muller writes. “We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.”
Andy583 Wrote: Jan 19, 2013 10:35 PM
Are you refering to BEST? You do know it failed Peer Review right? So it Might be worth the value of the paper it was printed on.
shubi_ Wrote: Jan 19, 2013 9:17 PM
Not true. There are many variables and inaccuracies in ice samples.

Carbon dioxide follows warming like heating Coca Cola releases bubbles and turns flat. The CO2 lies of the AGW nuts reverses cause and effect.

In October one of the main culprits in the global warming hoax published new data that undermines their own theory of global warming. The UK’s MET Office, more formally called the UK's National Weather Service, updated global temperatures for 2012 and the new dataset shows that an “unlikely” event has occurred, according to their own models: Global warming has been halted for 15 years and counting.

While the MET Office accused critics of cherry-picking a starting point and nitpicked about language-for example the Daily Mail reported that the “Met Office report [was] quietly released,” while the Met office whined they just...