http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/160556
"CLIMATE scientists yesterday stunned Britons suffering the coldest winter for 30 years by claiming last month was the hottest January the world has ever seen.The remarkable claim, based on global satellite data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.At the height of the big freeze, the entire country was blanketed in snow. But Australian weather expert Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, said yesterday: “January, according to satellite data, was the hottest January we’ve ever seen."
Wow!.
Global warming must be real! We really need to takes some serious steps to curtail this planetary heat wave, which threatens to cover so much of the earth in snow and ice!!!
This warming trend that has brought record high global temperatures this past month, and year (indeed this past decade - even though it has been admitted by the lead 'scientist' that there has been no significant warming in the past 15 years...), and record snowfalls to so many areas on the planet, must be STOPPED!!!
The only way I can see to do it effectively is to cap CO2 emissions, or at least introduce a trade system whereby heavily polluting industries can buy 'carbon credits' from lesser polluters so they can keep pumping out their normal amounts whilst passing the costs onto the stupid consumers.
Funny, but I don't see anything about how much higher the temps were. And I don't see anything about which data was used, or how much it would cost if a private person were to try and recreate the data. Because I just did a search on my local area of San Diego. The data I wanted, from just three stations in my area, would cost me nearly $700 to obtain.
When will the madness end? We are burning up, even as we are trying so desperately to keep warm.
Our coastal cities are being flooded as we type - so 'they' say.
Nero fiddled as Rome burned. Are we doing the same?
Or, did he know something we have yet to grasp?
Maybe we simply need to live and adapt with an ever changing planet, instead of trying to be control-freaks that try to control even Mother Nature.
Well, I agree there is certainly a good amount of spin on both sides:
"Lindzen decried what he sees as the intellectual corruption that global warming alarmism has brought to climatology. He noted that many climatologists are happy to issue ambiguous statements that are then spun by activists into alarms. The result is increased funding for climate research, so no one publicly complains about the spinning. Most of the funding for climate research would not be there were it not for the global warming issue."
http://reason.com/archives/2009/03/09/among-the-global-warming-skept
yep, plenty of spin on both sides, no doubt about it.
But if you dig down past the spin on the skeptical side what do you find? This is what confuses me. I see lots of bullshit from both sides, but at least some of our bullshit is based on scientific data. What is yours based on?
I do not believe there is enough scientific data to support AGW. "No statistcially significant global warming in the past 15 yeas" is a very damning set of scientific data against AGW. There are just too many uncertainties and unknowns for anyone to pin warming on anything specific. I'm not about to hand over my freedoms without a fight because some pathological liar like Algore stands to benefit.
Gore has invested heavily in carbon-offset markets, electric vehicles, and other ventures that would profit handsomely from legislation curbing the use of fossil fuels, and is reportedly poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.’’
I agree as well that there are spins on both sides, but the spins are hardly the fault of any ambiguity from the scientific community. It is merely a result of poor reporting in the media. It definitely goes both ways. But, don't let poor media cloud your views on the actual science.
One example of poor reporting was a NY Times article I just read recently. I actually just did a search for it and found something interesting. The NY Times retracting their previous title of the article and put up a new one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html
Scroll to the bottom to see their correction where they mistakenly reported "warmest ever" instead of "warmest on record". The scientists didn't do that, media did.
I disagree with Lindzen's take on it all blaming other climatologists for what is mostly the media to blame. Also, if a scientist receives extra funding, why would he complain regardless of the reason for it? It will only allow them to further the research. Also, why is Lindzen complaining? He gets a lot of his funding from oil companies, so why is he complaining where others get their funding from and for what reasons?
Regardless of where funding comes from and why, more funding will mean more research being conducting into a field which many agree could use further development. Lindzen is just a big baby who will do anything for attention all while claiming that his own shit doesn't stink. Also, for a scientist to issue statements making claims to warrant the seperation of media and science, he surely does a good job of keeping himself in the media. I see him in the media more than any other scientist.
The media will always skew the truth a little for headlines. It doesn't matter what the headline is about, whether it is war, AGW, politics, whatever. You just have to look past the headline and do a little digging yourself once in a while.
The fact that you've thrown that quote around numerous times just shows how you have that quote just saved in your clipboard ready for pasting in any post, yet you haven't put any effort into actually understanding what was meant by it otherwise you'd know what its meaning really was.
Phil Jones merely says that the time frame that is looked at when looking at the last 15 years is not a time frame to be calling significant when it comes to looking at any sort of trend. For there to be any significance placed on a trend, you have to look at a much larger time frame. If you look at the trend that has been going on for the last 60+ years, then you'd see that warming is still occurring. The quote is taken out of context severly.
You'd be far more productive reading studies about recent warming trends as opposed to simply pasting the same quote over and over and taking it as scientific.
This may turn out to be helpful, but won't be reviewing the science itself, just the IPCC 'process'. We'll see.
Part of the problem, and a major reason skepticism is persistent, is that data & analyses from other scientific disciplines with a bearing on climate research but which are not 'climatology' are pretty much rejected out of hand, if they in any way disagree with the AGW narrative that is.
Do you believe there is 'enough' scientific data to support the theory of Evolution? How about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? What does 'enough' data look like?
And once again with the Gore fetish. Ras Algore didn't punch you and steal your icecream when you were five. He didn't evict your grandpappy and he didn't run over your dog. He didn't steal your woman or your pickup truck.
But for the sake of argument let's say Gore was deeply in Satan's biodegradeable woven hemp pocket. Let's say he is personally stealing baby polar bears from private zoos and dumping them on coffee table-sized icebergs for the manipulative photo op. Let's say he has a nefarious plan to become the Carbon King of the World and make all of us over in his footprint...
So what? Show me where that has any relevance to this discussion. He could be the ultimate evil seeking the key to hell on Earth and it wouldn't change the data set. And the data set still says things are heating up, and it's our fault.
That's not 'enough' for you to give up your personal liberties? That's odd. You had no trouble transitioning into citizens of a police state back when Posse Comitatus was dissolved, or the NSA wiretaps leaked, or the PATRIOT act passed. Where were your pages and pages of outrage then? Oh, right, all of that happened when your boy was in charge...Never mind then, I guess...
It isn't that they're rejected because of their conclusions, it is that they're rejected because of poor science. Once it is rejected though, the scientist behind it calls out that it was rejected because of filtering or "discrimination". It's like you're calling for afirmative action for climate change skeptics or something.
And here I was thinking that skepticism in society persists because of the fact that there is more skepticism among media outlets than there is among scientists.
Such as? Endocrinology? Some guy employed by the Heartland Institute? I'd love to see some links. The thing is, the stuff you give us isn't very hard to demolish - two minutes with Lady Google is all it usually takes. If you had a source that couldn't be immediately dismissed who seriously and objectively dismantled current models for AGW then I think we would have seen it by now, no?
The reason I think 'skepticism' is a poor choice of words is because I think of a skeptic as applying critical thinking to everything they look at. You take nothing as gospel, research the underlying data, and make your own conclusions.
But a guy like Schulte or Peiser comes along and all the 'skeptics' are hailing the new FNICAGW (Final Nail In the Coffin of AGW) immediately - without evidence, without further review. They are willing to take his word for it. And when he ends up being wrong, which happens quickly and very visibly, it's like that has no effect on your outlook. You still cite him, you still believe what he's saying three years later. That looks less like skepticism and more like blind faith, to me.
YMMV
Great response, really. You ignore nine year old information because a six year old monitoring system shows four years of decline. Can you find a long term application of the never existed before satellite to back up the relevance of this new discovery of something that might have always been happening and might have only happened these particular four years? Such a sound, scientific basis to decide the ice caps are melting because of CO2...
[quote]I'll stop using GISTEMP if and only if NASA GISS announces it to be unreliable. Until then it's a perfectly legitimate source.{/quote]
Because government agencies are so good at admitting their own mistakes, especially at the cost of their own funding...
Then you read the first question too. Why are you supporting AGW again? I know why Jones is, it's how he finds himself employed. You don't have such a crass excuse for your viewpoint though.
Then we should outlaw modern civilization as a whole. Second hand smoke dangers are well below background pollution levels from other sources. That increase is for living with a smoker, walking past the smoker crowd going into the grocery store isn't even a thousandth the problem. Cooking your food is more dangerous. Someone else cooking their food is more dangerous too, that power generation to run the stovetops greatly surpasses it.
Life is not risk free, taking away free will in a futile attempt to make it so will lead to a police state before you get anywhere.
See the above, your accumulation of fractions of a percent risk increases are a minor addition to modern civilization.
Where did I say home property? What is it with you commies? OMG!!! It's a business instead of a home, kill the owner!
If I own a restaurant, it's my property. Who the hell gives you the right to tell me what I can and can't do simply because you're allowed to enter my property, of your own volition, and barter for the services I'm offering, also of your own volition? You choose to shop/eat/whatever at any private business you frequent.
Lindzen works at MIT. His research is almost entirely government funded.
The periods have gaps, and warming trends predate industrialization. Jones is also taking his own information out of context. He made significant mistakes in his rationalization. His claim that solar output can't account for it is false. There are multiple proxies for measuring solar output, cosmogenic isotope production has been steadily increasing, in contrast with the sunspot record that shows a relatively flat output level for the term. You only get a flat level for solar output when you assume, and almost surely incorrectly, that sunspots are a singular aspect for determining output with no other variables.
Edit: Tard can't type...
No way will I have anything to do with that racist.
I assume that you need more than my assertion that he's a racist so here's some evidence.
Scroll to 5:35 if you want to save some time but the whole video is worth watching.
And if that is not enough then here's some more.
That's pretty funny, since it's not from Brietbart, only via.
You have a thing for not liking the messenger. I've seen those vids before. Your logic has to be pretty twisted for that to be considered 'racist' behavior.
More lately he's been on the "global warming ended 15 years ago" bandwagon.
I can be generous and stipulate that he's a credible skeptic and if so then he's simply the exception that proves the rule.
However he certainly is not without a few blemishes.
From http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen.
Lindzen has connections to both the Heartland Institute and the Cooler Heads Coalition which itself has connections to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. All of which have pro-tobacco connections, in fact Lindzen is very unapologetic in his defense of tobacco.
Finally in November 2004 he offered to bet $10,000 that the earth would be cooler in 20 years and when British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet only if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. That's certainly someone willing to put their money where their mouth is.
But OK Lindzen is most definitely a credible and respected scientist even with his warts, so who else you got?
That's enough for me.
I'm chalking it up to Mumbles logic. I was hoping to hear an off color joke or something, enabling flash for that was a total waste of time.
Edit: I will assume that O'keefe is likely a racist based on dirt digging done to take him down. I don't trust Blumenthal farther than I can throw him, but independant sourcing has verified a few too many incidents to claim he doesn't have issues. Pretending video tape record of his expose is nullified and becomes lies because of it is somewhere between dishonest and flat senile though.
The argument made by Breitbart in defense of his attendance is quite correct however. Merely attending, and the accusation that he was manning a table for racist literature is from a cropped headshot photo not showing his situation(the FBI has the original should they choose to clear up the matter by releasing it). A debate between racists and non-racists is laughable cause to call someone a racist. At best it's sloppy journalism.
Doesn't seem to take much to close your mind. But we knew that, I guess.
Ahh, the forgiveness of the modern bleeding heart liberal. Cracker freaks out in an all black dorm and he's banned from life, for life...
I suppose you'll insist indefinitely that video tape evidence is just a bunch of white lies to get rid of black people? Not that I mind really, it's sort of par for the course with you.
Edit: I have to issue a retraction...
Barring someone finding the actual journal text, I failed miserably in my attempt, I've switched sides on the racist charge. Too much is debunked or are unsubstantiated. The youtube video of him donating money to abort black babies was a hit piece on PP, it violated their ethics rules to accept the donation.
But no I believe that after three separate investigations into acorn none of which found any evidence of malfeaseance that the charges are total bullshit. The video itself has been proven to be heavily edited and in fact proven that the answers given by acorn representatives on tape are not to the questions supposedly asked on tape. There is only supposition precisely what questions they we're in fact answering.
We do know that no action was taken by any acorn representative based on anything O'Keefe and Giles did. At worst the only thing possibly wrong was in answers given to O'Keefe and Giles on camera by front line acorn people and because we have no real idea what questions were really asked even that is suspect. Even so those front line people have been let go.
There is no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing by acorn and every evidence of racism by O'Keefe.
O'Keefe's video is no less edited than the following, what does this prove?
Uh, Fox was given, and posted, the full, unedited video from at least one of them. Do you get all your information from Salon.com or something?
Come on now. Fox is not a legitimate news organization. You can't simply view the video & draw your own conclusions... not if it came from Fox.
Nothing but pointless misdirection.
From B'klyn ACORN cleared over giving illegal advice on how to hide money from prostitution
"Brooklyn prosecutors on Monday cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing after a four-month probe that began when undercover conservative activists filmed workers giving what appeared to be illegal advice on how to hide money."
"They edited the tape to meet their agenda," said the source.
From ACORN Report Finds No Illegal Conduct
The independent report, by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger finds:
"While some of the advice and counsel given by ACORN employees and volunteers was clearly inappropriate and unprofessional, we did not find a pattern of intentional, illegal conduct by ACORN staff; in fact, there is no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by any ACORN employee on behalf of the videographers."
"The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms. Giles's comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions."
From Investigation Finds ACORN Didn't Break Laws
"A report commissioned by the House Judiciary Committee found ACORN, a community organizing group heavily criticized after an undercover video surfaced, has not violated any federal regulations."
"The study by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service found that ACORN correctly used all federal dollars it received and did not improperly register any voters during last year's presidential election."
Read the full report here.
So Acorn has been totally exonerated by three separate investigations two of which specifically mentioned that the videos have been heavily edited and at least one claimed that O'Keefe had refused to release unedited versions.
So it is proven that O'Keefe intentionally lied and mislead so even if what you say is true and he relented from his former position and released the unedited video to Fox then I need a bit more proof than his (and your) bare assertion that the tapes are valid. I would need them to be certified valid by either a police or prosecutor source before I would accept anything from O'Keefe as "unedited".
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
