http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329
The conservative movement REALLY needs to come to grip with AGW , or it’s going to end up looking like a collection of flat-Earthers.
Spare us the links to the whacko-enviro websites, chicken little
Talk about cherry picking. They are comparing at least 3 different sets of data here. Unbelievable. Then...how in the world do you average a global temperature from all this nonsense. The GISS has changed their numbers 4 times this year. They are pathetic.
Ha! What a laugh! That information that you linked to has already been discredited. By the same people who gave that information, NASA! Since you are not keeping up with the news, NASA recently, and quietly, completely revised their temperature data after it found errors.
Since you don’t read the news, I’ll help you..http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aBBQO5XgLQu4&refer=home
and...http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/print.php?extend.24.2
I totally agree with you. There is enough there for conservatives to agree upon, without engaging in the hysterics and hyperbolics of the Left. Its a shame really.
You are kidding? AGW is strictly a political, money grabbing scheme. Gore, the frauds at realClimate and all those pushing AGW are out to destroy what's left of our capitalist system and get rich doing it. The MSM is relentless in brainwashing the masses. The Earth is fine and all that we need to do is "adapt" to any "natural" changes that are occurring. I am sorry you drank the koolaide of the AGW Stalinists.
One more thing.. Biased, left-wing scientists in academia had better come to grips with their bias or they are going to start making creationists look good.
Your credibility suffers by your use of such sources.
The conservative movement *has* come to grips with AGW, determined that it is mostly a bunch of hooey, and is waiting for the inevitable acceptance of the fact that the flat-Earthers-—indeed, the spawn of the lovelies who treated Galileo so well-—are the Branch Algorians.
Even stipulating your article's complaints about cherry picking statistics; prior to any statistical analysis, some type of error analysis must be done on the data. The increases talked about are on the order of 1/10 C. That implies that the initial measurements had to have been made with at least that precision. The dirty little secret is that as the data goes back in time, the precision of the initial measurements degrades considerably. Your reference even admits that 1978 was the year that troposheric temperature data from satellites began being collected. There is no mention however of the effect of this change on the precision of the data that is being statistically analyzed. As one of the following posters says, the liberal scientist will join the flat earth society if they keep abstracting from rigorous scientific principles.
See the following: 400 Scientists doubt climate change.
100 Scientists appeal to the UN to not fight global warming.
List of 100 scientists, their degree and expertise.
You sound like a really nice guy but not up to the task on this issue.
"A high school dropout, ABD in streetlife, I've been self employed since my early twenties. Previous to my current business I made my living as an electron cop (I owned a company which specialized in specing and installing data comm products for large corporations). In "retierment" I started a Home Inspection business, I also purchase and rehab residential and investment properties. Like many self-educated people my opinions are rooted in wide and eclectic reading, filtered through a basically anecdotal approach to understanding life, and bobby-trapped with various surprising gaps in my knowledge.
According to whom?
Speaking of cherry picking data... From Canada's National Post, Published: Monday, August 13, 2007.
Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were.
A little less than a decade ago, the U.S. government changed the way it recorded temperatures. No one thought to correlate the new temperatures with the old ones, though -- no one until Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre, that is.
McIntyre has become the bane of many warmers' religious-like belief in climate catastrophe. In 2003, along with economist Ross McKitrick, McIntyre demolished the Mann "hockey stick" --a graph that showed stable temperatures for 1,000 years, then shooting up dangerously in the last half of the 20th Century.
The graph was used prominently by the UN and nearly every major eco lobby. But McIntyre and McKitrick demonstrated it was based on incomplete and inaccurate data.
To NASA's credit, when McIntyre pointed out their temperature errors they quickly made corrections.
Still, the pro-warmers who dominate the Goddard Institute almost certainly recognized the impacts these changes would have on the global-warming debate, because they made no formal announcement of their recalculations.
In many cases, the changes are statistically minor, but their potential impact on the rhetoric surrounding global warming is huge.
The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.
Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.
The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.
In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.
Read it and weep, turkey.
Are you implying that AGW is real, and will destroy the planet, and that conservatives must accept the death of millions (and a poorer lifestyle for billions) in order to prevent it?
Or are you saying that conservatives MUST become better educated to recognize and argue AGAINST AGW extremists in order to save the planet from socialism and one-world government control?
Are you really concerned with how we look? I don’t believe it. Your backdoor attempt at pushing this bull on us deniers is a waste of your time.