Posted on 12/28/2007 12:40:59 PM PST by neverdem
So, let me get this straight. Global warming enthusiasts claim that the globe will warm as concentrations of CO2 increase. Such concentrations have increased during the 67 years since 1940. During that same period, the globe cooled for 38 years (1940-1978), neither warmed nor cooled for 7 years (2000-2007), and warmed for 22 years (1978-2000). How exactly does this data support the global warming hypothesis?
I totally agree with you. There is enough there for conservatives to agree upon, without engaging in the hysterics and hyperbolics of the Left. Its a shame really.
You are kidding? AGW is strictly a political, money grabbing scheme. Gore, the frauds at realClimate and all those pushing AGW are out to destroy what's left of our capitalist system and get rich doing it. The MSM is relentless in brainwashing the masses. The Earth is fine and all that we need to do is "adapt" to any "natural" changes that are occurring. I am sorry you drank the koolaide of the AGW Stalinists.
One more thing.. Biased, left-wing scientists in academia had better come to grips with their bias or they are going to start making creationists look good.
Your credibility suffers by your use of such sources.
I like it!
Well, with his monthly utility bill, whew, he needs the dough.
The conservative movement *has* come to grips with AGW, determined that it is mostly a bunch of hooey, and is waiting for the inevitable acceptance of the fact that the flat-Earthers-—indeed, the spawn of the lovelies who treated Galileo so well-—are the Branch Algorians.
The same is true of cover photos of some “happy” celebrity couple, with the title of the article declaring this-—THIS-—is The Hollywood marriage that is working.
It’s always Splitsville a few months later.
No the end of global warming like a reduction in oil prices will only come when Hillary is elected. (sarcasm)
We all agree on being good stewards of the environment. But that is a completely separate issue from the wholly political agenda of AGW.
Since I am a cattle farmer, I had been led to believe the COWS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING. Glad to know I’m not to blame after all.
tight lines
right turns
Caddis
Even stipulating your article's complaints about cherry picking statistics; prior to any statistical analysis, some type of error analysis must be done on the data. The increases talked about are on the order of 1/10 C. That implies that the initial measurements had to have been made with at least that precision. The dirty little secret is that as the data goes back in time, the precision of the initial measurements degrades considerably. Your reference even admits that 1978 was the year that troposheric temperature data from satellites began being collected. There is no mention however of the effect of this change on the precision of the data that is being statistically analyzed. As one of the following posters says, the liberal scientist will join the flat earth society if they keep abstracting from rigorous scientific principles.
See the following: 400 Scientists doubt climate change.
100 Scientists appeal to the UN to not fight global warming.
List of 100 scientists, their degree and expertise.
You sound like a really nice guy but not up to the task on this issue.
"A high school dropout, ABD in streetlife, I've been self employed since my early twenties. Previous to my current business I made my living as an electron cop (I owned a company which specialized in specing and installing data comm products for large corporations). In "retierment" I started a Home Inspection business, I also purchase and rehab residential and investment properties. Like many self-educated people my opinions are rooted in wide and eclectic reading, filtered through a basically anecdotal approach to understanding life, and bobby-trapped with various surprising gaps in my knowledge.
“and uses the totally debunked “hockey-stick” graphics...”
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646
According to whom?
Speaking of cherry picking data... From Canada's National Post, Published: Monday, August 13, 2007.
Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were.
A little less than a decade ago, the U.S. government changed the way it recorded temperatures. No one thought to correlate the new temperatures with the old ones, though -- no one until Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre, that is.
McIntyre has become the bane of many warmers' religious-like belief in climate catastrophe. In 2003, along with economist Ross McKitrick, McIntyre demolished the Mann "hockey stick" --a graph that showed stable temperatures for 1,000 years, then shooting up dangerously in the last half of the 20th Century.
The graph was used prominently by the UN and nearly every major eco lobby. But McIntyre and McKitrick demonstrated it was based on incomplete and inaccurate data.
To NASA's credit, when McIntyre pointed out their temperature errors they quickly made corrections.
Still, the pro-warmers who dominate the Goddard Institute almost certainly recognized the impacts these changes would have on the global-warming debate, because they made no formal announcement of their recalculations.
In many cases, the changes are statistically minor, but their potential impact on the rhetoric surrounding global warming is huge.
The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.
Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.
The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.
In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.
Read it and weep, turkey.
G A S P ! ! ! !
Nobody saw this coming!!!!!!
(And you can be sure of the seriousness of my reply by the liberal use of exclamation marks.)
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.