Good morning to our regular media hounds sniffing around for tips – have we got a doozy for you!
Roger Pielke Sr. ;
The hard work of of Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) and Anthony Watts (www.surfacestations.org) has resulted in the identification of a significant error in the assessment of the rankings of what have been the warmest years in the United States as identified by GISS. The current warmest year is 1934.
Much more in the comments there – “As it stands, we are looking at a bladeless “Hockey Stick”, and for all intents and purposes at the falsification of the anthropogenic warming hypothesis for North America. Of particular note is that the Climate Audit piece indicates that GISS has erased the old [unadjusted] data, giving it the makings of an excercise in covering one’s tracks. The legality of this must be questionable given that we are dealing a federally funded agency. Astounding.”
(Climate Audit is currently down – I suspect in the same way SDA goes down when I post on Marc Emery’s cannibus cult…)
Update: My hunch was right. Climate Audit is under DOS attack.
Climate Audit:
Or as explained by commentor Chris Christner. “Congratulations Steve! On your own you’ve managed to reduce temperatures more than the Kyoto Protocol ever could!”
More here from Anthony Watts: “Here’s a story of scientific investigation and discovery I’m proud to have had a small part in.”
And here too.
Michelle Malkin has another roundup
Sincere congratulations to Torontonian Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) and also to Anthony Watts (www.surfacestations.org) whose work in progress will have further repercussions in the months to come.
Note that Mr McIntyre was also instrumental in debunking the “hockey stick” that the IPCC and Gore believe implicitly and which was instrumental in creating the prevailing AGW hysteria.
Let’s be very clear – noone disputes the fact that climate changes and that there has been a modest (as of today – about 0.5°C ± 0.25°C) increase in annual average global temperature over the past 100 years.
There is also no disputing that sea levels have continued to rise infinitesimally since the little ice age (but appear to be pretty stable right now – references can be made available).
As an engineer involved in the planning and development of hydroelectric projects for more than 40 years, it has been a fundamental part of my job to study, understnd and apply climate change data. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the so-called “extreme” weather occurrences reported recently are out of the ordinary (all can be confirmed as having recurrence intervals of less than 1 in 500 years).
Us skeptics do not say that there is no human-induced component of the modest amount of warming that is occurring. We do, however, request transparency and adherence to accepted scientific processes before panic-struck politicians take action that will create chaos, confusion and widespread suffering.
We are already seeing the negative impact on availability of cheap food supplies to the poor of the world as a result to of the rush to use farm produce to produce “bio-fuels”.
Anon, you remember the Scientific American issue length slash-and-burn job on Bjorn Lomborg a few years ago?
That’s why nobody here mentions them. They are biased, to put it mildly. If half the weather stations in the USA are bent, the last place on Earth you are going to read about it is Scientific America.
Besides, Sci Am has gone down hill rather badly the last ten years. I stopped my subscription when they took all the math out of the articles.
Smoke: your newspaper articles suck.
Incidentally, straying slightly from the topic, do y’all remember the “Adapt or Die” thread from a couple days ago, where-in Mr. Smoke (aka Warren Kinsella? He’s a lot dumber than I thought he’d be)took me to task for saying I treat SDA as a news source?
Perfect case in point here. How long from today will we wait until the MSM reports widespread jiggering of temperature records?
Well, Mr. Smoke? Albatross? Any guesses? Am I still a fool for fact checking the MSM from blogs and web sites, or possibly not so much?
Kate, its times like these when I really hate that no swearing rule of yours. ~:D
Anyone who really feels guilty about burning fossil fuels can send me money and I will send you agenuine Texas Canuck Carbon Credit certificate, suitable for framing or wrapping fish.
BTW, the real major cause of climate change is that big burning thing 93,000,000 miles away.
Anyone who really feels guilty about burning fossil fuels can send me money and I will send you agenuine Texas Canuck Carbon Credit certificate, suitable for framing or wrapping fish.
BTW, the real major cause of climate change is that big burning thing 93,000,000 miles away.
Anyone who really feels guilty about burning fossil fuels can send me money and I will send you agenuine Texas Canuck Carbon Credit certificate, suitable for framing or wrapping fish.
BTW, the real major cause of climate change is that big burning thing 93,000,000 miles away.
John Cross, a (non snarky) question for you sir. How difficult would it be for a motivated group to bias, mis-report or otherwise screw with the earth monitoring satellite temperature data?
As I recall from previous conversations, the satellite data roughly corresponds to the earth stations. Given that the earth stations have been systematically jimmied, how trustworthy are those satellite readings?
Better yet, how would one check?
Phantom: I think that you are giving smoke too much credit.By backing the Lieberals speaks volumes about his level of grey matter.
A little late to the party but here are my 2 cents, Leftoids blame big oil for everything that is wrong in “their” world. “Big oil must be stopped!” But if they got their way how would they get to their Global Warming love ins and stuff? How would they heat their homes?
Leftoids lack of logic is suicidal. Cause and effect means nothing to them.
Now if all our efforts are redirected to say reducing pollution then we could get somewhere but the leftoids may actually have to do something. Playing the blame game is all they are prepared to do. If they had to stop driving one day a week or turn their furnace down a degree or two then we are asking too much.
It’s not up to the government to fix it all, we must do our part in partnership with the government to be successful.
I have tried on occasion to get background information on funding sources for various environmental groups. Many are indeed well funded. All of those protests at events such as the various international meetings, video’s, Web sites , “studies”, etc. are well planned and centrally executed from a constellation of well managed funding sources. I have tried to determine the degree to which these funding sources can be tracked back to the U.N., and often there is someone — member of a board or whatever — who does indeed seem to have career ties to the U.N. There are also sometimes fairly innocuous seeming funders — corporations, for example, who have a particular interest in the environment. What I have determined is that there is a central driver of the global warming agenda, and that it is the U.N. Beyond this, there are innocent people who are pulled in because of their influence and personal credibility. They are often “flattered” to be invited to participate and seem willing to lend their names and sometimes dollars to support this “good cause”.
I have seen this strategy at work on a smaller scale. A “wheeler-dealer” in the education world created an association of education professionals (I won’t say which one.) Many people across Canada were invited to join — probably small fee, but the school boards would pay, so no problem. And it would be a chance to network with your counterparts. Who wouldn’t join? There was a “board” which met once a year and they were wined and dined. Who would not be complimented at the prospect of being asked to sit on such a board? Anyway — to make a long story short — The guy who started this organization was simply a scam artist . . . making tons of money for himself with little accountability. He used the fact that he was the “director” of this association to get government contracts and other perks. Because most people are naive and take things at face value, they are easily duped into supporting causes such as “global warming”, Kyoto . . . in particular because of the way it has all been cast to look like support for the environment. The whole Kyoto/global warming scam is being controlled by a few people who know how to manipulate others. They know how to gather networks of people around them, and they know how to use those networks. Unfortunately, the media has made very little effort to find out what really is going on. I doubt we’ll see much press around the Steve McIntyre finding because I think that the media also has been bought — maybe not with dollars, but they have sold out ethically and are no longer seekers of truth.
h.ryan, historically speaking backing the Liberals to win hasn’t gone wrong too often in this country. If you’re a sycophantic type with no salable skills and a strong stomach, there’s still money in shilling for them.
Personally I don’t need money that bad. Besides I’m pretty sure I couldn’t say most of the crap Smoke says with a straight face. I’d be overwhelmed by giggles on live TV every time.
Warwick: Smoke has read a lot of posts that he is incapable of crafting a retort to (as he is dead wrong) so he will abandon this thread and will pop up again somewhere else.
No, I just had better things to do this evening than to hover around SDA.
The Phantom: Incidentally, straying slightly from the topic, do y’all remember the “Adapt or Die” thread from a couple days ago, where-in Mr. Smoke (aka Warren Kinsella? He’s a lot dumber than I thought he’d be) took me to task for saying I treat SDA as a news source?
And it would still be foolish to treat SDA as an impartial new source. Tell me, Mr. Phantom, just how significant do you think this GISS readjustment is? Bumping 1998 down from “hottest year ever!” to “second hottest year ever!” (only within the US, incidentally, not globally) is, for you, prima facie proof that AGW is bogus? At least be honest with yourself — you read SDA to confirm your opinions, not to form them.
I’m not disputing the new GISS data; nobody is. What’s interesting for me is the (entirely predictable) response among SDA readers here, the same response that occurs with every “Sound of Settled Science” post: that this — THIS — will be the stake in the AGW heart (oh please, God, let it be so). Your position on the issue appears as inflexible as that of the Y2Kyoto cultists you mock; in that sense, you share quite a bit in common with your self-declared enemies — equally partisan, equally ideological.
And who’s Warren Kinsella?
jlc at August 9, 2007 4:48 PM
Thanks for your excellent, authoritative post.
Smoke:
Are you, by chance, posting from a barge on the Okanagan?
Skeptical Inquirer has also joined the AGW bandwagon. They came out with a “position paper” that took them 2 issues to lay out. And here I thought that “position papers” were what political parties dream up.
Pretty disappointing from the magazine that was one of the first to question the recovered memory movement.
Death to the unbelievers
Death to the deniers
Death to the questioners
Death to the enemies of Al Gore and the fruit-fly guy
Death to the Skeptics … oh, wait a minute.
Hmmm, I better write a letter to the editor.
Phantom,
I’m not sure I understand your post but …
the satellite data measures global atmospheric temperatures at higher altitudes, where the anthropogenic global warming theorists say most heating should occur; however, the 30 years of observation have shown little, if any, warming.
The surface temperature is what is being used to drive this hysteria and these are clearly wanting, in quality as well as quantity – they do not cover the oceans.
Ah Mr. Smoke, back and dodging shrapnel like a pro.
SDA is not an impartial news source. Never pretended to be. Kate’s very biased toward posting things that are true.
I balance her truthfulness against the Toronto (Red) Star. I figure out from the difference between the two what the Star doesn’t want me thinking about, then I research it in depth. Like gun control or in the present case, AGW.
I could care less about the GISS “readjustment”, the fact of the matter is that the data gathering for American climatology (and probably ours too) has been systematically bent.
This is the glaring fact that seems to be escaping you sir, they F$%^ING LIED. You can adjust a dog turd as much as you like, it will remain a turd. I trust the new figures no farther than the old ones.
However, as you have ascertained this information is confirmatory for me, not revelatory. My doubt of the whole AGW scam is due almost entirely to who its supporters are and how they behave. They weasel, fabricate, misdirect, distract and dis-inform.
Yourself, for example. You’re a veritable template for the type. Evidence of scientific fraud on a grand scale, and here you are number one man on the manure spreader. The MSM is filled with guys just like you, selling me AGW just as hard as they possibly can.
Sorry dude, that’s one used car I’m taking to the mechanic before I buy.
Wimpy, my question is:
A) How hard would it be to bias the satellite data the way they’ve biased the ground data, and
B) Given that we can’t drive over and poke at the satellite, is there a way to find out if they’ve been biased?
Call me paranoid, but one set of widespread fraud makes one wonder if there are others. Kinda like Adscam.
Phantom, there has been blood let over the satellite data, which DO NOT support the AGW CONSENSUS.
There are many attempts to bias the data, so far not by a large enough percentage.
Funny, that’s what I said to John Cross. ~:D
So there’s no agreement and no gold standard space based measurement is there, just conflicting data? How delightful. If we could go up and check each one, I wonder how many would be measuring hotter on purpose?
So Wimpy, do we have any satellites pointing at the sun and taking solar flux readings directly, or is that inferred from other things? Mars is melting, and it ain’t no AGW up there.
A bladeless hockey stick … we’re playing ringette with our children’s future.
ABOUT THAT RECORD HOT SUMMER OF 1934:
Some 1934 tangential historical trivia, from what I’ve read and what I learned from my late Dad:
Up until 1934, it was the custom all over N America, enforced by laws and strong custom in most locales, that men wore bathing suits with tops, generally the sleeveless T type. (I have copies of a couple of photos of my Dad as a very young man wearing one of those type suits. They do look pretty ridiculous and uncomfortable.)
The summer of 1934 was SO hot, especially all up and down the N. American eastern seaboard, that daring men started taking off their bathing suit tops at beaches, lakesides, etc.
At first on most urban beaches, the police tried to stop that trend by actually arresting those men for indecent exposure. Finally at the height of the extreme heat in that summer, the trend became far too widespread, with far too many men taking off their tops, for the police to be able to stop the trend any more.
So the record hot summer of 1934 gets the credit for men being able to ditch those ridiculous tank top suits. (That bit of history also gives a somewhat different perspective on ladies choosing to go topless at beaches, lakeside, etc. To each his OR her own, eh?!)
Wimpy Canadian: The satellites show warming that is the same or greater than the land warming (there are several different people looking at the data).
Phantom: I would suspect that it would actually be quite hard to do in general in science. However in this case I would say impossible. One of the records is created by Spencer and Christy who have done good work with the satellite data but are very much in the “skeptic” camp.
Regards,
John
Do what John? Bend the data, or check to see if its bent?
Seems to me a satellite just reports what its set up to measure. If its set up wrong, can this be checked from the ground or do we just have to take somebody’s word for it that the data’s good?
You know, take a reference measurement?
“the same or greater than the land warming”
You better recheck that statement John.
“So, ExxonMobil pays scientists $10,000 to “discover” contrarian research evidence, which you then reflexively and uncritically gobble up like sheep. Don’t you ever ask yourselves, “Hey, I wonder what ExxonMobil might have to gain from clouding the global warming issue in paralyzing uncertainty?”
No matter where the funding is coming from it will be FACTS that win in the end. The oil companies may have more of an interest in proving AGW false but that doesn’t mean they will be just making facts up, just that they will be looking more criticly at the evidence. The basis of finding truth in anything is having opposed sides debating until all facts are out and nothing is left but the truth. This is the basis of our court system and democracy. What the pro AGW crowd is doing amounts to having a murder trial where only the prosecutor is allowed in the courtroom, the judge is his brother and the jury all only get paid if they find the defendant guilty. Would you think that the facts of the case would come out correctly? The point of this article was that NASA was wrong, they screwed up the data on temperatures that really made a big difference. This is good news are prooves that we maybe aren’t as bad off as we thought. We should ALL be happy about this. If it wasn’t for “deniers” it may never have been found and corrected. Deniers have their place in keeping a balance to the science no matter who they are or who is funding them. In the end the truth will come out based on the facts not where the funding came from.
BTW it just occured to me that pro global warming people seem to desperatly want AGW to be true. Wouldn’t it be a lot better if we found out that it wasn’t true and we could get on with our lives and not spend billions changing things and disrupting our lives ? If we could find conclusive proof that AGW wasn’t happening wouldn’t that be a huge relief? I’d pay $10 000 to try and find evidence that we aren’t going to die before I’d pay someone to prove that we are.
I seem to remember someone claiming that the seas will rise up and gobble large swaths of “our kids” land, as I wisked through the veritable plethora of comments above (Jefe, what is a plethora?)
I want to reassure our more spineless liberal type that ocean rise, much like global warming itself, is not in evidence. You have nothing to fear.
“Why, El Guapo?” you might ask.
Because there is a famous American monument that happened to be situated at exactly sea level in the year 1620, which is still exactly at sea level today in the year 2007.
Let’s review a few climate facts before I reveal the provinance of my claim.
In 1620 the world was deep into what has become known as the “little ice age” which culminated in it’s coldest period around 1700,(2 to 4 degrees F colder that 1950 globally) and ended in the 1850’s. In 1622 the Bosphorus or the Straits of Istanbul froze. Iceland was surrounded by pack ice which extended for miles and all of its ports were cut off in that manner. Lake Superior was regularly icebound into June.
Fair to say that the oceans would have been at record low levels with all that water locked up in ice caps and such.
And yet in 1620 William Bradford took his first step into the New World on Plymouth Rock.
Plymouth Rock is still there preserved as a historical monument, and it is still at sea level now, 387 years and one big whopping climate change later.
So relax. The ocean hasn’t risen. Not even a smidge.
I’ll credit Steven Mosher at Roger Pielke Sr.’s Climate Science for this bit,
“Typically, if you trust your work and keep good records and follow the method, you have no issue sharing your stuff with people, whatever their qualifications.
So, when you you do a proper job you respond thusly:
Here is the data collection code. Check it.
Here is the raw data. Check it.
Here is the code I used to adjust, select, normalize the data. Check it.
Here is my adjusted data. Check it.
Here are my methods and results. check them.
If you find mistakes I will be grateful to learn from you and correct my error.”
TJS: “The oil companies may have more of an interest in proving AGW false …”
What interest? If I’m an oil I’m cheering for AGW … more profit less production. If your thinking about a mobile energy, what even comes close to gas for bang for the buck? Double or triple the prices with half or third costs … an accountants dream.
Phantom: I meant that it would be hard to change the data. Just a guess, I really don’t know how the data is handeled. Without checking so I stand to be corrected, the current satellites have an on-board reference system. Also, keep in mind it is the trend we are interested in, not the absolute value.
Robert in Calgary: I am happy with my statement.
Regards,
John
John Cross: “Also, keep in mind it is the trend we are interested in, not the absolute value.”
So you guys can figure out “trends” without absolute values? I bow to you, your models, your data and your peer reviewed articles. You win.
You may be right Ural but in the short term it’s the oil companies that are being made out to be the bad guys in this (even though it’s all of us that burns the stuff). I’m sure in the short term at least they wouldn’t mind proving that they haven’t damaged the planet as much as people are saying. In the long term they would actualy make more profit when gas is rationed and the price raised to $5 / liter. Wouldn’t it be a crazy ironic twist if it was actualy the oil companies behind the whole thing?
et: Well, I do tend to post based on what I know instead of making things up out of thin air. If this is the “fallacy of ‘ignorance’.” then, yes, I am guilty of it.
As you pointed out, all I am saying is that I am not aware of any. However you then posted several that you claimed did provide that link. Guess what, after reading through some I still am not aware of any.
John
I’m all for global warming.
Once it gets warmer, then we’ll have to burn less fuel to heat our houses.
Since we are emerging from an ice age, does it not follow that temperature is rising?
Nice guess, Sherlock.
I seem to remember someone claiming that the seas will rise up and gobble large swaths of “our kids” land
Oh yes, the “think of the children” appeal.
That’s a convenient emotional trick that quite often results in adults that fall for it being treated like children themselves by their own government/caregivers.
It’s also effective and shameful scaremongering directed towards those not yet old enough to have critical thinking skills. “Mommy, you didn’t recycle my juice box, why do you want to kill the planet?”.
John Cross, the reason I asked was to get at the guts of the satellite data collection.
If the satellites broadcast their data unencrypted then many observers can keep duplicate databases, ensuring agreement. If there’s one gatekeeper though, then you have to take his word for it.
Even if the instrument broadcasts unencrypted the instrument itself can be biased as we see with the ground stations. Multiple instruments from unrelated researchers using a variety of techniques to gather the measurements will check for that.
But we don’t have that, at a guess. My nasty paranoid mind is guessing we have the worst of all worlds, an encrypted satellite with data being distributed from a single source plus a bunch of other, older satellites not really designed for the job but pressed into service.
You know, I’d really like to be wrong about that. It would be soooo nice to be able to take people’s word for it on this issue, but I just can’t do it. Too many cheaters.
I hate cheaters. Pox on the lot of them.
After 134 or so comments I guess pretty much anything additional is going to be redundant!
BUT I have to say that I found that bit about the Y2K bug in the computer data to be really good for a chuckle.
And just for good measure…. What the frack is Phantom talking about?
I guess we all can be thankful that Mann and Hansen don’t design bridges.
I want to send my thanks to all the thoughtful environmentalists out there for making my life so much easier and better.
As you save and conserve, and keep the price of gasoline down, I can happily pump more and more of the stuff into my SUV at a reasonable price so that I can take my typical weekend driving trips of 200-300 kms; not counting my 6000+ km trips when I am really tripping.
Thanks too for using those ridiculous light bulbs so that I can keep using the warm and pleasant light from my halogen lamps or regular light bulbs. Your efforts are keeping the price of electricity down to a level where I can afford all I want.
Keep up the good work! Don’t stop your fight to end global warming! When I’m in my back yard burning through a cord of two of firewood in my firepit I’ll be thinking of you!
Just talking about some of that technical stuff OMMAG. You know, the complicated things that the MSM protects us from ’cause we’re too dumb to unnerstand?
I wondered if the satellite data was recorded as well as the ground stations next to the two air conditioners do it. Consensus seems to be, we dunno.
Lot of that going around, eh?
TJS: No matter where the funding is coming from it will be FACTS that win in the end. The oil companies may have more of an interest in proving AGW false but that doesn’t mean they will be just making facts up, just that they will be looking more criticly at the evidence. The basis of finding truth in anything is having opposed sides debating until all facts are out and nothing is left but the truth. This is the basis of our court system and democracy.
Yes, that’s how it works in La-La-Land. In the real world, “truth” is perpetually contested, and “evidence” is more often used to justify rather than inform policies involving the distribution of power, money, and other resources (i.e., politics).
Also, “they’ll just look more critically at the evidence”!? Are you kidding? In the real world, companies very much will “just make facts up.” Do you not understand the stakes involved here, the sheer amount of money and power up for grabs in the energy sector? Energy is the number one long-term national security (and hence, foreign policy) interest in the world at the moment. There is literally a race between key power nations — US, Russia, China, India, etc. — to tap remaining oil reserves. The real levers of power don’t care about “facts”; they care about access and control. Global warming is a potential threat only insofar as the policy implications involved may subvert their manoeuvreability as players the global energy market. Under such conditions, corporations still won’t lie? That’s a good one.
OMMAG: And just for good measure…. What the frack is Phantom talking about?
Socialists in space, messing with the satellite data.
The Phantom: I balance her truthfulness against the Toronto (Red) Star. I figure out from the difference between the two what the Star doesn’t want me thinking about, then I research it in depth.
You read the Toronto Star!? Even I don’t read that commie rag. And your “in-depth research” on potential satellite data-rigging appears to consist of asking wimpy canadian what he thinks. Impressive.
John Cross: However you then posted several that you claimed did provide that link. Guess what, after reading through some I still am not aware of any.
Oh, don’t mind ET, her own research on this is literally two google-links deep. She searched “Kilimanjaro melting deforestation” and basically cribbed her entire reading list (without first reading the primary sources herself) straight from the second hit, a piece by the “skeptical” Heartland Institute (it’s why she couldn’t provide you with issue numbers — the Heartland article didn’t mention them). She’s a funny lady.
LindaL:
“What I have determined is that there is a central driver of the global warming agenda, and that it is the U.N.”
The “It” is the evil genius, Canadian Maurice Strong, and his congregation. If Strong was not real, he would have to be invented. Mo is a one-worlder; the AGW is the vehicle/cover for his mad dreams of world hegemony. Start here:
The U.N.’s Ten Commandments
Integrating the Earth Charter into Curriculum. [Billionaires are setting the agenda for the world population][…]
Canadian billionaire socialist Maurice Strong, who presided over the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, is somewhat less tentative. “The real goal of the Earth Charter,” said Strong, “is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments.” (Emphasis added.) Mr. Strong had high hopes that the Charter, conceived in 1987, would be adopted by the world at Rio. Alas, there were too many other messianic projects on Gaia’s burners at that confab. Gaia, the Greek goddess of Earth, has become the supreme deity in the green theology of the militant environmentalists.
In his opening address to the Rio summit, Strong directed the world’s attention to the “Declaration of the Sacred Earth,” which was part of the pre-Summit ceremonies. “The changes in behavior and direction called for here,” said Strong, “must be rooted in our deepest spiritual, moral, and ethical values.” According to the declaration, “The [ecological] crisis transcends all national, religious, cultural, social, political and economic boundaries.” “The responsibility of each human being today is to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light,” Strong exhorted. “We must therefore transform our attitudes and values, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.” …-
http://www.cephas-library.com/nwo/nwo_uns_ten_commandments.html
Still alive there eh Mr. Smoke?
Like ET I have other areas of expertise and other interests than climatology. You want to be impressed, go to the dry cleaners. Ask to use the shirt machine.
Should I decide I really want to pursue this, where oh where shall I go? New York Times science page? Blob & Snail perhaps? Or maybe I could just drop in at Climate Audit after the DOS attack stops and ask those guys! I bet they know, or know who to ask at least. I can avoid hours of tedious library lurking by asking people what the relevant papers are. Kewl! Love that Interweb thingy.
Where I wonder did I first see Climate Audit mentioned Mr. Smoke? Could it be… Kate’s?
Your argument is baseless drivel sir. QED.
I should add, Mr. Smoke sir, that a picture of an official government thermometer standing on an asphalt driveway between two air conditioners is worth a thousand climate models.
I think they have that picture beside the definition of the phrase “garbage in, garbage out.”
Smoke,
I think you are missing some important realities. Human nature. Especially peoples need for balance and truth. For too long the AGW warming crowd has monopolized the debate politically, scientifically and in the media. It has been a fairly one sided debate. Yet people are by nature designed to actively seek out a differing opinions. If the only skeptics are oil funded groups then by default that will be the only source for people to fulfil the need for balanced coverage of this important issue. This need for debate between differing theories will be met one way or another. After this happens then it is time for citizens to have a mature discussion on what to do, if anything, about Climate Change.
I heard the Premiers prattling on about global warming today. I hope that the Yukon leader offered to buy some of those warming tickets because the Yukon has had cold miserable weather for two years. We had a very COLD winter and a rainy, luke warm ‘poor sledding’ season. Where is our share of this ‘warm’? To quote another globby swarmin’ mindset: “It’s not fair”!
What is this post supposed to demonstrate?
Global warming isn’t about average temperatures in any single country in any particular year.
Incidentally, assuming the GW theory is right, temperature in some regions will actually decrease.
What is this post supposed to demonstrate?
Global warming isn’t about average temperatures in any single country in any particular year.
Incidentally, assuming the GW theory is right, temperature in some regions will actually decrease.