"CO2 is NOT warming the planet."

AJStrata with a post you must read and pass on:

Paul Krugman’s ego runneth over. He thinks he can wade into the scientific debate surrounding global warming and be credible. Where he gets these delusions of grandeur is unknown to me. As someone who works in the complex and competitive world of space systems and aerospace, I know that the young and unproven ’science’ of global climate and global warming is complex and still being tested through the scientific method.

Right now, while the layman view of the subject is assumed to be settled, the scientific testing of the global warming theories, along with the past decade’s measurements, have thrown enormous doubt into the doom and gloom scenarios that Paul Krugman has apparently prematurely accepted as defacto fact.

As Krugman ably demonstrates, lay people should not jump into this debate without some experience and expertise in science, math and engineering. The real professionals, on the other hand, have discovered that the source of all the recent global warming is not CO2, but bad data used in climate models which forces the models to show recent warming – where OTHER DATA shows there is no recent warming.

Let me repeat this. The statistical models used by the High Priests of Global Warming are using a newly identified and specific data set which wrongly produces decades of warming where none exists in the raw temperature data 0r other data sets.

The work was produced by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit in his report Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem. H/T to WUWT for the heads up. Steve is a gifted scientist, therefore he speaks in the babble of PhDs deep in the bowels of scientific debate. You can go to both links and see the raw conclusions, but I will try to synthesize the PhDese into normal language.

And AJ does just that in my less than humble opinion.  Read it for yourself and find out.  And again, pass it on.

Comments

[Tyler]

Explain the melting of polar ice, the melting of arctic permafrost, and the foreced relocation of Inuit villages because of sea levels rising with your data. Take your head out of fabricated PhD clouds and look at the solid evidence that is effecting the lives of REAL people, not just what data crunching scientists publish. Common sense man. Data is proven unreliable, Krugman even concedes that. Way to bash and article without even quoting any of it. Lose the confrontational attitude and try to help everyone work to a solution.

[Mommynator]

Explain the satellite images that put the lie to your propaganda.

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

Explain the various previous Ice Ages, explain the Great Lakes, explain the fossils of Palm Tress and the like in areas now too cold to grow such vegetation.

Explain the recorded global temperatures versus the timeline of the world and its weather patterns.

Explain Krugman's credentials on the subject.

Lastly, explain the taste of that Kool Aid.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

This subject is in the top three, definitely, of what provides the greatest fun in arguing with liberals while demanding the least amount of effort.

"So what is today's mean global temperature?" is plenty enough to throw a manner into the bicycle spokes and bring back a plaintive wail of "I don't know about any of that, I just feel..."