By: catweazle666
Unfortunately for your Warmist propaganda site, the Met Office themselves, after much disingenuous wriggling, finally admit otherwise. The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no...
View ArticleBy: J Bowers
And a stats professor, who has actually published on climate science in the peer reviewed lit, thoroughly debunks the Daily Mail’s claims....
View ArticleBy: J Bowers
And what happens when you use a climate period (30 years as defined by the WMO):...
View ArticleBy: Roger B
I think it’s hilarious that you dismiss Tamino as a “Warmist propaganda site” and then provide a link to WUWT. Anyway, regardless of the irony, that is an Ad Hominem argument and worthless. No-one is...
View ArticleBy: J Bowers
“Green subsidies being provided to the renewable industry amount to about £100 for an average household this year.” HC 517 The Economics of Wind Power (2012):...
View ArticleBy: J Bowers
“Now even Mr Cameron refers to the green fat-cat lobby (and let me assure you they are that) as “The Green Taliban”.” No, that’s George Osborne. The one with the father-in-law who’s a gas lobbyist and...
View ArticleBy: catweazle666
What happens when you start in 1996 instead of cherry picking 1997: Oh dear, the disingenuous ‘cherry picking’ accusation. The reason for picking 1997 is that that is the point when the warming ceased....
View ArticleBy: J Bowers
“The reason for picking 1997 is that that is the point when the warming ceased.” So, if global warming ceased in 1997, and to use your own criteria, how come it’s back again from 1999?...
View ArticleBy: Roger B
The reason for picking 1997 is that that is the point when the warming ceased. A historical event, you could call it. So, you’re saying “Global warming stopped in 1997 so that’s the date we’ll choose...
View Article
