Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Catastrophic Global Warming Myth
Capitalism Magazine ^ | Aug 16, 2002 | Steven Brockerman

Posted on 08/16/2002 1:49:55 PM PDT by The Raven

Last month, the Bush White House, citing a “new” study, revisited its position on global warming. The media went into a feeding frenzy and, like an e-mail scam that won’t die, the global warming debate has again been resuscitated. Unfortunately, the “new” study is based on the same old studies – chief among them the 1996 IPCC ‘s “Summary for Policy Makers” -- whose conclusions rest on three fallacious claims:

1) Based on historical weather data, average global temperatures have risen dramatically in the latter half of the 20th Century.

2) Scientific research indicates that the cause of such rising temperatures is man made.

3) There is a consensus among scientists supporting both claims.

The first claim – that global temperatures have risen dramatically since 1940 – finds its source in the

approximately 100 year-old temperature record of the National Weather Service. According to the NASA report, Global Climate Monitoring: The Accuracy of Satellite Data, though, the NWS record is based strictly on surface temperature readings. When weather balloon and satellite records are examined one finds temperatures either stayed the same or actually declined by as much as 1 degree F during that period.

What if we step outside the NWS box?

Data extrapolated from tree ring, ice core and lake sediment indicate that in the 18th Century the average world sea and surface temperatures were 71 degrees F. Climatologists refer to this period as “The Little Ice Age.” Such data also show that in 1000 BCE the average global temperature was over 25 degrees Celsius or 77 degrees F. By comparison, the average global temperature in 1999 was 73.5 degrees F. The conclusion to reach about the claim of dramatically rising global temperatures in the latter half of the 20th Century is clear. First, it depends on where you stick your thermometer, on the surface, (whose reading will be highly inaccurate due to urban hot spots) or in the atmosphere (the most accurate readings). Second, the significance of the data depend upon the historical climate record of the planet. Here, as with any kind of scientific data, context and perspective is everything.

Of the second claim, that the cause of global warming is man-made, environmental activists point to the correlation between recent global industrialization and the sweltering summers of 1998 and 1999. A correlation, though, is not proof of cause. If global industrialization were the cause of planetary warming, the satellite and balloon temperature record from 1940 to 1980 – a period of far greater worldwide

industrialization – would show a marked increase in average global temperatures, which it does not. Indeed, such data show temperatures declining.

A cause and effect relationship, though, has been discovered between solar activity and global temperatures. Danish climatologists Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen (in the 1991 issue of Science) and Douglas V. Hoyt and Dr. Kenneth H. Schatten (in their book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change) found that “global temperature variations during the past century are virtually all due to the variations in solar activity.”

What about carbon dioxide levels? Scientists have found that past carbon dioxide levels, based, again, on historical and pre-historical tree ring, ice core and lake sediment samples, have changed significantly without human influence. Note, too, that between 1940 and 1980, when man-made levels of CO2 swelled rapidly, there was a decline in temperatures.

If scientific temperature records belie global warming; if scientists conclude that global temperatures are minimally affected by man; where, then, is scientific consensus – the third claim supporting the notion of global warming? The answer is: there isn’t any.

In 1996 the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the IPCC -- released a document titled, “Summary for Policy Makers,” which supported the notion of global warming. Environmentalists crowed that 15,000 scientists had signed the document.

However, the report was doctored without the knowledge of most of those 15,000 scientists, whose protests became so vocal that the lead authors backed off their conclusions, disavowing the document as “a political tract, not a scientific report.”

In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed the Oregon Petition, which declares, in part: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. ”

In 1999 over ten thousand of the world’s most renowned climatologists, astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter by Frederick Seitz, NAS Past President, that states, in part: the Kyoto Accord is “based upon flawed ideas.”

Finally, in a paper in June of 2001, aptly titled, GLOBAL WARMING: The Press Gets It Wrong – our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens.”

In light of these facts, if the continual resurrection of the issue of global warming in the media is not a consummate example of the Big Lie, I’d be hard pressed to find a better one.

--Steven Brockerman is an assistant editor for Capitalism Magazine, www.capitalismmagazine.com


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: globalwarminghoax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
The disaster will be the cost. Incredible cost. Never before seen costs.

And for insurance (since they aren't positive).

1 posted on 08/16/2002 1:49:55 PM PDT by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Raven
The weather is changing but I would just call it global extreme temperatures. Most of the year was very cold and this summer has been very hot.
2 posted on 08/16/2002 1:51:40 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Good summary.
3 posted on 08/16/2002 1:55:44 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weikel
LINK

"This temperature update presents the NASA satellite measurements of monthly temperature anomalies—the difference between the observed values and the 1979–1998 mean values. Global satellite measurements are made from a series of orbiting platforms that sense the average temperature in various atmospheric layers. Here, we present the lowest level, which matches nearly perfectly with the mean temperatures measured by weather balloons in the layer between 5,000 and 28,000 feet. The satellite measurements are considered accurate to within 0.01 deg C and provide more uniform coverage of the entire globe than surface measurements, which tend to concentrate over land.

"June 2002: The global average temperature departure was 0.20 deg C; the Northern Hemisphere temperature departure was 0.217 deg C; and the Southern Hemisphere departure was 0.183 deg C.

"Below: Monthly satellite temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere (top) and Southern Hemisphere (bottom). Trend lines indicate statistically significant changes only.


4 posted on 08/16/2002 1:56:45 PM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: *Global Warming Hoax
Index Bump
5 posted on 08/16/2002 1:58:57 PM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: weikel
The weather is changing

It never hasn’t been.

6 posted on 08/16/2002 2:05:28 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
“global temperature variations during the past century are virtually all due to the variations in solar activity.”

The Sun causes temperatures on Earth to increase? Who'd a thunk it?

All this time, I thought it was my SUV that caused the seasons to change.

7 posted on 08/16/2002 2:08:47 PM PDT by 07055
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
Your right I don't think its due to anything men have done either but I must say I don't like the changes. It was like the artic most of the year and now it feels like Louisana here.
8 posted on 08/16/2002 2:09:53 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Whitehouse CEQ Tightens Control over EPA Science Policy(#4)
9 posted on 08/16/2002 2:18:54 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
BUMP
10 posted on 08/16/2002 2:22:37 PM PDT by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
The global warming debate continues, without fail, every summer. Go figure.
11 posted on 08/16/2002 2:25:33 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
POLAR AERONOMY AND RADIO SCIENCE(PARS) ULF/ELF/VLF PROJECT.

STAR Labatory,Stanford University. PROBING with HARRP.

read what this does to global warming!
12 posted on 08/16/2002 2:29:18 PM PDT by BossyRoofer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
It never hasn’t been.

Yes, but when wasn't it ever?

13 posted on 08/16/2002 2:33:56 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: weikel
I must say I don't like the changes.

I know what you mean. This afternoon, we had a thunderstorm in my neck of New Jersey.

I was very scared, as I couldn’t recall moisture falling from the sky like that.

Somebody told me they call it rain. My dirt-lawn will be thrilled to see it.

14 posted on 08/16/2002 2:34:09 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: boris
Unless I need new glasses, the upper graph shows clearly that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have been rising steadily.

The cause of this phenomenon is something else entirely. At this point, anyone who tells me with the air of certainty that man-made emissions are the culprit, will be considered a charlatan.

However, they cannot be ruled out either. But crippling industry (Kyoto) should not be done before convincing evidence is in, and before a cost-benefits analysis is conducted. The cure might still turn out to be worse than the disease.

15 posted on 08/16/2002 2:34:29 PM PDT by tictoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Yes, but when wasn't it ever?

It never wasn’t never ever.

16 posted on 08/16/2002 2:35:24 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: boris
I think if this data was matched to the 11-year sunspot cycle,
the result would be a much better match than to the shown
straight line.
17 posted on 08/16/2002 2:44:23 PM PDT by slowhandluke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
The enviro's were hoping to secure treaties, legislation and control of most everything before enough time went by for the flawed science to be apparent.

The idea is to present political dogma as "scientific" fact. If enough poitico/pseudo-scientists agree then the rest better fall inline - if they value a career and credibility.

It's been done for a century with pronounced effects on our society. If you can get just one generation to accept enviro-whaco theories.....
18 posted on 08/16/2002 2:53:09 PM PDT by martian_22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
I read a story that said that the hole in the ozone layer was reported long before freon was invented and those liars @ the EPA convinced us to change.What's in it for the EPA with this again another lie about a global warming trend?A
political and financial gain for those in EPa seems to be a certain reality>one thing is for sure,you can't get all those climatologists to agree that a warming trend is going on.
19 posted on 08/16/2002 3:17:44 PM PDT by borntofly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tictoc
Unless I need new glasses, the upper graph shows clearly that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have been rising steadily.

Don't sweat it. Those charts are utterly meaningless. They show temperature variations over a 23 year period. The Earth has been experiencing "weather" for billions of years.

23 years isn't a sample set...it's a data point. Statistically worthless.

20 posted on 08/16/2002 4:05:42 PM PDT by 10mm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 10mm
BUMP
21 posted on 08/16/2002 4:41:02 PM PDT by RudeJude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke
>>I think if this data was matched to the 11-year sunspot cycle, the result would be a much better

The errors in the models they use have large variances due to the sun's brightness. The effect is larger than the effect they are trying to measure...the effect of CO2.

22 posted on 08/16/2002 4:41:44 PM PDT by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: borntofly
Personally I'm still trying to figure out how a chemical that is heavier than air (freon) is getting up into the ozone layer in the first place.

sparky
23 posted on 08/16/2002 4:45:35 PM PDT by sparkydragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
The conclusion to reach about the claim of dramatically rising global temperatures in the latter half of the 20th Century is clear. First, it depends on where you stick your thermometer...

I think I know where Gore stuck his thermometer.

24 posted on 08/16/2002 4:46:57 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: boris
Am I seeing things or is it cycling???
25 posted on 08/16/2002 4:49:46 PM PDT by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: weikel
In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed the Oregon Petition, which declares, in part: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. ”

They didn't take into account the body heat level of booing fire fighters and police when they see Hellery. Causes a hot day every time.

26 posted on 08/16/2002 4:50:44 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: boris
Ok. Anomoly. That is pretty vague. What's the average temperature? I mean, I know they are trying to say now that any change is because of cars. Even cold weather is America's fault now, for goodness sakes. Is that what anomoly stands for, in this instance?
27 posted on 08/16/2002 4:57:41 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Looks like it cycles every four years (elections?). Could it be liberal tampered data?
28 posted on 08/16/2002 4:59:14 PM PDT by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Clinton tampered with the ground-based data. [for example, measuring water temperatures by the bilge water temperature in the ships.] As for the space based data, that I haven't heard. It would be more difficult to tamper with space based data. It's more cut-and-dry. However, if Bubba can tamper with economic figures, making the economy appear 30% better than it really is, then I'm sure he could have tampered with this. I doubt, however, that Carter would have promoted global warming. If I'm not mistaken, they were still talking about an ice age in '79.

One thing that bugs me, there is no clear meaning to what kind of anomalies are being charted. I guess it means temperature deviations. It almost looks like this chart was made to trick people into thinking that the temperature was going up.

29 posted on 08/16/2002 5:22:07 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
I think I know where Gore stuck his thermometer.

And we don't even have to think about where the Sinkmiester stuck his, nor do we really want to.

30 posted on 08/16/2002 5:27:50 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Hm.... anomalies went way down at the end of the Bush [Sr] administration. Our space technology was getting pretty good right about then. Then it really starts going up, even though our technology is supposed to be getting better.... and shoots down during the '96 election. Clinton didn't need the global warming issue, really. Then it spikes at the end of 98. Could that be related to the Kyoto Treaty? Very clever hypothesis you have there. Freegards....
31 posted on 08/16/2002 5:27:53 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: borntofly
I read an article during the change of freon composition that stated that Dupont held the patent on the old style and it was about to expire. It said Dupont spent untold millions lobbying for the new style....which they just happened to hold the patent for. Coincednce....?
32 posted on 08/16/2002 5:29:57 PM PDT by kissoldspot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Sinkmiester-- LOL! A man a head of his time, and a new hairdoo every month. Literally a jerk.
33 posted on 08/16/2002 5:31:42 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Even cold weather is America's fault now, for goodness sakes.

Yes, when we have a hot day---its because of greenhouse gases causing global warming.

When we have a cold day---its global warming too because greenhouse gases have "made the weather unstable."

Since when has the weather ever been stable? (unless you live in San Diego).

34 posted on 08/16/2002 5:34:09 PM PDT by 07055
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kissoldspot
Speaking of Dupont, just imagine the power they have now. They determine when their plastic items deteriorate. Car parts, as a very annoying example. Everyone's alternator corrodes now. Hoses corroding. It's driving a frugal guy nuts! How DARE they decide that car parts should deteriorate so fast. Then again, how easy would it be to stop them?
35 posted on 08/16/2002 5:35:33 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 07055
Those Euro-Peons think that their floods are OUR fault. "The US is flooding us." Oh? My cheap gas making them mad, huh? I think I'll go for a long drive this weekend. Real long drive, in a gas guzzling monster SUV. [Wish I owned one.]
36 posted on 08/16/2002 5:39:36 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Read the real truth about enviromentalist whackoisms

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
by Bjorn Lomborg (Author)


see larger photo
List Price: $28.00
Our Price: $19.60
You Save: $8.40 (30%)

  Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $49. See details.

Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours

Edition: Paperback | All Editions

THIS BOOK IS GREAT IF YA WANNA LEARN THE REAL STATS AND REAL MYTHS ABOUT THE ENVIROMENT

37 posted on 08/16/2002 5:44:08 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Before the terrible events of Sept. 11 nudged our national mood towards nouveau-earnestness, skepticism was the disposition of the day. Bred in the swamps of transparent consumer manipulation, untrustworthy political leaders, and information overload, skepticism stamped a permanent question mark onto the brows of Generation X and seemed poised to become the watchword of our nation.

The cultural tides may have turned somewhat in recent months, but skepticism remains central to our national character. In the opinion of Grist Magazine, that's a good thing: No mind should be above changing, and no precept should be protected from scrutiny. Hence this special issue on Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Lomborg, an associate professor of statistics at Denmark's University of Aarhus, applies the doctrine of doubt to environmentalism and concludes that most of the movement's sacred cows are, to put it bluntly, bull:

We will not lose our forests; we will not run out of energy, raw materials, or water. We have reduced atmospheric pollution in the cities of the developed world and have good reason to believe that this will also be achieved in the developing world. Our oceans have not been defiled, our rivers have become cleaner and support more life. ... Nor is waste a particularly big problem. ... The problem of the ozone layer has been more or less solved. The current outlook on the development of global warming does not indicate a catastrophe. ... And, finally, our chemical worries and fear of pesticides are misplaced and counterproductive.

Lomborg claims that these and other worries are "phantom problems" created or inflated by the environmental movement for its own ends, with the result that time and money are diverted from other, needier causes.

That is a serious charge, and as such it must be taken seriously. To date, the mainstream media have done just that -- but they have also taken the book at face value, with little or no critical analysis. A Washington Post reviewer raved about its "magnificent achievement"; the New York Times, the Economist, and others were equally gushing.

Grist wondered how the book would hold up under more rigorous scrutiny, and asked respected scientists and leaders in their fields to address the allegations in The Skeptical Environmentalist. By bringing a healthy dose of skepticism to Lomborg's own claims, the resulting compilation fights fire with fire; we leave it to our readers to determine who gets flambeed.

38 posted on 08/16/2002 5:55:22 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: kissoldspot
. Coincednce....?

Is it also a coincidence that I could buy the old Freon for $.99 a can at the discount stores in the 1980's, and the replacement stuff costs over $6 now? I know inflation made up some of that increase, but not 600%.

However, I think Dupont invented Freon way back in the 1920's, so I doubt it still had a patent in force. Personally, I think the anti-Freon campaign was just another scam (big lie) put out by the eco-freak community. Real dyed-in-the-wool eco-freaks don't want anyone to have A/C, cars, outboard motors, lawn mowers, barbecue grills, or probably even heated homes. I believe they are also responsible for the non-existent "global warming" scam. There have been temperature variations throughout all of Earth's history, many of them were far, far, larger than this one. If there really is one that is.

The eco-freaks can have my air-conditioned pickup when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

39 posted on 08/16/2002 6:24:20 PM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: sparkydragon
It's carbon released from the chlorofluorocarbons (CFC, a.k.a. freon) that reacts with ozone (O3, as opposed to normal O2 oxygen). If freon stayed together, it wouldn't get into the ozone layer, but it doesn't stay together.

For a rebuttal of this theory, see http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1994/vo10no23.htm

41 posted on 08/16/2002 7:59:47 PM PDT by dagny taggert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dagny taggert
Carbon or chlorine?

sparky
42 posted on 08/16/2002 8:57:12 PM PDT by sparkydragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sparkydragon
In my a/c classes it was stated that it was the chlorine that broke out of the combination and then migrated into the upper atmosphere and combined with O3 that produces the harmful effects. I never bought the argument in class and I always asked for supporting data but all I got was politically correct regurgitation.
I'm still leaning toward the theory that Du pont's patents were running out and it positioned them to sink R-12 as a bad gas and environmentally unsafe. The garbage I'm having to use now instead of R-12 is more unstable, more toxic and operates at much higher pressures, making things alot more interesting when things go wrong. If you doubt my conclusions get a copy of some of the ASHREA engineering data and read the charts and accompanying technical data on the gases and draw your own conclusions.
43 posted on 08/16/2002 11:04:19 PM PDT by mark the shark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
One thing I never hear about is the self-regulating temperature method of Mother Nature.

If the earth heats up, more water is evaporated, creating clouds and the earth cools.(remember the "nuclear winter" scenario?) Once the temperature reaches some happy medium, the clouds dissipate, and the earth warms. To me, this explains the temperature cycles seen in the small amount of historical data that does exist.

Simple physics will react to any intervention man could create.

44 posted on 08/17/2002 12:51:32 AM PDT by wcbtinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
I'm reading this book now. One interesting comment is that the Kyota treaty when implemented, delays by only 4 years the same result as doing nothing.

But aside from that --- getting back to the sun.....there are obvious cycles in the data......I couldn't find if the climate folks have the sun's cycles in their models. Here's an explanation, however, I found on the sun:

"...The sun experiences magnetic cycles that last 22 years, during which the sun reaches peak brightness and then swings back to a dimmer state. Baliunas also points out that, "The length of the magnetic cycle is closely related to its amplitude; thus the sun should be brightest when the sunspot cycle is short."

According to Baliunas, "Changes in the length of the magnetic cycle and in Northern Hemisphere land temperatures are closely correlated over three centuries." She also argues that if the data are correct, "Changes in the sunspot cycle would explain average temperature change of about 0.5 degrees C in the past 100 years."

45 posted on 08/17/2002 2:35:56 AM PDT by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
I don't remember Clinton/Gore sending any Global Warming treaties to Congress since the initial 99-0 defeat in the Senate. And then, after they're out of office, we hear that it was too expensive. That doesn't stop them from blaming 'Pubs, however.
46 posted on 08/17/2002 2:45:09 AM PDT by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sparkydragon
Ack! I even looked it up to make sure I didn't mis-remember, and I got it wrong anyway! Yes, I meant chlorine. Sorry.
47 posted on 08/17/2002 7:18:04 AM PDT by dagny taggert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mark the shark
I probably wouldn't be too suprosed to find out you were right. I'd certainly believe that most of the enviornmental policy had more to do with someone's self interest rather than altruism.

sparky
48 posted on 08/17/2002 11:41:57 AM PDT by sparkydragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
"What's the average temperature? I mean"

A play on words? You can use the mean to 'mean' "pretty much the average". The two terms--mathematically--are not identical, but "close enough". They are using the "mean" temperature.

The mean is that temperature below which 50% of the sampled temperatures will occur and above which 50% of the sampled temperatures will occur.

--Boris

49 posted on 08/18/2002 11:49:15 AM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tictoc
"Unless I need new glasses, the upper graph shows clearly that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have been rising steadily."

This is true. They used to plot this data against the predictions of the warming doomsayers, using computer programs. The prediction is that we should all be roasting by now. For some reason, they no longer show the prediction alongside the data.

The moderate warming is wholly assignable to an equally-moderate increase in the "Solar Constant", i.e., the output power of the Sun, which has been gently rising for several human lifetimes.

--Boris

50 posted on 08/18/2002 12:13:32 PM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson