Oops. It turns out that 1998 wasn't the warmest year on record after all. That honor goes to 1934. A computer programming error that was only recently discovered and corrected had caused NASA to misreport historic U.S. temperatures:
Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999).Oh, well. And if it took the global warming community this long to discover an error in reporting actual data, imagine the difficulty of finding bugs in computer simulations that purport to predict future data, and whose output can't be promptly verified against actual data. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 10, 2007 04:06 PM | Email This
However, our CO2 level is now far higher than anything in the last 650,000 years. In fact, we have had higher temperatures during this recent past with much lower CO2 levels than we currently have.
Some of the statistical models may overstate the effect of CO2 on temperature, since the causation was reversed in the recent past, and there were no external factors causing CO2 levels to rise.
If increasing the CO2 level will increase global temperatures, this will happen, regardless of whether temperatures are being measured accurately or not.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 10, 2007 05:01 PMwww.surfacestations.org
Global Warming has jumped the shark. The average Joe can see that it's either an outright hoax, or something so far in the future that he will not bother to waste his time, money or concern worrying himself with it.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 10, 2007 06:18 PMDon't let them use a rapid fire string of Goreisms without responding to each and every one of them in turn and allow them to try and dig their way out of each hole they have dug.
Take a little time to do a net search on every "proof" they offer to make sure you know the weaknesses of each, especially when responding on line, if you don't have the facts at your fingertips.
Stay focused on the premise they are making and demand proof backed by methodology accepted as consistent with the "scientific method" and you will soon frustrate their argument to the degree that they will soon turn to name calling and personal attack.
By doing this you have placed the burden of proof on them and their arguments will become more and more bizarre until the point at which any audience, except crazies, will discount them as cranks.
It doesn't take long before your arguments against are polished to the degree that you can shut others down in short order or, better yet, get them going on a tangent which exposes them as closet Marxists with an ulterior motive.
It's damn near formulaic once you have a little experience, but you have to be ready to pounce once the discussion turns to what motivates them and from that point you can put them on the defensive.
Defending Socialism/Marxism against the monumental record of it's being History's Most Efficient Engine of Human Suffering will expose them as the "haters" of mankind which they truly are.
If they want to compare the ABUSES under capitalism to what Marxist socialism intrinsically has to offer you will need hard FACTS and numbers which are readily available and are verifiable.
Stick to what the record documents and don't get sidetracked into philosophical arguments and you can easily carry the day and they likely won't want to go there again.
Stick to a limited number of the most glaring examples, you will have enough arrows in your quiver to expose them as defenders of the indefensible and people who really don't give a tinkers damn when it comes to human suffering.
Once they are defending the indefensible, don't let up and stay focused on making them defend or excuse the most horrific crimes in human history and you will have accomplished two objectives. You have won the argument and you have given them pause to reflect on what their world view has to offer.
Posted by: JDH on August 10, 2007 06:25 PM
4 things to consider. Do the research, think for you yourself.
1) CO2 increase trails temperature increase. Data: Vostok Ice core, same data Al Gore uses in his graph, he doesn't tell you that.
2) Mann's hockey stick chart showing the sudden recent rise in temp.... a hoax. He altered the data, and the analysis.
3) Surface temperature measuring stations location s do not conform to published requirements, they are put next of parking lots, air conditioners and on roofs. Making Surface temperature measurements unreliable. Atmospheric readings satellite and balloon readings do not show the same increase as surface temperature.
4) Temperature fluctuations more closely correlate with solar variations, than anything else. With the solar variations leading the temperature increase.
Posted by: jcm on August 10, 2007 08:57 PMBTW, whatever happened to that GW nut claiming to be from FL who posted here? Did he get banned?
Bludgeoned with facts, faced with reality he imploded.
Posted by: jcm on August 10, 2007 09:26 PMAnother really big issue is what the alarmist community has done to foster corruption in the field and in academia through selectively providing "research" funding. This has been exposed in both government and private funding of "scientific research" designed to support a preordained conclusion and thus giving it a "stamp of approval." A research scientist without funding doesn't work, so the temptation is there for all but the most scrupulous and thick skinned to "play the game by their rules." Furthermore they have set out to demonize and marginalize people whose very sound research has led to conclusions which they did not prefer.
This is despicable, to say the least, and deters many from even entertaining the notion of doing pure scientific research on the subject. However the fallout of this scam will be that the public will be far more skeptical of the next ruse they try to pull to further their Marxist agenda.
Those in the climatology community who have come forward and reported the results that they have that cast any doubt have suffered tremendously at their hands, they are the true heroes in all of this. They have had their careers threatened through such mechanisms as "black balling" and risk being ostracized as a result of their honesty and candor. There really is nothing in coming out against the prevailing power structure within the climatology community except a respect for the truth and their profession.
Posted by: JDH on August 10, 2007 09:39 PMIt's not about science, not about 'saving the world."
It is all about POWER & CONTROL.
Posted by: JCM on August 10, 2007 09:49 PMHere is a concise deconstruction of the charts and graphs used in support of research that ccm points to above. It is a brief and very easy to follow discussion of how data was manipulated through such techniques as extrapolation and the use of hand picked data. As someone with a scientific background I had reason to question the validity of many of the "conclusions" presented since this whole crock of baloney was first presented. After years of reviewing the various studies I can conclusively say that no one has any proof to support Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming or Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.
The conclusions were accepted by a certain segment because it "fit their agenda" and the public started to be led along because they are not competent to question what they were being told by a willing media.
Posted by: JDH on August 10, 2007 09:57 PMhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566
Posted by: GS on August 10, 2007 11:30 PMAnd in an ever growing world of verifiable personal knowledge, which traslates and encourages individual freedom, the Marxists really have no chance.
Al Gore and the Gorebot army are destined to become some of the least trustable laughing stocks of history.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 10, 2007 11:58 PMNo wonder he's not running for President, he'd have to take a cut in pay, and his three homes and private jet would sit empty.
#12 says, "It is all about POWER & CONTROL." Hmmm, I'm not into power and control. I just want future generations to have a good place to live. Among the people I know who are concerned about global warming, NONE are into power and control. In fact, just the opposite is true. They are making changes and sacrifices in their OWN lives to leave less of a carbon footprint.
Posted by: Rob on August 11, 2007 08:28 AMhttp://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov.php
Posted by: Jacob on August 11, 2007 08:47 AM"Carbon footprint" is a fad term. Loose it.
How about instead of Power and Control, you substitute Status and Notoriety, and re-evaluate those you know? Of those who I meet and use the term Carbon Footprint and other catch phrases associated are really just looking for a pat on the back.
Really, I'd rather have them volunteer at an Animal Shelter.
Posted by: chris on August 11, 2007 08:50 AMWhat solutions does the Goracle propose?
Using his wealth derived from Occidental Petroleum to develop alternative energy.
OR
Use political power to limit our LIBERTIES to control what we buy how we live our lives.
If is really about science and truth they would answer the 4 issues I raised earlier. Instead they attack those who raise those questions in the scientific community as being in the pockets of big oil.
Think man, think.
Posted by: JCM on August 11, 2007 09:09 AMIf anything chris @ # 20 says is too hard to comprehend or if you just don't believe try this.
You and your like thinkers on global warming also are the ones who are afraid of everything. Think about it. There always has to be some kind of catastrophe for your type to freak out about. Why don't you grow a pair and quit being so chicken hearted.
All of your graphs and models don't mean squat. The history of your like minded friends does though. They ARE in it for the power, the rest of you are just cowards ready to believe every new scare tactic the controllers dream up.
If something really were to happen that was damaging the earth it would be so obvious that no sane person could disagree. Don't stoop to the childish position of claiming those of us who do not believe in anthropogenic global warming are insane. I personally believe in global temperature fluctuation only affected by man on a local basis such as large cities.
Of course that would be an argument in favor of urban sprawl, which I know you lefties are so against. It is easier to control the masses when you have them in large groups, is it not?
Believe me, or don't but this 'anthropogenic' global warming thing is an extreme left/right vs somewhat to left to somewhat to the right thing.
Or rather socialist vs individual freedom thing.
Nor should we focus on a non-pollutant indicator gas like CO2 when there are so many real problems out there. It might make CO2 martyrs feel better, but makes no real evironmental difference. And chasing after CO2 "polluters" just diverts attention, energy and money from real issues.
When you say "I just want future generations to have a good place to live", are you implying that those who are skeptical of anthropogenic catastrophic GW don't want future generations to have a good, or even better, place to live? Is it OK for Al Gore, or anyone else, to use myths and bad science to control others behavior (and make money) as long as you agree with the purported goals?
Posted by: starboardhelm on August 11, 2007 09:18 AMHe says it never fails, the eco-chicks are so gullible that they would fall for anything so long he makes them feel as though they are endowed with an enlightenment and that they care more than most.
I believe it, watch them line up to sign a petition to ban water in this Penn and Teller clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
Posted by: JDH on August 11, 2007 12:08 PMHe explained that his "Ready Made" art work becomes art not because it has intrinsic value, but because being in a museum defines it as art.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp
I bought a van for the family. Fuel efficient diesel that meets European Clean Air standards which are tougher than CA emission standards. I'd need two Hybrids to haul the family. The van is more efficient than two hybirds.
WA passed legislation to push Bio-diesel. Great, we won't discuss the energetics of bio-diesel or loss of crop land to produce bio-diesel.
In the very same session they push bio-diesel, they ban light diesel vehicles like my van. How so you ask, they passed CA emission laws, which my van exceeds.
Who is gonna' buy that bio-diesel? Small fleet vehicles are pretty much out.
This is the kind of insanity that results when emotion rules over the science.
Posted by: JCM on August 11, 2007 01:29 PMHow about this:
1934. Hmmm…what was going on then…mmmm….oh yeah, the GREAT DEPRESSION.
That’s right, biggest worldwide decline in industry in the history of the human race!
Factories closed.
Assembly lines stopped.
Production dwindled.
People couldn’t buy cars, or ride on trains or build airplanes.
Antropogenic CO2 probably dwindled to nil.
And wha’ happ’n ?
The temperature rose to the highest in history !!!
Posted by: John Bailo on August 11, 2007 01:34 PMWhat is your science background? Do you even understand Henry's law?? Please tell us what schooling you posess to be able to conclude that temerpatures follow C02 levels.
I have a minor in physics and mathematics as part of my course study because I am certain you will ask me the same question.
A consquence of Henry's law is that sa temperature increase, the solubility of a gas in a liquid decreases. This is the so called "Soda Pop" named as such because on a warm day a carbonated (C02 infused) soda will release MORE gas on a hot day than a cold day. Any 12 year old can tell you this. On earth, the oceans act as the "soda pop" storing and releasing CO2 in a dynamic process.
The increase in CO2 levels is a consequence of a higher temperature (most likely solar in origin as Mars is experiencing a similar spike in temperatures). The higher temperatures are not a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
That is science.
Or you could just blindly listen to the Goracle. After all, he did invent the internet.
Posted by: pbj on August 11, 2007 02:08 PMIt's even easier than that. The Vostok Ice core, the data set Algore uses in his movie to show the correlation between CO2 and temperature. Shows the opposite of what he is selling.
...the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.
CO2 is not, cannot be the global climate driver. Anyone who claims otherwise is a useful idiot or ignorant.
There's hope for the ignorant.
Posted by: JCM on August 11, 2007 02:26 PMWell once again a liberal sees no reason to check his facts before he posts. It was not that "wacko Italian liberal" (I presume you refer to Galileao) who first proposed the idea of a heliocentric model of the solar system. And now all of a suddent Galileao if a liberal? First liberals lie about Gore and the internet and now in Marxist dogma, Galileao is a liberal. You libs are fast and loose with the truth aren't you??
The person that actually first proposed the heliocentric model of the solar system is a "wascko conservative" (hey, if libs get Galileao, we get Copernicus) Polish man named Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 - May 24, 1543).
Yeah, a poleock made one of the greatest discoveries of science. There are quite a few others of us that are famous too.
Although I know liberals are loathe to educate themselves in facts, you might want to check out this link below to learn of other famous poleock scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Poles
Posted by: pbj on August 11, 2007 02:27 PMBut let's forget global warming for a moment. Shouldn't government provide a level playing field for all businesses?
It hasn't done that in the case of rail which is energy-efficient, versus cars and trucks, which are not.
Conservatives in my opinion should be pointing out that it was Progressives like Robert La Follette who would be a liberal today who dealt the death blow to the interurbans.
This happened when the government suddenly decreed, about 1923, that the utilities that owned them had to sell them immediately under a newly-passed anti-trust law.
During the twenties, trucks buses and cars would drive along on government supplied roads that followed the same paths as interurban lines that had been pioneered, built & paid for by the interurban companies with private financing.
To make matters worse, as a result of left-wing populist political campaigning by the Grange and others, Trains couldn't set their own prices while truckers and bus operators could.
Except in a few places, the interurbans died immmediately, but it wasn't a case of the free market blues, it was death by government intervention and subsidy of the competition.
My own advocacy of removing subsidies to trucks and cars would be the single best thing we could do to slow carbon emissions and yet strangely, I can make the case without mentioning global climate issues, only free market efficiency.
As a newleft conservative, I oppose RTID, a new subsidy for cars and trucks, and it's a bummer to me that despite all the derision against tax&spend etc. this big new tax receives so much support on this site.
Thanks all, newleftconservative#1
Posted by: newleftconservative#1 on August 11, 2007 02:44 PM
Here's another great one from them
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I&mode=related&search=
Posted by: JDH on August 11, 2007 03:25 PMMissed that, great minds....
Posted by: JDH on August 11, 2007 03:35 PMhttps://members.premiereinteractive.com/ows-img/glennbeck/pages/28585/41406.htm
Additional Product Information:
Have you ever driven by a hippie, environmental protest and had your beautiful gas guzzling SUV keyed?
Now you can protect your car by making it appear environmentally friendly with the Glenn Beck Hydro-Carbon Powered Eco-Vehicle bumper sticker. Look like a friend of the Earth while killing it at the same time!
Hydro Carbon just means oil, but with our clever recycle-shape inspired design, environmentalists and global warming zombies alike will take one look and think you're on their side. Only we'll know the truth behind it...you evil conservative hate monger!
And with this sticker 2-pack you get one for your car, and one to share with a friend.
The final tally?
F-150 Super-crew Lariat FX-4 $4,600 plus change to repair and yours truly? stiff & sore but otherwise O.K.
Econo-box a total loss and "uninsured motorist" in the trauma center
Posted by: JDH on August 11, 2007 03:49 PMGotta give it to that guy - He's been doggedly reviewing all of Mann's and Hanson's "science" for several years now and he caught them in two big fudges.
The first one was the Mann's Hockey stick (his PhD thesis) that was used by the IPCC to "prove" Global Warming. And now he's caused Hanson to ditch his favorite pet "hottest" years being all in the last ten.
Who ever woudda thought that the dust bowl years could have been warmer than now? How about my Grandpa? And yours?
Posted by: Deadwood on August 12, 2007 05:03 PMThe error of 1934 instead of 1998 was likely inadvertant by NASA. The carbon credits notion is a load of crap, just another device that can grow government and increase oppression. Passing the RTID would create more "carbon credits", let alone drain our resources on a mode of transportation that won't be beneficial in our lifetime or likely for the next 150 years - if Armaggedon hasn't stopped traffic for good by then.
Posted by: KS on August 15, 2007 08:49 PM