Palin: Global Warming Not Man-Made
Global warming on Free Republic
Posted on 08/29/2008 9:51:54 PM PDT by FocusNexus
In an interview for the September issue of the conservative magazine Newsmax, Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, said she does not believe climate change is caused by human behavior.
"A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made," Palin said in the interview, which was posted online Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
Palin: Global Warming Not Man-Made
Global warming on Free Republic
Good point, especially #2
If she lives up to our hopes, the news is even better. McCain has said if he is elected, he will not run for reelection in 2012, so she possibly could be running in 2012.
Long way to go between now and then, of course.
Both aspects of your characterization of reality are wildly inaccurate.
Yep.
Increased food production and liberals get a bath.
A perfect storm!
The article you linked uses such pejorative phrases as "climate-change deniers" to invoke images such as Holocaust deniers. The fact is that there is no consensus among scientists on the data and that is not the way science and the scientific method works. At one time, the consensus among scientists was that the earth was flat and the center of the solar system. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. Who the Hell is Michael Le Page and the "New Scientist Environment?
“The reality is that the earth has not warmed since 1998 and even the global warming nuts acknowledge that we are going to have a cooling trend thru 2015.”
The reality is that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Yes, there are natural variations in temperature, and El Nino likely contributed to 1998’s record heat, just as other natural oscillations have reversed that trend. But overall, natural variation is being overidden by something else, and that something is man-made. The trend toward increasing warming HAS NOT STOPPED. See:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
for example.
I realize that this is not a politically correct opinion within this group, which allows nonsense such as “how could ‘Ice Road Truckers’ be filmed if there was really global warming?” to go unchallenged, but conservatives need to wake up and start doing something about this problem instead of ceding it to the liberals and their big government solutions.
Newbie, you are barking up the wrong tree. There are plenty of charts and data that refute your contention. And the question is: What is causing the "warming" and can man control climate change? And what constitutes a trend in terms of global climate change?
In the 1970's, the consensus of scientists was that we were headed into a new ice age. You have no idea what you are talking about.
One of the talking heads on today’s talk shows said something similar: “Sarah Palin is like opening the door to DC to let some fresh Alaska air in.”
nice
Even though increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a factor that will contribute to increasing global temperatures, the Earth's climate is complex and there are ways it can cool -- changing cloud cover and ocean circulation being two ways. The perception of a "precipitous" decline is based on starting at a high point -- an El Nino year in 1998 -- and the current end point, a year influenced by a strong La Nina. The oceans are a significant enough factor that you can have such swings even with increasing atmospheric CO2.
I thought of a general analogy (people always nitpick analogies, but I stupidly keep trying). Imagine a baseball player with a career .250 average. In spring training, the hitting coach helps him make an adjustment. In the first month of the season, the player hits .315. The next month, .330. The next month, .299. Then he has a bad month and hits .225. He gets it back a bit and in the next two months hits .275. and .290.
So his year (by month) was .315, .330, .299, .225, .275, .290.
Questions: 1. Is he a better hitter this year than for his career? 2. During his bad month and his decline from .330 to .225, would you say he was a better or worse hitter than for his career? 3. Do you think one season is sufficient to really evaluate if he's a better hitter than before the adjustment was made? (The motivation behind this analogy is that in a complex system -- and hitting a baseball in competition has a lot of associated variables -- it is very possible to have a longer-term increasing trend with periods of decrease. To really evaluate the direction of the trend, it's necessary to have long-term data, and when analyzing the data, it's necessary to be aware of potential biasing factors.)
Here's another article, perhaps less pejorative, and from scientists. These scientists do have a clear POV, but this particular subject has generated a lot of discussion, so there's a lot out there.
Waiting for Global Cooling (PDF)
I'm currently very curious about the quietude of the Sun. This might influence temperatures globally if it continues, i.e. if the new solar cycle doesn't get going and the Sun actually enters into a new sunspot minimum period. However, I've predicted before here on FR that the next year with an average or bigger El Nino will set a new global temperature record, and I stand by that prediction no matter what the Sun does over the next few years. I even predict that there will be a new global temperature record by 2013 even if there isn't an El Nino year between now and then, but I think the odds are that there will be an El Nino year by then.
I have a bit about models in my profile, if you care to take a look.
There is more that we could discuss but I'd rather leave it at this for now.
1. Is he a better hitter this year than for his career?
In the real world, his batting average would be determined by his at bats and hits. You can't add up the months to get his annual average without assuming that he had the same number of official at bats each month. It is a running average, which is why we have the batter's up to date average on a daily basis. That aside, just to stay with the analogy, he had an above average career year, i.e, .289. Depending on the length of his career, this year could have a major impact on his career batting average, e.g., this is his second year in the league.
During his bad month and his decline from .330 to .225, would you say he was a better or worse hitter than for his career?
I wouldn't make such an assumption. You don't make such assumptions without more data. He could have been injured, had fewer at bats, or was in slump. I notice from your example that during the first three months, his average was .315, .330, and .299. What happens if he produces similar numbers for the rest of the season and does it again next season? Is the second season also an anomoly? Is past performance an indicator of future performance?
Do you think one season is sufficient to really evaluate if he's a better hitter than before the adjustment was made? (The motivation behind this analogy is that in a complex system -- and hitting a baseball in competition has a lot of associated variables -- it is very possible to have a longer-term increasing trend with periods of decrease. To really evaluate the direction of the trend, it's necessary to have long-term data, and when analyzing the data, it's necessary to be aware of potential biasing factors.)
All analogies breakdown after awhile. Using your analogy, what if the player's career spanned several billion years? And he had a history of flucuating batting averages so that every 11,000 years or so he would go into prolonged slumps or go on a hitting tear. However, we didn't have good records for most of his career and had to depend on some very old, poorly kept records, i.e, the only really accurate records just spanned 11,000 years to the present. We also know that there are hundreds of variables that affect his hitting and that his current batting average marks niether his highest or lowest average.
Can we predict what his average will be next year or for the next 11,000 years? And how useful is the career average in predicting it.
In the 1970s, the "scientific consensus" {an oxymoron] was that we were heading into a prolonged period of cooling. Now it is global warming and climate change, which is disputed by many reputable scientists who disagree with the models and the assumptions. The earth's climate has always been cooling or warming. It is a natural cycle.
Questions: How long must the earth continue to cool before it is accepted as a trend? Do you disagree with the data that show the earth is cooling and has been since 2001?
However, I've predicted before here on FR that the next year with an average or bigger El Nino will set a new global temperature record, and I stand by that prediction no matter what the Sun does over the next few years. I even predict that there will be a new global temperature record by 2013 even if there isn't an El Nino year between now and then, but I think the odds are that there will be an El Nino year by then.
LOL. You have enough El Nino qualifiers to cover all the bases. I predict that we will have a very cold winter this year and the earth will continue to cool for the next 10 years.
The comment I responded to, however, was based on this general number. You said, "The reality is that the Earth has not warmed since 1998". Your comment is based on just looking at the annual global temperature values! (Except for the endpoint, which is only a partial year at this point). The links I provided attempt to demonstrate the potential errors of that overly simple approach. However, I thought of a better (and simpler) baseball player analogy.
Our guy has a career average of .250 his first five years in the league. (Never over .270, never under .230). He makes the spring training adjustment, and because pitchers haven't compensated, he has a career year: .330. Over the next four years, his season averages are .310, .300, .329, and .300. Then, starting the current season, he has some sort of problem. We don't know what is. All we know is that his average in the first two months of the season is .225.
In the manner that the "global cooling" trend argument is being made, someone might say that the player has experienced a "precipitous decline" in batting average from the career year to the first two months of the current season, because he hit .330 and now he's hitting .225.
Given what he's accomplished over the previous five years, it would be IMO premature to say that he's really in precipitous decline. I hope you can see why it would be inaccurate to judge his batting average trend starting with the career year and ending with the current slump -- because that ignores his consistently higher average over the previous five years, and also ignores the fact that the year isn't over yet! (Granted, this is going to be a cool year and we know why; similarly we might know that the player is hurt and might not get better over the whole season. So we'd at least have to wait until next year when he's hopefully "normal" to get a better sense of where he is, batting-wise.)
So:
How long must the earth continue to cool before it is accepted as a trend? Do you disagree with the data that show the earth is cooling and has been since 2001?
Offhand, I'd say at least five years and I'd be happier with 10. Certainly more than one! Note that in one of the three global temperature indices, 2005 was warmer than 1998 and in the other two, 2005 was just barely under 1998 (in both cases by statistically insignificant amounts). So the clock starts ticking in 2005, not 1998. So the answer to the second question is that I don't agree that the data show the earth is cooling. That's the point of my simplified analogy.
LOL. You have enough El Nino qualifiers to cover all the bases. I predict that we will have a very cold winter this year and the earth will continue to cool for the next 10 years.
OK, we'll see (I hope so, at least). Regarding the qualifiers, the most significant factors that might cause increased variability in the warming trend are the oceans, the Sun, and a big volcanic eruption. Regarding that last factor, though there have been some noticeable eruptions recently, they haven't been big enough to be significant factors.
Please elucidate how GISS is constructed (see climateaudit.org for example).
"They're not communists, they're DEMOCRATS!" is the argument I've heard from a generally unthinking dhimmirat apologist.
Time for FReepers to start knocking down this denial and do some educating of your favorite dhimmirat acquaintance.
OK, so the name of the party is "democrat". The ideology is collectivist/fascist/communist.
Put the Communist Manifesto in front of them and ask them what points the democrat party disagrees with.
Put the Communist Goals for America in front of them and ask them which of those goals the Democrats haven't supported by their policies.
I'm sick and tired of these commies claiming they aren't, or feigning ignorance.
Let Saracuda get her feet wet as VP, get her chess pieces in place,
then run for pres in ‘16 and EXECUTE.
The leftist establishment in our national cesspool needs a dose of “reform”, Alaska style.
That’s the whole problem - they don’t have a belief in a sovereign God/Creator that is in control of everything.
They have elevated Man to godhood while at the same time devaluing him by asserting that he is simply an evolved animal.
And while we're doing that, let's also see if we can figure out why spring is earlier and fall is later over the past 130 years or so -- just in case we're concerned GISS might be wildly in error or something like that.
Global Warming Rushes Timing of Spring
(I'm a little curious where that 8 hours earlier spring green-up since 1982 is from)
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.
