Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/08/2009 9:34:55 AM PST by Dominic01
Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book.
Only one problem: It's not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.
The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?
In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.
"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.
Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.
Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped -- thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple...
(Excerpt) Read more at climate.weather.com ...
This is a case of Garbage in = Garbage out.
They did not independently get data, feed it to the statisticians, and get results. They gave them bad data, then claim the results validate the conclusions reached by the Democrat party propagandists pushing this nonsense.
It is a case garbage in = garbage out.
I apparently missed the whole “Super hot year” 2005.
old news... and another example of the State Run Media creating the news it wants you to use...
“Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record.
The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, probably pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend “will be never talked about again.”
We’ll see about that!
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
All of you rabble shut up or we’ll hit you with this hockey stick.
I can remember when wire services used to report the news and not debate the opposition.
If the year is warmer, its an indication of long term climate.
If the year is cooler, its just a sign of short term fluctuations in weather.
What they seem to ignore is that even if what they say is true the overall warming of the earth would be, by 3000, a degree or two, but maybe not.
Amen. Garbage in/garbage out. Consider that the climate question involves a hundred-fold matrix of variables, many of them interrlated. A computer model is not only dependent on how many variables are to be put in, but in how much trust we have in these variables. The history of man’s ablility to predict the weather is not good, so “what we think we know” is suspect. Heck, we can’t even predict a five-day forecast with anything that could be called “scientific” accuracy, and yet we hear people arguing over tenths or hundreths of a degree temperature, decades or more into the future.
The IPCC is a politically driven entity. Sure, there 2K- 3K scientists in it, but the conclusions are collated (”cherry-picked” might be a better term)by a political committee, not by scientists; and these scientists have learned to use a sort of soft double-talk when they voice their opinions, trying to straddle the line adeptly enough not to lose their funding (through politically incorrect skepticism), but to give some sort of lip-service to objectivity.
The core ideas in science are debate and construcive doubt. (Come to think of it, legislative bills are supposed to be considered by the same criteria. But that’s another “right-wing extremist argument.”) Any idea worth its salt should be thrown into the arena of competing ideas and see if it survives; but the lamestream media does not see it that way. Protecting junk-science is part of the crusade to protect Obama and his followers.
Be it the Democrats’ healthcare, or the climate change crisis, if an idea is too weak to allow criticism, it is too weak to deserve the respect of us laymen.
Those who say, “The science is settled,” simply don’t want to talk about it any more.
Amen. Garbage in/garbage out. Consider that the climate question involves a hundred-fold matrix of variables, many of them interrlated. A computer model is not only dependent on how many variables are to be put in, but in how much trust we have in these variables. The history of man’s ablility to predict the weather is not good, so “what we think we know” is suspect. Heck, we can’t even predict a five-day forecast with anything that could be called “scientific” accuracy, and yet we hear people arguing over tenths or hundreths of a degree temperature, decades or more into the future.
The IPCC is a politically driven entity. Sure, there 2K- 3K scientists in it, but the conclusions are collated (”cherry-picked” might be a better term)by a political committee, not by scientists; and these scientists have learned to use a sort of soft double-talk when they voice their opinions, trying to straddle the line adeptly enough not to lose their funding (through politically incorrect skepticism), but to give some sort of lip-service to objectivity.
The core ideas in science are debate and construcive doubt. (Come to think of it, legislative bills are supposed to be considered by the same criteria. But that’s another “right-wing extremist argument.”) Any idea worth its salt should be thrown into the arena of competing ideas and see if it survives; but the lamestream media does not see it that way. Protecting junk-science is part of the crusade to protect Obama and his followers.
Be it the Democrats’ healthcare, or the climate change crisis, if an idea is too weak to allow criticism, it is too weak to deserve the respect of us laymen.
Those who say, “The science is settled,” simply don’t want to talk about it any more.
Statistician ping!!
The Anthropogenic Global Warming folks all use the 'past 150 years' as the 'proof' that WE are causing global warming. They conveniently forget to inform their readers and listeners that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, and that our last cycle of strong cooling ended about 160 years ago. So any warming, when compared to those temperatures would look 'scary', which is what they want. Most folks don't know that the Medieval Warming period was as warm, or warmer that this most recent warming period, and they didn't have the numbers of folks that are alive now, nor did they have the evil SUV pumping out that CO2 contaminant.
Most statements from responsible people simply point out that there has been no warming since 1998 — not that a cooling trend has been established. This statistical exercise attempts to refute a claim that is very rarely made.
Nominated for Post of the Thread Award!
Of course I did!
That's why the scam artists changed the "global warming" scare to "climate change."
And since the only planet with a static climate is a dead one...
Of course this is not a conclusive test, since reliable temperature measurements by calibrated scientific instruments are only available for the last 50 years and, by definition, "climate" cannot be analyzed over infinitessimal time spans like that.
The conclusion is that a worldwide tsunami of horrificly negative change is presently based on inferences, guesswork and religious fanaticism by the most incompetent of "scientists."
How's that for another example of scam and change?
It seems to me that the less science training one has, the more likely one is to believe that “the science is settled.”
Global Warming on Free Republic
This article is classic grade-school level propaganda. As a general competence test, one might do a survey to see what percent of the population is fooled by it.
You and just about every other conservative climate change skeptic, so you're in excellent company.
Most statements from responsible people simply point out that there has been no warming since 1998 — not that a cooling trend has been established. This statistical exercise attempts to refute a claim that is very rarely made.
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
Well stated. I have studied these statistics for a long time and believe it is premature to state there is a cooling trend. Perhaps in a few years I’ll evaluate that again.
It is NOT too early to state, though, that the current data increasingly contradicts the IPCC and the GCM’s (computer models) and the likelihood of their accuracy is now less than 10%.
OK we can discard everything after this statement.
Garbage in, Garbage out. Why you Global Warming hysterics so afraid to look at the real data?
Even you pet propagandists at NASA admit warming ended in 1998, there was no “superhot” 2005. It is a myth manufactured by political propagandists to keep those fat checks flowing
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.