Posted on 08/12/2005 8:20:24 AM PDT by cogitator
For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.
Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.
The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.
...
Argument evaporates
According to Santer, the only group to previously analyze satellite data on the troposphere -- the lowest layer in Earth's atmosphere -- was a research team headed by Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in 1992.
"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more accurate."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
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.
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.
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 :-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Visit www.iceagenow.com for a countervailing hypothesis.
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.
Did you read the article? It debunks what you just wrote.
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.