Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 03/04/2010 9:38:11 AM PST by astyanax
Recently, the Washington Post published an editorial, "Climate Insurance," insisting that "the Earth is warming," and that humans have been partly responsible. There are "few reputable scientists who would disagree," the paper said.
The Post was displaying its continued fealty to the official story. Nothing had changed, the paper was telling us. It would be ignoring the accumulating snowball of reports from news media around the world that have cast more and more doubt on the official theory.
A few days earlier, on a National Public Radio program in Washington, John Broder, who covers global warming for the New York Times, metaphorically raised his right hand and proclaimed his own loyalty to the warmist faith. When Diane Rehm asked him directly Broder said: "I believe there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate is warming, and that humans are responsible."
After the Post editorial appeared. I sent a letter to the paper, asking them to identify a few scientists who believe in man-made global warming and who are neither employed by government agencies, nor are members of university departments that receive climate-change grants from government agencies.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Another great item from the article:
“Singer founded the National Weather Bureau’s Satellite Service Center and was its first director. He has long insisted that only satellite temperature readings — available from 1980 onward — can be relied upon to be free of human and political bias. Global satellite readings have shown no warming throughout that 30-year period.”
Typical!
I am not interested what he thinks the concensus is (there isn't one). I am not interested whether he thinks climate is warming (it possibly is - but not much). What I am interested in is:
Is there MAN-CAUSED climate warming? (the answer is no!)
This is completely wrong. All analyses of MSU/AMSU data from satellites show warming (there are three groups that have done this, two which do it continuously, one which published a separate analysis). Even the most "conservative" group, the University of Alabama-Huntsville analysis led by Roy Spencer and John Christy, has a satellite record of low tropospheric temperatures that shows warming (their trend is currently around +0.13 deg C per decade).
How can Bethell make a statement that is so clearly wrong and so easily determined to be wrong? I'll have to ponder that.
Bethell made a typical error of someone writing to make rhetorical points and not really interested in the accuracy of his scientific interpretations.
If the first two decades show no warming, how does El Nino justify 3 decades of +.13degC/decade?
Fixes in data and analysis?
Isn’t that how they got into trouble in the first place?
I’ll stick with the raw data.
And to be perfectly clear, I’m not concerned with our planet warming (or cooling.)
It has done both for billions of years.
My issue is with people claiming that the cause can be attributed to man (of which there is ZERO evidence) and using that claim to push their agenda.
The 1997-1998 El Nino was so big that it yanked (statistically) the uncertain trend upward. Even despite the ensuing cool La Nina, the subsequent warmer years maintained the established trend.
Here's the current data.
Fixes in data and analysis?
In part, yes, Spencer and Christy had to fix some things. This also helped increase their reported trend.
Isn’t that how they got into trouble in the first place?
I think you're thinking of a different group. Spencer and Christy are notable skeptics with true scientific credentials (which forces them to admit some non-skeptically-aligned things at times).
I’ll stick with the raw data.
Whatever works for you.
I'll ask you what I've asked a few others: why is the stratosphere cooling? It's not hard to find out.
a.k.a. "reputable."
Do us a favor and crawl back into your hole.
It's not and wasn't meant to be an argument in favor of AGW. It was meant to show that someone arguing against AGW made a big, easily shown and easily correctable error. To make an argument for AGW, you combine observational data with climate models that allow the determination of climate forcing factors, and what emerges from this analysis is the most important climate forcing factors.
Facts work for me. And when it comes to AGW, they're not there.
Feel free to think you're correct.
If what I know to be true and accurate bothers you, don't read it.
The problem is that hardly anything you say about AGW is “true or accurate”. That is what bothers me. You are nothing but a shill for those who would tax all of us for an outright lie.
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.