‘Global warming stopped in 1998’ BUSTED!

‘No Global warming since 1998’
REALLY?
Not what the data says!
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Seems like a good time to pull out of the Paris climate accords /sarcasm

Maybe a good time to pull out of the Montreal Protocols too! Best retweet these to see if the President really does think that CFCs dont deplete ozone.
twitter: #thunderf00t/status/872009945297846272
twitter: #thunderf00t/status/872010002269122560

If you like media like this you can support this channel directly on Patreon:
https://www.patreon.com/Thunderf00t

20 thoughts on “‘Global warming stopped in 1998’ BUSTED!”

  1. Its 'the current year' is the hottest on record is something you can expect to hear a lot of in the coming years.
    1998 was the hottest year on record.
    2005 was the hottest year on record.
    2010 was the hottest year on record.
    2014 was the hottest year on record.
    2015 was the hottest year on record.
    2016 was the hottest year on record.

    Pretty impressive seeing as many folks claim global warming stopped in 1998!

    Reply
  2. You would think instead of just saying "the pause" they would at least come up with some sort of excuse like ya, the world is getting hotter because the current ice age is waning, that would actually at least, you know.. use words…

    Reply
  3. Not to mention, most of the proposed policies to 'solve' global warming make about as much economic, political, and scientific sense as solar roadways.

    Reply
  4. Pretty hard to trust climate scientists when they can't make accurate predictions even one year in advance and revise historical temperature data to cool the past and warm the present… Climate science is in its infancy. We're at the alchemy stage. I'll wait for Marie Curie

    Reply
  5. 2020 the world will end! We will drown in water We will suffocate in debt.
    Crushed by the burden of stupid hate Goodbye! we would not meet then

    Reply
  6. I find the Montreal protocol thing interesting considering that the U.S. banned CFC propellants in 1978, but the Montreal protocol as in 1982.

    Reply
  7. I love in the energy balance equation its allways the talk about the amout of energy that gets to earth and get absorbet from the sun… How about the heat we release that got here 100 million years ago that gets relesed instantly as heat on earth?

    Reply
  8. From your link in the description…

    "using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment"

    Uhuh… We'll just make a slight adjustment here and another here… Bingo, massive warming of 1 whole degree OMG! 0.o

    They have been caught time and again faking their data and modifying it so that it ALWAYS is hotter, never adjusting down! Lol

    Please… Global warming is non-sense… Well, it's been going on for the past million years cycling through a hundred thousand year cycle of ice ages and warm periods… Has it not?

    When you look at a scale like this what the hell does very dubious modified data of merely 100 years mean? Not a bloody lot in my book! The timeframe is FAR too small.

    Reply
  9. If you don't want to hear the ravings of a crackpot global warming denialist, then ignore the rest of this…

    I'm 45, and I remember as a small child Time magazine (not the most scientific, but at least a reputable news magazine) having 2-3 issues promoting an ice age coming scare. The adults I knew were worried about global freezing. 30 years later, we have people worried about global warming. Now it's climate change. The world goes in cycles of warming and cooling. Recently I heard of a mini ice age, not even sure if we are coming out of one, or going into one. I herd that we are over due for the next ice age. I have no f-ing clue what's true and what's not true, but what does make sense to me is that Scientists get paid to do research, and not all scientists share the same morality.

    I don't think that disreputable scientists last long, so it's probably not a deliberate hoax to get research grants, but if they did come out and say conclusively that our whatever super small percent of adding greenhouse gases has no significant effect, then the grant money would dry up and they would have to do something else to get paid. If they came out and conclusively said we are causing climate change, and it is not negligible, they would also loose funding for research into this potential problem. The only way for them to keep the funding going is to disagree.

    Knowing that arguing is the only way to keep the funds rolling in, you have to ask yourself 1 question. Do you think the majority of scientists are corrupt enough to conspire to get paid instead of admit this is a actual problem? I don't think they are, so either this is not as much of a problem as the media hypes it to be, or they know it's not man made and is naturally occurring cycle and therefore there's nothing we can do about it, so there's no real guilt in extending the studies by arguing.

    I don't think I'm a typical tinfoil hat wearer. Not going to deny that I ever fall into that category (9/11…) but in this case, I believe it's nothing but a money grab. The scientists are getting paid to research and debate it. The media is getting ratings by sensationalizing it, and schools are getting paid to teach new impressionable college students climate science and other related fields because this is a hot issue (pun intended) and there's money to be made. If this was an actual problem even half as big as the not as impartial as it should be media makes out, then I believe scientists would band together and try to divert funds from the publicizing to finding a solution. Stop burning fossil fuels is not a solution mainly because it won't happen until we are forced to by lack of it and even if it were, we'd be far better off killing off half the population of the world because most of the green house gasses that are allegedly causing this come from cow farts. Reduce the population of the planet and we can reduce the quantity of food animals we keep. This will have a much greater impact on green house gasses than to stop burning fossil fuels. Also not a solution, unless the only way to save humanity is by reducing the population to a sustainable level.

    I have never heard anything so drastic being proposed, so I'm under the impression that this is not a big problem, and therefore it can safely be ignored unless you are worried about tax dollars being wasted on it. Personally, I feel that if we stopped funding this, the scientists would find something else to study and argue about which probably won't have as much to do with alternative energy sources, so I like them arguing about it and getting funds to research climate change and to a lesser extent energy mainly for the small portions that go to energy research under the guise of reducing climate change. I just wish they would come out and admit it's bull and divert most of the money wasted on researching it to researching energy because that's something we NEED.

    Reply
  10. the world getting warmer by ONECENTIGRADE SINCE I WAS BORN in 1991. it has NOT stopped. it has probably got warmer than that.

    Reply
  11. So I should thank trump for destroying the planet for my children?Thanks trump and all of the idiots which believe in his nonsense!

    Reply
  12. I am still finding it hard to distinguish between soundbites when DJT is being
    a) willfully ignorant,
    b) honestly ignorant or
    c) willfully dishonest.
    Thanks for the video Mr Thunderf00t.

    Reply
  13. Don't forget records are only 200 years old and they start during some of the coldest years in memory. Therefore, records have only recorded warming in the last 200 years. They have not recorded the medievel warm spell, which historical records indicate, was even warmer than today. Sorry, thunderfoot, I like a lot of what you say, but you missed on this one.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to 1961casey Cancel reply

one × four =