Posted on 05/02/2006 4:59:30 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Thick pollution obscures the sky over Beijing in a November 2005 satellite image. Greenhouse gases -- the heat-trapping chemicals linked to global warming -- continued to increase steadily in 2005, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported on Monday. (NASA/Handout/Reuters)
I'm skeptical -- can you spell "fudge"?
It was probably even warmer about 1100 A.D. or so.
Pretty smoggy over China. Thank goodness Kyoto doesn't exempt them.
Man, this is right out of 1984.
Grant dollar$ are at stake here.
(George Soros says "Find some global warming or get in the unemployment line")
|
|
I've also heard Leon Trotsky died of natural causes... |
"This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected,"
If the thermometer mismatches with the model, the thermometer need be adjusted!
LOL. Probably did it with some statisticsology.
Nope, I will continue to drive my car.
"But while temperature readings at the surface showed this increase, readings in the atmosphere taken by satellites and radiosondes — instruments carried by weather balloons — had shown little or no warming."
Hmm...how much of those surface readings were taken in growing urban areas?
... as the last team of skeptical atmospheric researchers has been found and threatened into silence.
I wonder to what extent the referenced scientists considered our Molten Core, the Earths Magnetic Field, the Moon, Sunspots (or Solar activity) and the timing of the Solar activity, and our orbital relationship to the Sun. I personally believe that Mankind has no measurable comparable impact on the changing climate of the Earth. I wonder to what extent the scientists have a vested interest in man causing climate change; especially those engaged in free enterprise, in contrast to those who practice biomass burning and crude manufacturing, etc.? I remain skeptical.
It seems the reporter has no clue what the story really is! "They did something, but I didn't understand what!"
And Colbert had the gall to imply that the media doesn't push catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming.
Yeah, it's easier to recalibrate the thermometer than to put fudge factors in the models.
Mighty, mighty positive statements there about identifying the effect of SUV's and the rest of man's sinful actions.
I think there is some desperation now about keeping the gravy train rolling.
If I had their billions in grant money to spend, I could certainly have come up with some more convincing "global warming" than what they've done so far.
Most of them are at airports, at the edge of growing cities, prone to even faster urban warming than if they were downtown.
50 years, that is an astonishing number for a planet that has only been here for 6 billion years.
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.
