21 replies to this topic

[Data]

"As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS.

"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

NASA GISS: 2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year

http://www.giss.nasa.../news/20080116/

[pdx5]

Global warming is entirely possible. It has happened millions of times in 5 Billion year history of earth. The only question is are humans responsible for the current (if true) global warming trend. To deny global warming or global cooling is to deny geological evidence. Since humans were not even around for 99.99% of previous global warming cycles, who is foolhardy enough to claim humans are causing the next global warming? It defies logic. But then politicians defy logic quite frequently.

[TradeMark]

Hey, haven't you heard that all those claims about all the warmest years on record having been in the last 14 years bla, bla, bla were debunked a year ago or so. Turns out Al forgot about a bunch of years in the earlier part of the 20th century. Perhaps it wasn't that well reported in the news. Sort of inconvenient I guess. TM

[arbman]

The ideas about keeping the planet cleaner, polluting the oceans less and consuming the resources such as forests and other minerals etc more efficiently are still valid though with or without the global warming...

Edited by arbman, 29 February 2008 - 07:08 AM.

[Data]

You wouldn't expect to draw any real scientific conclusions from one month's temperature reading or one year's change in the polar ice caps. It's obviously meant to mislead. The embedded chart clearly shows a rising trend in the temperature anomalies except for January's abnormal weather. The author chose to ignore the longer trend of temperatures or shrinking ice caps.

[stocks]

Hey, haven't you heard that all those claims about all the warmest years on record having been in the last 14 years bla, bla, bla were debunked a year ago or so. Turns out Al forgot about a bunch of years in the earlier part of the 20th century.

Perhaps it wasn't that well reported in the news. Sort of inconvenient I guess.
TM

I posted that in August:

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.


http://www.traders-t...mp;hl=implosion

[grizzly]

Yeah, why beleeve all those fansy, schmanzy sciontusts who say da earth is warming. It’s darn kold outside. Its just like those sciontusts who say we shudn’t smoke. My unkle Charly smoked for 50 yrs and was hit by a truk. them scientusts don’t know nuttin. I’m gonna smoke and sit in my warm and komfy house and watch it snow. Snow, dat’s rite, I sed snow. this global warming krap is just a bunch of hooey. them sciontusts also say da earth moves around da sun, and any darn fool can see dat da sun moves around da earth! I'm gonna have me anudder smoke.

[stocks]

I posted this before:

An abundance of research has shown that human beings are conservative processors of fallible information. Such experiments compare human behaviour with the outputs of Bayes's theorem, the formal optimal rule about how opinions... should be revised on the basis of new information. It turns out that opinion change is very orderly, and usually proportional to numbers calculated from Bayes's theorem - but it is insufficient in amount. A convenient first approximation to the data would say that it takes anywhere from two to five observations to do one observations' worth of work in inducing a subject to change his opinion.

psychologist Ward Edwards


It takes more than a single graph or a single media event to change minds.

http://www.traders-t...?...ation&st=10

[colion]

Yeah, why beleeve all those fansy, schmanzy sciontusts who say da earth is warming. It's darn kold outside. Its just like those sciontusts who say we shudn't smoke. My unkle Charly smoked for 50 yrs and was hit by a truk. them scientusts don't know nuttin.

I'm gonna smoke and sit in my warm and komfy house and watch it snow. Snow, dat's rite, I sed snow. this global warming krap is just a bunch of hooey. them sciontusts also say da earth moves around da sun, and any darn fool can see dat da sun moves around da earth! I'm gonna have me anudder smoke.

Some more from the world of the fansy, schmanzy sciontusts:

Full report at http://epw.senate.go...teReport#report

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Report Released on December 20, 2007


INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

Scientists from Around the World Dissent

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, Argentina, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were "futile." (LINK)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."

This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK)

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped "consensus" that the debate is "settled."

A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) - In addition, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK) ]

The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

[Rogerdodger]

It takes more than a single graph or a single media event to change minds.

Like so many views humans attach themselves to, it's more than logic and facts.
There is an emotional, even psychological attachment for many.
It was described in Michael Crichton's insightful speech a few years ago.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 29 February 2008 - 09:35 PM.