Key claim against global warming evaporates; Satellite, balloon data based on faulty analyses

MSNBC LiveScience ^ | August 12, 2005 | Ker Than

[cogitator]

Just change the data.

Before you step into claiming scientific fraud to support a desired result, perhaps you should read the Science papers and even ask Roy Spencer or John Christy if "changing the data" was necessary. I think, in the interest of scientific integrity, they would tell you that it was.

[been_lurking]

I don't want to over-value nature or under-value humans.

So your under-lying assumption is that "humans" are not a part of nature as evidenced by your specific separation of the two.

That admission on your part explains everything I needed to know.

[Right Wing Professor]

Climate change is evolutionarily advantageous -- in a wholly natural world. In a modified world where the modifications are predominantly human-made, nature doesn't have as many options for evolutionary change. Extinction and reduction in biodiversity is made more likely.

I agree with you. Rather than trying to wage a futile fight against global warming, IMO we should try to mitigate its effects on negatively-impacted communities, but realize on the whole it will make the earth more productive and more able to sustain life.

Of course, I'm from Nebraska, and winter will be here soon enough :-)

[cogitator]

That admission on your part explains everything I needed to know.

In my opinion, pre-technological humans existed as part of nature. Once technology kicked in (even something as simple as an oxen-drawn plow), humans had a substantial ability to modify nature in accordance with our needs, a dividing line was established between the natural and human realms. Some may not agree, but that's how I see it.

[microgood]

This reminds me of an article I read a while ago that stated the readings from the oceans sensors had been done incorrectly and they had overstated the warming by a factor of 10 or so.

[Phsstpok]

I think, in the interest of scientific integrity, they would tell you that it was.

Of course it was necessary. Their grant money would have been cut off otherwise.

In descending order of moral accountability and believability: thieves, whores, politicians, reporters for the "main stream media" and scientists paid by either industry or government grants. Statisticians are so low they don't register on the list. Folks who rely on PowerPoint presentations for their facts are below that.

[HeadOn]

Um... That is based on an ASSUMPTION that all C12 used to be C13. That may not be so - probably not, in my opinion. If not - there are a LOT of things that don't come out the way some scientists think they should.

And, no, you CAN'T measure the ratios in the atmosphere in the 1300's, unless there were some secret measuring balloons back then that I don't know about. You can CALCULATE, that is, EXTRAPOLATE (always dangerous), but you can't MEASURE.

Got no more time today. Have a nice weekend.

[Iconoclast2]

Visit www.iceagenow.com for a countervailing hypothesis.

[Alter Kaker]

What, you mean we haven't been having warmer winters? They're actually colder???

That's a specious answer. Global temperatures are indeed rising, even if local temperatures may in some cases drop. Why this is happening and what if anything we should do about it is the question. But nobody, certainly not the President, doubts that the former is happening.

[Alter Kaker]

Here is the problem, instruments on the ground read one thing and instruments 2 feet up and farther show no warming at all so, those supporting global warming are saying yes, there is global warming, the instruments and how we use them are wrong becuase they don't prove our theory.

Did you read the article? It debunks what you just wrote.