So, now Keith Olberman tells us that the fifteen-year long “global warming” campaign all along meant “climate change” and that this in turn means that places supposed to get hotter get hotter and that places that are supposed to get colder — under global warming, er, climate change — get colder. We got that.
And his contextual example of the places that are getting colder is the U.S. this winter, well they were supposed to be getting colder, because they are. That’s how we figure out what was supposed to happen under their theory: by watching whatever happens. That was precisely what was predicted. Or, at least, now, in the new weasel-wording of journalists, “consistent with” what they and expected.
But a civilian has copied me on an email he sent to James Hansen of NASA, longtime advisor to Al Gore and the man who helped create the issue for political purposes in that June 1988 Senate hearing in which the press were made really hot to help their coverage by defeating the air conditioning in the hearing room. Because that helped prove their theory (that room was supposed to get warmer, so…). True story, according to the man who chaired the hearing. I wrote about it in Red Hot Lies.
So this gentleman raised some specific about problematic claims by Hansen’s office at NASA with which I will not bore you, here. But he appends a few media stories that I just thought might interest you now that the establishment press, a wholly invested partner in the global warming industry, are telling you that warming doesn’t mean warming you fool it really means change which means cooling so there. Only the small-minded focus on warming as meaning warming. Remember that.
Just for a flavor of the advocacy that warming means warming and that they really need you to buy it, he left the temperature conversions in for purposes of a point he was making to Hansen re: Hansen’s ever-evolving if always alarmist rankings of years and temperatures. Particularly get a kick out of how when a warm year occurs it shows that “warming has resumed.” Priceless, these journalists:
1990 proves to be hottest year on record - Milwaukee Journal, January 10, 1991
But the figures from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, too, show 1990 as the warmest ever, with an average temperature of 59.8 degrees Fahrenheit, again about 0.09 degrees above 1988 [59.71degrees Fahrenheit].
1990 hottest year on record, data shows - Los Angeles Times, Jan 10, 1991
The Goddard analysis of 1990 temperature records shows that the average surface temperature of the planet was 0.2 degree Fahrenheit warmer than during the previous year. [1989 temperature = 59.6 degrees Fahrenheit]
Only volcano kept 1991 from being warmest ever - Lundington Daily News, Jan 16, 1992
James Hansen of the Goddard Institute said 1991 ”appears to be the second warmest year in our record,” falling slightly short of the high set in 1990…1991 averaged 0.39 degrees Celsius warmer than the 30-year average. By comparison, 1990 had been 0.47 degrees Celsius above normal. One degree Celsius equals 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. [conversion and comparison with 1990 values shows that the average for 1991 was 58.36]
A Global Warming Resumed in 1994, Climate Data Show - New York Times, Jan 27, 1995
Dr. Hansen’s research group reported on the basis of temperature measurements on land that last year tied with 1987 as the fourth warmest year since comparable records were first kept in 1880. In both years, the average surface temperature was 59.58 degrees Fahrenheit.
‘95 Is Hottest Year on Record As the Global Trend Resumes - New York Times, January 4, 1996
The other, maintained by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, shows the average 1995 temperature at 59.7 degrees, slightly ahead of 1990 as the warmest year since record-keeping began in 1866.
Ever-So-Slight Rise in Temperatures Led to a Record High in 1997 - New York Times, Jan 9, 1998
A third report, issued by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, showed that the average global temperature in 1997 essentially equaled the record set in 1995 [59.7 degrees].
1998 hottest year on record - McCook Daily Gazette, Jan 13, 1999
The NASA scientists, using NOAA and other data, calculated an average worldwide temperature of about 58.496 degrees F., topping the record, set in 1995 of 58.154.
2002 was 2nd-warmest year, NASA reports - St. Petersburg Times, Dec 12, 2002
The earth’s temperature during the 2002 meteorological year was 58.35 degrees Fahrenheit, more than 1 degree warmer than the long-term average of 57.2 degrees, said James E. Hansen, a climate scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies… The meteorological year runs from December to November. During that period, 2001 temperatures were 58.12. The record year remains 1998, when global temperature rose to 58.41 degrees Fahrenheit.
2003 will be third hottest year on record, NOAA says - Spartanburg Herald-Journal, Dec 17, 2003
According to the Goddard data, 2003 appears headed for a global yearly temperature that is 0.6 degree Celsius warmer than average [58.28 degrees Fahrenheit based on the average of 57.2 degrees].
A Hot Forecast For the Year - Washington Post, Feb 11, 2005
The average global temperature in 2004 was 0.48 degrees Celsius (0.86 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1951 to 1980 average, wrote James Hansen of the agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. [0.86 above average = .14 less than 1998 = 58.27 degrees Fahrenheit]
2005 Continues the Warming Trend - Washington Post, Dec 16, 2005
As a result, NASA scientists estimate that 2005 average global land and sea temperatures were 1.04 degrees Fahrenheit above average, just beating out 1998’s 1-degree elevation. [.04 more than 1998 = 58.45 degrees Fahrenheit]
2005 was hottest year on record - Sourced from Earth Policy Institute, Mar 30, 2006
The year 2005 was the hottest on record. The average global surface temperature of 14.77 degrees Celsius (58.6 degrees Fahrenheit) was the highest since recordkeeping began in 1880… These readings, which come from the series maintained by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, continue a trend of rising global temperatures.
2007 was the warmest on record for Earth’s land areas - USA Today, Jan 16, 2008
In a separate study, NASA scientists announced that 2007 tied with 1998 as the Earth’s second-warmest on record [58.496 degrees Fahrenheit].
Last Year Among Hottest On Record, Say Scientists - Washington Post, Jan 12, 2008
Data collected from around the globe indicate that 2007 ranks as the second-warmest year on record, according to a new analysis from climatologists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies…According to the NASA analysis, the global average land-ocean temperature last year was 58.2 degrees Fahrenheit, slightly more than 1 degree above the average temperature between 1951 and 1980, which scientists use as a baseline.
NASA study shows 2008 was Earth´s ninth warmest year since 1880 - Xinhua, Feb 24, 2009
The GISS analysis found that the global average surface air temperature was 0.44C (0.79F) above the global mean for 1951 to 1980, the baseline period for the study [57.99 degrees Fahrenheit based on the 57.2 average].
UN: 2000-2009 Likely Warmest Decade on Record - ABC News, Dec 8, 2009
The U.N. agency reported that the global combined sea surface and land surface temperature for the January-October 2009 period is estimated at 0.44 degrees C (0.79 degrees F) above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00 degrees C (57.2 degrees F), with a margin of error of plus or minus 0.11 degrees C. Final data will be released early in 2010. [57.99 degrees Fahrenheit]
As Chapter 1 of Red Hot Lies shows in amusing detail this is but a sampling of media advocacy that they are now abandoning to explain away their theory being wrong, and therefore agenda being premised in folly and proof of recklessness.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
148 Comments
It's useless to fight.
If Global Warming did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.
Weither it’s Global Warming or the more resent “Climate Change” The fact of the matter is their agenda to reduce the use of fossil fuels remain the same.
Here we have the more ” frequent more intense weather events” yet these Warmers expect us to believe our use of fossil fuels during the coldest period in recent history is the cause of such cooling and we should not so easily be warming ourselves for the sake of a heating planet.
Global warming is supposed to be Carbon Dioxide destroying Ozone levels and opening up the earth’s atmosphere in high levels at the north pole thus allowing heat to escape (remember that?) Opps, that was “Global Cooling”.
I mean capturing heat and melting the ice caps, drowning polar bears and making the earth hotter in some places that you and I don’t go.
Global warming is increasing the average earth temperature by .008%. OH MY!
Notice how you never hear of Ozone depletion any more?
Greenhouse gasses are a combination of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Carbon dioxide makes up about .038% of those gases.
Yet we are told by those more intelligent then we, by those who see the emperors clothes, that it is Carbon Dioxide causing the problem along with methane but they have to stay away from arguing methane because even to them it’s hard reasoning the harm of .0000001745% methane in the atmosphere.
But why not Nitrogen gas which makes up 78% of the atmosphere?
How bout water vapor which makes up 1%. Would the Warmers change their story and discourage boiling water?
How about Oxygen which makes up 21% of the atmosphere? Can more Oxygen be bad to a breathing public?
Why choose Carbon Dioxide with only a.038% of the earths atmosphere as the vehicle of man made Global Warming?
Because thats what fossil fuels do, as do ALL energy conversions from solid to gas.
From wood burning forest fires, to coal, oil and gas fired electrical plants and the air we exhale and if you can control energy you can control markets. If you can convince enough sheepole that THEY are the problem you can control their behavior too.
Their lame argument that the harshest winter on record is proof of “Global Warming” is actually proof that the warmers have been taken over by the progressive left with a political agenda.
.038%? not the 21% or the 78% or even the 1%?
Not to mention the fact that ALL plant life requires the same Carbon Dioxide for life and convert it to Sugar and more importantly FOOD and plant life’s waste product? Oxygen of course.
You can imagine the fluctuation in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere during winter mouths when the greenery is dormant but do you think the Warmers take such a facts in mind when they sample?
Warmers are not Scientists they are progressive social engineers. Any scientists who league themselves are simply under coerce for the sake of money or reputation or both.
But I digress.
Warmers are fools and a school child could argue against their religion of Warming.
No. Its like saying if your blood pressure starts adjusting itself at a rate 100X faster than it was before, you have a problem. At this point they're just arguing over the size and significance of that change.
In all my years I've never had so little respect for people; specifically people who have fallen so deeply into lockstep with a massive marketing campaign. Hell, I just that heard Frank Luntz (a "word doctor") told Bush to rename "global warming" to climate change. I've seen financial institution's online marketing plans bullet points, ie use "Save the Planet" as tool to manipulate people. I've seen Al Gore's push to bring climate religion via Yale University and churches. The global warming hysterics don't need facts when marketing-hype and false religion work so well to dupe people.
Now that we have blizzards, the easily manipulated are in hysterics about how this is proof of "climate change". Sadly, many of these people are brainwashing their own children with this hysteria, thus robbing them of carefree childhoods and hopeful futures. Based on what? The last two months all the "solid science" has been torn apart.
Years ago, while reading fiction about group-think in societies like Orwell's "1984" or Huxley's "Brave New World" and history of WW II's Nazi Germany, I was certain we've all learned from the past, that never again would so many people walk in lockstep with insanity. How naive I was.
Um they are arguing that its carbon and methane and not nitrogen because those gases have fundamentally different compositions with different reactions to sunlight/heat. If they claimed nitrogen there wouldnt be a debate because anyone who took high school chemistry would know that.
Take some comfort.
The more absured their arguements get, the more reasonable people will end up on the right side of history.
Given that theres no conclusive science to prove or disprove it (disproving one side of the debate is a far cry from proving your side), isn't it a bit early to compare "warmers" to nazi's? Thats some very strong hyperbole.
Uh, absurd/arguments. Time for my meds, I guess.
Global whatever — means anything they want it to mean in order to advance their dictatorial takeover.
Are you old enough to remember the '70's? Back then, the Kool Aid drinkers were promoting the religion of GLOBAL COOLING! The theory then was that we were imminently going to enter the next ice age soon. If people would do some simple research (much available on the Internet) and think rationally, they'd realize what has come out recently, that the science is totally fudged, manipulated and borrowed from dubious sources, and that the earth is a living, dynamic thing that is not, and cannot be manipulated into being static and constant.
Wow, how's the clear thinking going, there little man? I didn't compare global warming hysterics to Nazis. I was very specific about the group-think mentality. That's what I was comparing it to.
You need to take a reading comprehension course.
Unless you've been under a rock, there is plenty of proof the climate hysterics have little scientific proof and lots of reason to hype their hysterics, ie carbon trading profits in the trillions.
Visit my blog and do your own research if you question this. The information is out there.
Next time you want to try to make a point, make sure to read more closely.
more hyperbole. Theres nothing dictatorial about it. Its an election process. Conservatives just happened to lose it.
at least int he case of the presidency that is (least someone jump on me for that one)
By the way, responding with name calling like "little man"? Isnt that a bit hyper defensive and immature? I would expect better, but I guess I wont see it from someone who says to visit her own blog as if its objective research.
More name calling. Sure its not a direct comparison. I already knew that and I'm surprised I have to spell that out. But you dont deliberately put two things in the same group if not to enable comparison. Backtracking now is absurd. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so since someone else has already defended your comparison in this thread, at least acknowledging that it is there. Now since Ive actually been responding with substance can you state anything without resorting to petty insults? You demean the side you're trying to represent every time you reply like a second grader.
Your level of reading comprehension suggested you may still be in high school and I was feeling motherly toward you, sympathetic in a way… knowing the education system these days.
My blog has many links to documents which I thought may open your nubile eyes. I guess you could have looked for yourself and seen what I was talking about, but that would have been too much effort; hence your inability to decipher my sentences.
That's it, I'm not toying with teenagers anymore.
Great stuff.
Here's more devastating news for the AGW anti-science illiterates………….
"Dr. Phil Jones, the man at the center of the Climategate scandal, has for the first time admitted that the Medieval Warm Period could have been warmer than the present day, flying directly in the face of the stupid HockeyStick Graph that caused so much of the Climate panic in the first place. From the BBC report, titled “Climate data ‘not well organised“:
Phil Jones, the professor behind the “Climategate” affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.
He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics – a decision he says he regretted.
But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.
http://sonicfrog.net/?p=2849
2010 has not been good for the leftwing fascists, and it's only going to get worse culminating in a political bloodletting in Nov.
Gentle Readers,
Dear Aaron,
I believe what you are referring to is ' re-radiative ' forcing, based on the dipole moment of organic molecules such as CO2 and CH4. For those of you not familiar, organic molecules will absorb non-infrared light and re-emit that light in the infrared spectrum. They also absorb and reemit infrared and reemit infrared as non-infrared.
This property of organic molecules is the basis for the notion that atmospheric CO2 levels determine atmospheric
water vapor levels, and thus CO2 is a ' climate driver '. However, most scientists will tell you that atmospheric CO2
levels and water vapor levels are independent of each other. ( http://www.petitionproject.org )
Atmospheric water vapor levels are determined by the amount of sunlight hitting the ocean surfaces, not CO2.
However, as FlexoRick pointed out, CO2 is a trace gas. Since 40% of the Suns radiant energy is already infrared, whatever effect human CO2 emissions have on the amount of infrared radiation would be mathematically insignificant, that is to say, so small that it could not be accurately measured in a dynamic system such as the climate.
In any event, as human CO2 emissions only comprise 3.6% of total atmospheric CO2 emissions currently, with 96.4% from natural sources,with a smaller human component historically going back to the year 1850 which is the
time frame under consideration at the IPCC, then whatever effects anyone wished to ascribe to atmospheric CO2
emissions would be 96.4% natural phenomena and only 3.6% anthropogenic, assuming that CO2 is a climate
driver, an assumption rejected by most scientists.
Kindest Regards,
John Lepant
Brighton
Colorado
Kindest Regards to all,
I am,
John Lepant
Brighton
Colorado
At the slight risk of sounding trite, this whole thing is all about the money. BIG MONEY! This jockeying about trying to "prove" what "science" is right or wrong has shown that one side – the side that feels that the earth is heating up – and it's people's fault – are heavily financially invested in the outcome.
The rest of us – those skeptical about the "science" are the SOURCE of the coming riches that Gore & Co. way.
They, the "warmers" are the hunters – we are the game. The arrows are the "science".
We – the game – are dodging these arrows – for now.
That why a friggin' snow storm has these people so upset. The quarry – the U.S. taxpayer – is slipping away.
See now if i wanted to insult by inference I could suggest that your inability to respond to something without an insult suggests that you're a shrew of a woman who has problems being taken seriously off the internet.
If I was the kind of person to respond with the same kind of insults you throw my way. You see what I did there? When you lower the level of discourse you do it for everyone.
And far be it from me to expect people to post on a thread in such a way that I can actually infer from what they said on that thread, without making researching into their own personal blog necessary.
The House of Representative passed Cap and Trade– The largest swindle of American people's money in history. And now we find out the science was bogus. Luckily for us the Senate took their time to study this or we would all be paying twice as much to heat our homes, drive our cars, all in the name of science that we now know was the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on people. I want to know just how much Al Gore, Obama, and the legislators knew, and when did they know it! We need to know if they were in on the fraud or were duped!
If a debate has two sides and you disprove one side…does that not prove the other side?
The way I look at it is this:
Global warming is a fraud. When "experts" need to "trick" data, ostracize those with dissenting views and defy freedom of Information requests to prove their science, than that is enough in my book to disprove it.
How about looking at it this way: When the world doesn't meet it's demise by man made global warming/climate change, than all the scientists will declare that they have saved our lives by taxing us to death. How convenient. Time can't even prove them wrong if they pass "save the Earth" initiatives.
They have won over the media and tempted politicians with a convenient scheme to line the pockets of a few and hand power to tyrants, redistributing wealth from the leading countries of the world to the banana republics of the world. And even when the lid is blown off their plot, powerful people have invested too heavily in it to not go down fighting and lying and denying…
From now on I declare all Global Warming/Climate Change alarmists are Reality Deniers!
John thank you.
Well reasoned and well explained.
Posters like that are why even thought I am a "reasoned liberal" (yes they do exist though they are rare), I still come to this forum.
Gentle Readers,
If you go to the new government website which promotes the idea of anthropogenic global warming, at this url
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2009/articles/cl...
you will find a chart showing that the total change in temperature from 1880 – present is less than 8/10 of one degree.
Please remember, this is from proponents of the notion that human CO2 emissions cause global warming.
A temperature change of less than 8/10 of 1 degree in 130 years is within the standard deviation for most of the data sets, and well within the norm. There is no reason to believe that it could not be far better explained by ordinary, natural, non-anthropogenic causes or that there has been no actual change in temperatures at all, and that this
is an ordinary data fluctuation. The monitoring sites and technology used to gather data have changed many times
since 1880. Even if the temperatures themselves did not change one iota, differences in data collection techniques would create these minor data fluctuations.
However, lets assume that human CO2 emissions are responsible for up to 3.6% of that less than 8/10 of a degree
warming: that would be less than 3/100 of 1 degree in 130 years. Scarcely a ' crisis ', and based on the scientifically
rejected assumption that CO2 is a climate driver.
Kindest Regards,
John
Want to bet the Leftards go back to the religion of "Global Cooling" after their absurd theory of AGW is totally blown out of water here in the USA like it already has been in the UK? The lying little morons still think they own the Media like they used to and control the message, but at the end of the day we shall put them in their place.
Gentle Readers,
Years ago, back in the 70s, just as a lark, many people were promoting the notion of the ' hollow Earth theory '. The idea was it could not be conclusively proved, one way or the other, that the Earth was not hollow. Highly entertaining
books, multimedia presentations, films, etc. were produced.
This was a response to the psuedoscientific malarky being put out by a dimwit called Eric Von Daniken, who made
millions promoting the theory that the pyramids of Egypt were built by aliens from outer space. Von Daniken was a racists who simply couldn't accept the idea that ancient dark-skinned peoples build elaborate structures on their own.
( Great Movies & TV shows, lousy science! )
The Earth isn't hollow, the pyramids were built by the Egyptians, and human CO2 emissions do not cause global
warming. Yes, these are all actually scientifically proven statements.
Kindest,
John
Anyone with a high school degree should be capable of determining the difference between facts and theory.
Like all religions there is a level of Faith involved in the belief in Global Warming. Global Warming is actually a theory like the origin a species which is also taught as science.
That is why they so easily convert Global Warming into terms of Climate Change because it is still Theory
It is nothing more then a power grab and vehicle for wealth redistribution. If you can't see that then I am afraid you are walking in your own form of denial.
AGW = The god that held together contemporary socialism becomes the god that failed.
Dear Aaron,
thank you for reading! Apreciate your time!
Kindest Regards,
John
This whole thing is making me dizzy. I wish the next Shiny Thing would come along.
Actually I dont think it always does. You've disproven the data that was suppose to prove climate change happens at man made levels. Until you show conclusive data that climate change doesnt happen or isn't man made, all you've proven is that the measurement and previous experimentation was wrong.
Think of it this way, If i incorrectly state that 2 +2 = 5. By showing how I'm wrong doesn't mean it means 4 until you ALSO prove that.
Gentle Readers,
Another misreported fact: Oceanic Acidification. It is being widely misreported that the very slight increase in carbolic
acid in the oceans is additional proof of global warming.
It is actually just the opposite: if the oceans have more carbolic acid, then it means they are getting cooler, not warmer.
( Think of the ' fizz ' in your beer or soda pop: if the fluid gets colder, theres no fizz, but if it gets warmer, the CO2 gas fizzes out. )
If the oceans are becoming more acidic, this is actually proof the Earth is getting slightly cooler, not warmer. More poor journalism. Poor journalism is half the global warming story.
Kindest Regards,
John
"The weather going to change on and off for a long long time, man." – Al Sleet the 'Hippie-Dippie' weatherman.
If you had read my statement you'd see that I in no way stated that its true or not. In fact, im agnostic towards it because neither side of the debate has me convinced (Ive also already said that in this thread).
The only thing i did actually state is that theres a reason the theory isn't utilizing nitrogen. Please, when you do respond to my post, don't infer statements that aren't there.
In any event, as human CO2 emissions only comprise 3.6% of total atmospheric CO2 emissions currently,
And CO2 only compromises .002% of the atmosphere. 3.6% of .002% is so minuscule and insignificant that the only a liberal troglodyte would find it worth crying over.
Another inconvenient truth for them is that lack of sunspots have led to global cooling over the last decade. Last year cold records were set all over the world; people also died from global cooling, none died of global warming. Also for the first time all 50 states have snow on the ground. The science is settled, the climate has been cooling and continues to do so. Those who deny it do so for nefarious reasons, personal financial gain or are simply too stupid to reason.
I can appreciate the frame of the dispute, my point is that science only has real data for a very small widow in to the earth's history. With the right "model", with so little real evidence of anything, a case can be made either way. There could be changes that are happening but I for one do not believe that the activity of man has very much to do with it. It's hard for me to believe that God, in his infinite wisdom, would ever give man the ability to destroy all that He created. God has reserved that right to himself.
I kind of agree with you about the frame of comparison. And I really don't know whether or not it is man made. I'm agnostic on that account. As far as earth destroying ability goes, tell that to the creators of the A-bomb.
I know one that is conclusive, in as much as the Sun accounts for 98% of our heating, if the Sun gets warmer (brighter) we get warmer, and if the Sun gets cooler we get cooler. No other factor manmade or otherwise has had more effect on our climate than the Sun, and it has been this way for 4.5 billion years, about 4.49999 billion years longer than the existance of humans. For all you global warming, eco-Fascists I have 2 words: "Blow me!"
Gee !!! What happened to the acid rain thingie ???????
Gee !! What happened to the acid rain thingie ???????
"There science for either side isn't entirely conclusive one way or the other."
I know one that is conclusive, in as much as the Sun accounts for 98% of our heating, if the Sun gets warmer (brighter) we get warmer, and if the Sun gets cooler we get cooler. No other factor manmade or otherwise has had more effect on our climate than the Sun, and it has been this way for 4.5 billion years, about 4.49999 billion years longer than the existance of humans. For all you global warming, eco-Fascists I have 2 words: "Blow me!"
As i say this keep in mind that i'm agnostic towards climate change.
I'm fairly sure it isn't so much the sun getting warmer or cooler to any significant degree as much as its the distance to the sun? Unless you're talking about a veeeeery large time span. For the moment I'll assume you are. Now once again, what you've stated doesn't speak to the degree of change would be catastrophic. If it's a very small amount of change then yes it is feasible that man could cause it (I'm not saying that they do Its a hypothetical).
Global warming is a total fraud and these people are guilty of crimes against humanity. It's no accident or the result of sloppy work.
What has come out is only the tip of the iceberg. Go to the online British papers and skeptic websites to get the real truth. Whatever you thought, or could imagine, it's even way worse.
Example: there were data from 6000 global thermometers used for >50 yrs until 1990. They then decided to start using data from only 1000 around the globe, and — you guessed it — they stopped including data from colder latitudes in the North and on mountaintops — so viola, global warming !
It gets worse from there, to include the glacier-gate, rainforest-gate, etc. and it's endless….. there is no data that is untainted.The thermometer data was used to generate the computer models — and the computer models are their proof of global warming. From the tainted computer models baselines, they have further biased the models with other tricks, and it's disgusting.
Al Gore and the lot of them need to be in jail.
The fact that the Sun accounts for 98% of our warming should be a dead give away, however, there are many scientists that have been pointing to recent solar activity, sun spot activity, etc.:
"Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, said the recent warming period was caused by solar activity. He said the last time the world experienced such high temperatures, during the medieval warming period, the Sun and the Earth were in a similar cycle."
Another:
"Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate….Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle’s peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, “Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene.”
Attempts to use computers to model for long term weather prediction failed because it turns out that weather is chaotic, which means that it looks a lot like noise. Rather like the noise on your old analog TV when there was nobody broadcasting on that channel. If you've ever watched that noise for a length of time, you can see apparent patterns emerge. In the same way clouds can look like fuffy bunnies, your brain has been hard wired to find patterns in noise. Which is why suggesting that there's something wrong with the weather is a great way to sell your agenda, because sooner or later patterns will emerge just from the "roll of the dice" and with a little suggestion become monsters in your mind.
Which is why the fact that "weather is not climate" or short term events have nothing to do with the earth's climate should be kept in mind. This should be done partcularly during all those millions of dollars of commercials and cable channel "programs" the folks looking to make a killing off the decline in your and your childrens' lifestyle have bought and paid for.
"Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate….Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle’s peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, “Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene.”
Wait, what?
The "record" temperatures of 59.6-59.8 are replaced by "record" temperatures of 58.2-58.5?
And rather than referring to records from 1880-present, reference is to the 30-year average of 1951-1980?
And why were those years chosen as the baseline? If one wanted to demonstrate the effects of increased industrialization and the like, would not a baseline of 1881-1910 be better?
"Ignore the man behind the curtain!"
This is true, this has never been about the science or even the truth, it's an eco-Fascist religion, and if you don't believe in it they won't let you into the church. But as the always happens, the truth will win out. Mother Nature will see to it!
I will, these people are no different than the Fascists, or any other group of brainwashed fanatics. It's time for you to go away Aaron, no one here is stupid enough to buy your crap!
Bingo!
See this article on Watts Up:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/congenital-...
Covers this exact point, temp's are well within the the normal range as measured in the UK over the last 300 years.
I want my Mommy!
It didn't. And it was.
Yeah, but only one "side" has been basing its case on faked temperature numbers (including those cited above from GISS) and bogus proxy 'reconstructions.'
Actually if you bothered to see what I've already stated several times in this article, I dont believe or disbelieve climate change. I'm agnostic.
As far as having me go away, thats fine, if you can't stand a reasoned questioning thats fine. Luckily, some other people on this forum will actually converse, they aren't here just to listen to people agree with them in the most hyperbolic fashion.
Aaron, the problem is that the Warm-mongers are only using this hoax (and it is a hoax- whatever is really happening with the climate, the Warmists' 'evidence' is as fraudulent as Piltdown Man), it's really just a pretext for the same old Ehrlich/Club of Rome lunatics, in alliance with Reds-cum-Greens headed by Maurice Strong.
Null hypothesis, Aaron. The burden is on proponents, always.
Oh I'm against the hoax also, I think its criminal in proportions. But the more we resort to name calling and rhetoric, the more the truth gets buried in soundbites and hidden from the left and the right.
I also remember that all the oil was going to be gone by 2000, and there would be no life in the sea.
What, are you blind? It's right over there, in the corner, next to the hole in the ozone.
That's as hard as this whole scam is to understand and all sorts of self-annointed Einsteins are still lining up to believe in this crap and abet that takeover. What I would like to know, from these geniuses, is if global warming is an issue (I think it's a failed education system issue as much as anything), who among us is qualified to determine how extreme must be the measures we take to reverse it and who among us is qualified to even figure out how that would be done? How easy would it be to reverse the remedy if they found THAT getting out of control? What did G. K. Chesterton say about those who don't believe in God–they will believe in anything? Abridged version, sorry. Illiberals/Regressives have fools for their gods–themselves, AlBore, environmentalism, etc.
For the record, I get the same hyper aggressive response on liberal forums also. Personally I think both sides have representatives who will bury things in soundbites, the only reason I keep trying is that occassionally I'll run into the rare poster who argues with facts and reasoned argument, then I can way both sides against each other and then decide. I never once said the conservative side of this argument was false, all i spoke about was the need to be accurate in how you argue.
As you can tell by the comments to this article Americans are become more and more educated about the science, or lack there of behind the AGW scam. The facts are coming out in a flood! Some great resources for updates on this scam are:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
James Delingpole at the Telegraph UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Just enter "delingpole" in the search for his blogs
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
Lord Moncton's site:
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.com/expert.cfm?...
And those numbers are themselves fudged. Badly fudged. Google "Darwin Zero" for just one well-known example.
Notice how Hansen, despite working for NASA, stubbornly refuses to use the satellite data? Probably because the satellites give us a thirty year….straight line.
Thirty years not enough? Then look up the Central England Temperature Series, which has been kept continuously since the 1700's. What? Another straight line? No hockey stick?
I heard a few days ago he's zeroing in on billionaire status. So wrong.
The burden is on proponents of both sides. Disproving one hypothesis does not prove the opposite one.
Cooling means warming. Up means down. Left means right. Deficit means surplus. Surrender means victory. This is so cool!
Oh, I know, I know.
I just wanted to highlight how even a simple examination of the mediatainment's propaganda record shows how the whole things is absurdly suspicious.
The first rule of a running a con is to be sure to keep your own lies straight. They cannot manage even a vague approximation of that!
actually thats my fault, the thread got so long that I messed up following who you're replying to. Sorry about that. So I'll revise. I still agree with you that it is naive and it is due to propaganda that comes from hubris. However, allow me to suggest a thought…Even if the conservative side of this issue is right (and I'm not saying it is or isn't), don't the conservatives who lower themselves to the level of liberals who resort to slander and name calling, just make it harder for the "correct side" to be taken seriously?
I am not a scientist, but I question whether it's even possible to measure the averge temperature of the earth. It's too big, too diverse, and there is far too much going on, weatherwise.
Well put, Cameron.
Well one, I'm not saying I believe in climate change, im just trying to be accurate about what the theory proposes.
two, even if what you say is true, the crucial factor would be whether or not the small amount of effect man has is critical or not. And yes, there is an effect, the argument is over magnitude and significance.
Marc Sheppard wrote an article that appeared in The American Thinker on 22 January 2010. It is rich with allegations and specifics. From the article:
"Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate — American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
"NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, ''w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.' ”
Mr. Smith claimed that Canada's reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with only one station above Latitude 65, and that in Eureka, reportedly warmer than other high-latitude locations. California supposedly now has only four temperature-recording stations, one in San Francisco, and three in southern California, near the beach. Over time, such locations can detect temperatures, but they do not convey the temperatures in the hotter inland areas or the cooler mountain areas.
They also spotted a hot Bolivia in a GISS temperature map for 2009. But a recording station for high-altitude Bolivia had been dropped, perhaps 20 years ago. How could the graph show a hot Bolivia? By extending the temperatures from recording stations at a beach in Peru and from the Amazonian jungle.
It's tempting to write a lot more. Are the allegations of dropped stations true? Have temps been taken from close to cities, i.e., "heat islands," in preference to recording sites with cooler temperatures? Who is challenging GISS and NOAA to justify their data collection and analysis to knowledgeable scientists of independent mind?
That we have had some warm years, no question. But up here in Taxachusetts, it sure seems that this past decade was much cooler than the 1990s, too.
More lies from the infidels who oppose global warming! "There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"
BS, you're just one of those typical eco-Marxists that refuses to acknowledge the facts against AGW. It's the premise of this article. The eco-Fascists will constantly re-invent their scam. First it's "global warming", and then it's "climate change", what next? It snows and it's "global warming", it gets hotter and it's "global warming", we have a hurricane and it's "global warming", and it does nothing and it's "global warming"…..errrrrr, I mean "climate change"! Total BS! It's like arguing the rights of Jews against the Nazis.
Find the statement I made here that says I believe in climate change? You won't because I didn't make it. You just see that I didnt absolutely agree with you in a loud and hyperbolic fashion so therefore, in your mind I MUST be what you vision a liberal is, with all the opinions all the entails.
FYI, not everyone is a strict liberal or conservative.
To your point from Dr. Vincent Gray:
"It is impossible to measure the average surface temperature of the earth, yet the IPCC scientists try to claim that it is possible to measure “anomalies” of this unknown quantity. An assessment of all the temperature data available, largely ignored by the IPCC, shows no evidence for overall warming, but the existence of cyclic behaviour. Recent warming was last recorded around 1950. An absence of warming for 10 years and a current downturn suggest that the cool part of the cycle is imminent."
To see the rest of the article:
http://www.nzcpr.com/midweek44.htm
Yes, OK… sorry to offend your sensitive sensitivities…of course your words are so much mightier then your actions which I can not see.
But you know them well don't you…and you would know whether I am right or I am wrong.
SO be it!
More lies from the CRU, the IPCC, Al Gore, NASA, Michael Mann, James Hansen, the NIWA, et. al.
"That is to say, leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century."
No im just saying i'll come to a decision when I see the facts without obvious biases on either side. Point is, if you're inferring that i believe in climate change you're wrong. Is there anything so wrong with me asking you to respond to what I actually write rather than what you imagine I believe?
Nope nothing wrong with that
But your response is suspiciously silent of any actual opinion or decision.
How does one come to a decision when there are no actual facts to support a logical decision?
It is theory and you are waiting in the wings in order to jump on the band wagon once you have a sufficient number of co-conspirator.
You need to come to a conclusion and stick to an actual purpose rather then noodle spined indecision.
Maybe you could look into the facts of the matter rather then the point system (which we all use)
Did I at any point say I was waiting for a side of this debate to be sufficiently popular? or even indicate that? No, I just havent seen enough fact on either side to actually convince me. In fact, if you'll even take so little effort as took on this very same page you'll see one anti climate change poster specifically addressed me and gave me facts to investigate. And you know what I did? I thanked him!
Theres nothing "noodle spined" about my indecision, I'm just still looking into it and hoping to find well reasoned argument that uses facts on both sides. I don't think theres anything wrong with someone saying that they remain unconvinced with the information they've been exposed to.
Nice post FlexoRick as a very serious but 'lay' student of the subject, your conclusions and observations are about the same as mine, which obviously makes you a smart guy, thanks for the post…
Thanks John, hopefully someday we can all use our time in the near future on some of the more pressing issues of the day
Aaron, somehow I knew we'd get to A-bombs when I made that comment so lets look at it. Add up all the nuclear warheads in existence today. Set them off far enough from each other to get optimum destruction, then what would you have? One heck of mess on a large portion of one continent and it may not be habitable for several years, but that is a very long way from destroying the earth. Life as we know it may change in a very dramatic way, but life will continue. Man is very arrogant to think he has the power to destroy the world. I appreciate your replies today.
Good point and concede.
Someone help me, am I missing something?? 1990 was warmest ever, with an ave global temp of 59.8 degrees. Then 1998 was warmest ever with an ave temp of 58.41??? Then 2005 beat out 1998 for warmest ever at 58.6?
I may be an idiot, but isn't 59.8 a higher number than both 58.41 or 58.6?? Was there some change in calculations done between 1990 and 1998 to make 98 warmer than 90??
The AGW opposition, at least on this particular site, isn't promoting anything beyond what we already DO!!! So they bear NO burden to prove anything. The AGW proponents wanted to radically change how we live life to comform to their carefully manipulated alternate reality. The opposition isn't remotely close to that.
Very strong FlexoRick! Global warming, is a means to an ends, for the Looney left.
Nor does the burden of proof rests on the incumbent or who wants you to do the least. Disproving data behind climate change as has been done (and I acknowledge that), only disproves the methodology. To prove that man made climate change does not exist, you would need an equal compelling model showing it not to exist. That model may be out there, I'm still looking for it. When I find it I have to look into the assumptions behind it. Just as people looked at the assumptions behind the climate change model. Then I'll know which is true.
Now this obviously isnt the degree of proof most people demand, its a personal decision.
Match, Set, Point!
Obviously the Earth has warmed in the past without the help of man or else the ice from the Ice Age would never had melted. These GW tax collectors have actually put forth a perfect argument for themselves if they ever start collecting this money. If it continues to get warmer, they will need to more tax dollars. If the temperature stays stagnant, there plan is working and they need to keep collecting tax dollars. If it gets cooler, they need the tax dollars to warm the Earth. Brilliant scenario for them, even if it is all a lie.
This whole debate about climate change is falling apart and liberals are freaking out. People are seeing it for what it is, another way to redistribute wealth. By creating an imaginary commodity called a "Carbon Credit" they are able to make industry and even private citizens pay for anything they consider a climate change gas. What liberals have done is kinda clever, sticking it to the american people for breathing, is kinda funny. What I find most impressive is how people can talk about climate change [oops global warming] with a straight face. I guess some good has come from all this debate, we now know who has drank the coolaid.
Flex says "….Global Warming or the more resent “Climate Change” The fact
of the matter is their agenda to reduce the use of fossil fuels remain the same……."
I agree with most that it makes no difference to the AGW crowd any weather
phenomenon validates their science…..or religion.
I disagree that the AGW crowd wants "to reduce the use of fossil fuels"……..from all
accounts the AGW crowd wants to confiscate wealth and redistribute it after they skim their
cut off the top.
Hey, all you rational people. You keep forgetting the one truth liberals live by: It is not the nature of the evidence that is important, it is the seriousness of the charge. They charge capitalists with cooking the planet, so even though the evidence does not support their charge, they will invent the evidence, run it through a cooperative media and, bingo – GLOBAL WARMING/GLOBAL COOLING/CLIMATE CHANGE/MAN-MADE WEATHER EVENT/blah, blah,blah. And the GW zombies obediently chant "Yes Master Al, Yes Master Al….." If they weren't tryibg to screw up this country they would be pathetically funny.
Notice Aaron’s frequent use of the President’s new buzz word “Agnostic”. Are you also “agnostic” to the idea of raising taxes?
Well, that's a new explanation totally at odds with the scientific explanation of what we should see if CO2 were the significant driver in the climate… The climate footprint of warming caused by an increase of CO2 would be warmer temperatures primarily 1) at the poles, 2) in winter and 3) at night – the times and places when the earth is typically the coldest. The greatest driver of variability in weather is the difference in temperature between the poles and the equator – the hot air running into the cold air.
However, with the cold places and times coming closer in temperature (warming) to the warm places (not really warming that much), there would actually be less extreme weather and less variability. That's what insulation does… And insulation is what the green house theory is all about… And global warming (climate change, whatever) is about CO2 acting as a green house gas (an insulator).
Guest the perpetrators of this shite do, they are just hoping most of us don't.
You must be logged in to post a comment.