That's what Al Gore is doing. But there are others, notably Steve McIntyre, who are just trying to get the facts right, and they are asking for donations to help support their work. (And sometimes their web sites.)
Lucia (I won't give her full name without her permission) is also asking for donations. And she is selling things to support her work. If you haven't seen her site, I should mention that she does many interesting charts, so it is natural that she would sell pet bowls, dog shirts, mouse pads, notecards, postcards, and coasters with charts like this one:
If you haven't been following the debate closely, you may need an explanation of that chart. The red line is the predicted temperature from Gore's friends at the IPCC and the dashed red line is the fitted linear trend. The blue and green lines show measured temperatures from two standard sources, with their trends. Some of us, not including Al Gore, are troubled by the divergence between the red lines and the blue and green lines.
It would be wrong, of course, to give one of those charts to a follower of Al Gore, and you should know that I could not possibly support such an action. Whether you should display one of those charts where sensitive people might see it is up to you. I am going to order a mug for myself, but I plan to use it only in the privacy of my home.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at July 24, 2009 02:30 PM | Email ThisIn true science, the theory should never be encumbered with observations.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 24, 2009 02:47 PMI would get fired (pardon me - laid off) for displaying that chart at work.
$79 Billion of our taxes for global warming "science" so far . . . and counting.
Posted by: deadwood on July 24, 2009 02:56 PMA scale from 0.4 to 0.8 on the Y axis, and from 2001 to 2008 on the X axis? At best, your friend Lucia is an idiot. At worst, she's willfully dishonest.
Then again, I haven't seen a good chart coming out of your efforts yet, Jim...
Posted by: demo kid on July 24, 2009 02:59 PMPosted by: Gary on July 24, 2009 03:22 PM
Or maybe this one?
Or maybe this one?
Maybe all this hysteria about the "sudden" 1 deg C change over the last 50 years is simply one of those little zig-zags we see in all those graphs, a regular cycle?
Nah, couldn't be... Can't be natually based, has to be purely man-made. Otherwise how else can the Algoracle sell his hundreds of millions in carbon credits so he can keep fueling his private jet?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 24, 2009 03:39 PMIf I were constructing the same chart for an academic paper, I would have chosen 0 for the lower limit and 1 for the upper limit.
But these charts were constructed to be decorative, and if I were constructing them for that purpose, I would have chosen the same limits that Lucia did.
That said, if you take a look at the equation for the prediction, you will notice that the divergence is now about equal to the amount of warming predicted to happen in an entire decade!
(demo kid - I have offered to help you with that little snowfall chart, so I don't think you should be grumpy just because it was too hard a problem for you, initially. Put a little more effort into the problem, and, who knows, you might be able to solve it before I post the answer.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on July 24, 2009 03:55 PM@6: Charting average deviation from temperature over an eight-year period is just about as useful as charting stock movements on April 20 and using those to predict today's price. Temperature trends extend over decades, not years or months.
@7: The website that you're getting those figures from is trying to explain very long term variations in temperature. That has no bearing on shorter-term increases due to changes in GHGs. Why don't you look at this or this or this or this (map of melting between 1992 and 2002), which actually provides correct scales?
But then again, who cares? Dolts like you don't care about evidence anyway.
Posted by: demo kid on July 24, 2009 04:03 PMThe reality is that there are far larger natural forces that control our climate. But that doesn't bode well for the Alarmist Industry that has spent Tens of Billions of Federal money, established bureaucracies, built careers, gained tenure, and built lifestyles upon AGW. So instead, we get the usual from demo kid. An ad hominem attack. Note, he didn't describe why the graph was not up to his standards, nor did he even describe any standards, he simply called it stupid. This is playground behavior, and what we've come to expect from this anonymous coward. This is what passes for debate on the left.
For those seeking a more scientific and less tantrum based source of information, I highly recommend The excellent blog of Anthony Watts, frequented by many top Solar and other Climate scientists.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 24, 2009 04:15 PMIf you don't want to show temps over years, please tell the IPCC to stop doing so.
So, I ask again. Was the IPCC right? Is it permissible to show predictions, but not actual results?
We don't care about evidence? That's what the chart is.
Posted by: Gary on July 24, 2009 04:16 PMGreenland? How about the European Space Agency's measurements of the Greenland ice sheet over the entire ice sheet, from space. Highly accurate. And it shows that the ice sheet is GROWING in terms of total ice contained. Oops.
Sorry, SPFA, you lose yet again. But that's OK, you can go find some other crisis to self-flagellate about, being a human and all!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 24, 2009 05:44 PMGary, who had the correct model?
A guy named Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University, who's currently the favorite target for global warming adherents. He predicted the current downturn in cooling, and predicts it'll stick around for the next 25-30 years. So far (10 year in), so good...
Oops.
And Jim... I'll say it again. Not only does your graph show nothing of value, it isn't even constructed properly to make any claims whatsoever. If you wanted to show how simple graphs can be misinterpreted, that's great... but discussions about global climate change no longer involve simple scatterplots.
@11: There's not a single piece of demonstrable evidence to implicate CO2
Seriously? You must not read. Of course, the shove-your-head-where-the-sun-don't-shine class is so desperate to prove climate change wrong that they cannot decide on a tactic. Empirical evidence suggests a link, and suggests that action could mitigate the effects.
@15-16: The only thing that you're doing is cherry-picking your data to match the results that you (and other conservatives) want, moron.
It's actually quite amusing! One moment, you claim that the earth is cooling... the next, you claim the earth will pretty much be the same... the next, you claim temperatures will rise but that CO2 isn't responsible... then, you claim that CO2 may be responsible but that it would cost too much but that plants like CO2 and we should like warmer winters.
This isn't a debate where two opposing positions are arguing... it's a debate where one side is arguing that there is a good chance that human activities are changing the climate, and the other is just throwing whatever pitiful arguments they can at it.
Make up your mind. It's getting pathetic.
Posted by: demo kid on July 24, 2009 08:18 PMThat you actually believe that our planet is being severely (let alone mildly) damaged by anthropogenic global warming is humorous beyond words. Keep it up DemoKid . . . you are priceless
BTW can I interest you in an Al Gore climate control watch?
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 24, 2009 09:03 PMWE CAN'T MEASURE THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE !!
I just received a lovely publication from:
www.SurfaceStations.org
It is titled:
"Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?"
Very sweet. $13.00 a copy. I got mine for free, perhaps the result of my long time foot soldiering.
Be sure to contemplate the lovely experiment on page 5 in which identical temperature stations known as Stevenson Screens were set up in a grassy field.
They are the NOAA/NWS standard monitor stations.
In the experiment, one box is raw wood. The second box is white latex painted. The third box is old time "whitewash" painted.
The data shows a temperature spread equal to the range of temperature variation the world is so worried about.
Is "global warming" the result of improved coatings ??????
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 24, 2009 09:05 PMOf course, the IPCC must disgree with you, or they would have made their predictions by decade, rather than by months or years.
Jim, on a related topic, I just picked up the book "Hiking Washington's Geology." Do you have a copy? It's out of print now, I think, but it's really spectacular and I think you'd really enjoy it. I was just reading the history of the Nisqually Glacier, which is fascinating, and undercuts some of the AGW arguments (naturally).
Posted by: Timothy on July 24, 2009 09:21 PM@19: If these assessments were based on records from one instrument, that'd be a fair assessment... but estimates of climate change use a lot more data than just three boxes.
@20: No, a middle-schooler in a statistics class would be flunked, because it doesn't express ANY reasonable or worthwhile information for discussing climate change whatsoever.
That's not to say that *predictions* cannot be made generally by year... but looking at one eight year period doesn't make sense with respect to climate trends.
And I'm waiting to hear how your book on hiking criticizes climate change.
Posted by: demo kid on July 24, 2009 10:38 PMIt's me from #19.
The "3 box anecdote" is but the tiniest example of the tiniest tip in the iceberg of lousy data associated with the endless and useless GW debate.
I say "Demo Kid" doesn't really exist. You are just a poser.
You don't really believe anything that you write. Your contentions are contrived and borrowed.
You can't possibly believe that man has a shot at climate change.
You are a professor with a pony-tail and a grant, working on a sociology article in blog behavior.
Your relentless posts are part of your experimental method.
If I am wrong, then please describe how your intellect, convictions, and time are being used to improve the planet.
Your hundreds of hours spent on Sound Politics are a waste, unless you have realized, like the rest of us, that posting to SP is cheaper than professional therapy.
So just admit to either a publishing project or pschyo-therapy as your goal.
I'll accept a combination of the above as the explanation.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/07/global-warming
"a middle-schooler in a statistics class"
That's a hoot. I don't know where you went to school, but stats is a college or university level course in this country.
I have looked at Lucia's site and with my college level statistics background I do not see her treatment as being crude or unscientific.
My reading of her site reveals the following:
1. She does not discount AGW as a reasonable hypothesis. (She is referred to by some as a "lukewarmer)
2. She does fault the hype and bad science coming out of the IPCC, and exaggerated by Gore, Hansen and others.
3. She correctly points out that the IPCC models are outside of 2-sigma limits for the cooling we have seen in the global temperature records for the last 8 to ten years.
The AGW movement moved beyond science into the realm of faith a long time ago. I find it amazing that so many on the left who decry the mixing of faith and evolution will so readily buy off on the alarmist line on AGW. It doesn't take much science background to find out that the story is based on very few truths and very many assumptions.
Lucia follows the science where it leads. I respect her honesty and agree with much, but not all, of her interpretations of the data. That is what scientists are supposed to do.
Many of the AGW prophets may have science degrees, but they practice something else, dress it up in "science" clothes, and present it as revealed truth.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects your right to believe whatever religious dogma you wish, but it also protects me from having it shoved down my throat by you.
I think to "broaden the base" we should just as Republicans support this "Global Warming" lie.
See, doesn't feel good does it when one of YOUR ISSUES are thrown under the bus!
Let's just admit the Republican Party is dead. Let's have a funeral for it. And then let's develop something to take its place.
Because Michael Steele's "Republican Party" isn't going anywhere. It doesn't bring in the people it is trying to bring in and at the same time it chases away the very people who would otherwise support an opposition party.
Look, if I was a liberal I would have little reason to abandon the Democratic Party, but as a Conservative I have a whole bunch of reasons not to support the Republicans.
You don't win by becoming more like the party you are opposing. You win by proudly and unapologetically drawing bold distinctions.
You also don't win by chasing away your base.
Posted by: Steve on July 25, 2009 09:19 AM"If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life."Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 25, 2009 09:22 AM
@24: I made no value judgement about her website. I'm saying that if she's plastering that chart on the front of a t-shirt and selling it for money, she's dishonest.
Am I stating that she's wrong with some of her criticisms? No. My position is that there is evidence to support climate change, and enough evidence to take certain cost-effective action, but that the theory is evolving and can change conclusions and that policy should reflect this.
However, making a plot of the last few years, distorting an already distorted Y scale, and expecting that to present any kind of useful information is simply not correct.
And how exactly am I shoving "religious dogma" down your throat? I'm making a claim that this is incredibly misleading. You're the one clinging to a bad argument.
Posted by: demo kid on July 25, 2009 09:29 AMIn 1850, the Nisqually Glacier extended out to SR706. Between 1850 & 1945, more than a mile of it melted away. Then, it advanced during the 1950s, retreated during the 1960s & early s 70s, advanced again during the late 70s & early 80s and stayed more or less steady from then until 2000 (when the book was written). Not a "hockey stick" pattern, certainly. Anecdotal evidence? Yes, but no more so than the various tales you hear of particular glaciers retreating.
Posted by: Timothy on July 25, 2009 09:30 AMThe problem as I see it is that the Republican Party is still going in the exact opposite direction it needs to go. It is why so many Conservatives stayed home last time. The direction we have seen the Republicans go from the last years of Bush onto the disastrous McCain election until now isn't going to bring election succeeds.
But even it it did, to what ends? If the Republican party governs to the Left then what have we "won"?
This is the Vision of the "New" Republican Party that Michael Steele is presenting us with. It will fail. But even it it succeeded it isn't a vision that brings any joy to any heart of any true American.
But I realize here at the end of the day you don't really care about issues. So, lets be blunt. Democrats support their base. If I was a member of their base I would have no reason to go anywhere else no matter how leftist Republicans become.
SO, you lose both ways. You make more and more of the people who should be your base hate you so much that they rather see you lose. And you aren't winning the people that you threw them under the bus trying to get.
The Republicans as they currently stand with Micheal Steele as the head will throw opposition to global warming under the bus. Because with this valueless Republican party we currently have everything is negotiable.
Posted by: Steve on July 25, 2009 09:34 AM@28: Ugh. Anecdotal evidence is worth nothing... but you're right in that in does work both ways! I'm not a big fan of tracing everything back to global warming, and it gets in the way of serious discussions of the actual impacts.
Posted by: demo kid on July 25, 2009 09:34 AMThe problem as I see it is that the Republican Party is still going in the exact opposite direction it needs to go. It is why so many Conservatives stayed home last time. The direction we have seen the Republicans go from the last years of Bush onto the disastrous McCain election until now isn't going to bring election succeeds.
But even it it did, to what ends? If the Republican party governs to the Left then what have we "won"?
This is the Vision of the "New" Republican Party that Michael Steele is presenting us with. It will fail. But even it it succeeded it isn't a vision that brings any joy to any heart of any true American.
But I realize here at the end of the day you don't really care about issues. So, lets be blunt. Democrats support their base. If I was a member of their base I would have no reason to go anywhere else no matter how leftist Republicans become.
SO, you lose both ways. You make more and more of the people who should be your base hate you so much that they rather see you lose. And you aren't winning the people that you threw them under the bus trying to get.
The Republicans as they currently stand with Micheal Steele as the head will throw opposition to global warming under the bus. Because with this valueless Republican party we currently have everything is negotiable.
Posted by: Steve on July 25, 2009 09:35 AMBrilliant. But yes! Follow that strategy. I'm sure that a party consisting mostly of white men can survive into the 21st century.
Posted by: demo kid on July 25, 2009 09:43 AMIt isn't going to win over any leftist from the Democrats but it is sure going to make a lot of otherwise energetic people who would otherwise support Republicans to just not participate.
And so regardless of what the truth may be about global warming, the lie will prevail.
If you really cared about stopping the lie of global warming you would realize that you first have to stop Michael Steele.
Posted by: Steve on July 25, 2009 09:44 AMPandering is your game. And you do it well. We won't be able to beat you in it.
"Minorities" really don't have needs that are different from the rest of America. EQUAL Rights for all. Freedom from Socialism. Freedom from too much Government. We embrace these ideals and we address the needs of not only "Minorities" but of all Americans.
But instead the Republicans through Bush has lead us into socialism with Bush's bailout greasing the wheels for what all Obama has done since.
As harmful as Obama has been it all started with Bush "Saving Capitalism by Destroying it". Bush's bailout set the stage for Obama's.
How about a party that drives away white men?
It is doomed to defeat.
The difference between Liberalism/Leftism and Conservativism is that conservatism is really color-blind. It doesn't put one group against the other on basis of race or gender or favorite sports team or on any other imaginable dividing line that mankind has now or will ever develop. For it isn't based on THE GROUP but instead the individual.
People of minority groups who want to be seen as individuals will support candidates who don't pit one group against the other. Such a party will attract them but I don't know if that party will be called "Republican".
Perhaps nether party will exist much into this century. But the way we are going perhaps America won't exist throughout this century either.
We are really into the age of the unthinkable.
Posted by: Steve on July 25, 2009 10:03 AMI told him that for the past 10 years, I have been pressuring the Republican party to actively recruit minorities. The results have been all talk and all spin, all of the time. There have been times when I felt that the past chairmen secretly wanted a party for white people only. He assured me that he has faced some of the same challenges, only on the national level. He said the "old guard" doesn't want change. They are satisfied that the "party of Lincoln" is viewed as being all male, all white, all Southern, all of the time.
says volumes. "Color-stupid" doesn't equal "color-blind", pal. If people are viewing the Republican Party in this way, including the chairman of the party, why would you think that they would spend their time and energy on the party? And, if you're turning people away from the party with this type of attitude, how exactly do you think the Republicans are going to win in the long-term? Old white men are getting older, and can't be be the mainstay of the party for too much longer.
Posted by: demo kid on July 25, 2009 10:28 AMYes it is. And I'd appreciate it if you two would go back to the topic -- assuming either of you have anything new to say about it -- or move the discussion elsewhere.
Posted by: Jim Miller on July 25, 2009 10:34 AMYou just scanned it, didn't you?
Green with envy
Why don't we all live naked in caves?
However, making a plot of the last few years, distorting an already distorted Y scale, and expecting that to present any kind of useful information is simply not correct.
OK, so what would be "correct" scales and values for the X and Y axis? To me, the graph looks completely accurate, understandable, and well defined. There are no ambiguities shown or falsified data. It's an accurate chart.
It seems that since the chart shows something you don't like - even if completely accurate - you will call it dishonest.
So tell us what would be an accurate graph?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 25, 2009 11:21 AMSo?
You think providing "facts" or "data" is going to change the debate one bit?
You are just wasting people's time here. Embrace the Lie!
After all wouldn't that be the politically expedient thing to do here? That's what John McCain did.
However, lumping criticism of one aspect of environmentalism in with criticism of overall concerns about the environment? This is shallow, self-centered, ill-informed commentary.
@39: Extend the y-axis to zero, and include a longer timeframe. Simple, easy, and not misleading. Otherwise, I could just as easily slap up a graph of temperature from 1990-1998 and claim that the seas will boil in 100 years, and it would be valid as well.
Posted by: demo kid on July 25, 2009 04:24 PMYeah, kind of like what the Goracle has been doing for years!
Posted by: katomar on July 25, 2009 09:52 PMAfter certain faiths are accused of doing this all the time! So Demo et al. get going then we'll join in....we just don;t have the faith you do and certainly are tired of the homicide bombings on our lives. Posted by: Col. Hogan on July 26, 2009 08:12 AM
One man predicted the cooling trend, but then again, he's an evil not-mans-fault kind of professor so he can't be trusted...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 26, 2009 08:18 AMhottest in a long time that i can remember. add in the increasing number and length of droughts...
Don't confuse weather with climate. That's been a favorite mantra of the AGW faithful for a LONG time...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 26, 2009 09:48 AMi'm talking about the regional climate of the NW, which is seeing warmer temps and longer and increasing droughts than in previous years.
Posted by: mike on July 26, 2009 10:03 AMhttp://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?blog=weathermatrix&partner=&pgUrl=/mtweb/content/weathermatrix/archives/2009/07/1000_low_temp_records_set_this_july.asp
demo kid, what did Man do to cause such a cold July to occur? I know what the AGW Faithful would say if it was the other way around. So, what did we do to cause such a cold July, and if it's too cold, should we drive more to warm it back up?
Remember, the obligation is on your side to prove this, because our side is not trying to make *you* change you behavior in any way. We think it's natural, whereas you think it's changed by Man. So why/how did we make it cold in July?
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary on July 26, 2009 03:25 PMDemo Kid - I am posting some interesting observations on climate change - Could you please provide a reasonable scientific explanation with the references to the data trends to support your trends. This is not an 'individual up or down'.
http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?blog=weathermatrix&partner=&pgUrl=/mtweb/content/weathermatrix/archives/2009/07/1000_low_temp_records_set_this_july.asp
http://aprn.org/2009/01/13/sea-ice-in-the-bering-sea-causes-problems-for-crab-fishermen/
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3066
Posted by: Tim on July 26, 2009 04:00 PMAnd, since the trend has been down over the past some years (as opposed to the IPCC projections)
what accounts for that since CO2 has increased over the same span?
Also, "meaning that talking about the frequency of droughts or broader trends in warm weather is relevant."
Why is it only relevant when speaking of trends in *warm* weather?
So, you don't think Man did anything to cause the temps to go down? Nature did that?
Posted by: Gary on July 26, 2009 05:53 PM#1: Repeat after me: weather is not climate. I don't know HOW MANY TIMES I CAN SAY IT. Weather is NOT climate. Looking at July and saying that there is no global warming is as stupid as saying that the weather today is proof that there is.
#2: Look at the DAMN SITE! He added:
1. The article was not meant to be a commentary on Climate Change or Global Warming (which is why I uttered neither phrase), though I understand why some thought that it was, given the link source :) Cold OR warm outbreaks, by themselves, are not signs of Climate Change.
and...
The year, overall, from a records perspective, is still biased to record-breaking highs.
#3: Climate change will generally make the globe warmer, but local areas may be colder, wetter or drier. The effects are different everywhere. Of course, proudly proclaiming that sea ice is at an "all-time high" is incredibly stupid when it looks like the result of white noise, and not an actual trend.
Try harder. All you're showing is that you're ignorant.
@56: However, some people choose to use these arguments to alter other people's behavior, don't they?
Point? I don't agree with many people's arguments on issues that I agree with, but it doesn't mean that the issues themselves don't have merit. Likewise, I can think of more than a few political issues where conservatives do exactly the same thing.
Why is it only relevant when speaking of trends in *warm* weather?
Because there IS NO TREND in "cool" weather right now. Looking at a 5-6 year period and claiming that global warming doesn't exist is just as stupid as looking at the 1992-1998 period and screaming that we're all going to die in 5 years.
Could you please provide a reasonable scientific explanation with the references to the data trends to support your ideas?
We have been having cooler weather over the last eight years world wide. That is a change in our climate!
Please try harder in your explanations to prove Al Gore's global warming problems but making ad hominem attacks is not a valid response.
Thanks!
We have been having cooler weather over the last eight years world wide. That is a change in our climate!
Ugh. This is rapidly turning into a comedy of idiocy. (Yes, an ad hominem attack, but a classic case of Read The Report, Dammit.) Your false statement gets back at EXACTLY why the graph at the beginning is misleading! If you begin your calculations at 2001, then sure, the planet is cooling. However, go and redraw that figure with ANY other starting point other than 1998 (which is an outlier), calculate a trend, and then tell me if the globe is "cooling".
This is a classic case of people lying with statistics by moving the goalposts.
Posted by: demo kid on July 26, 2009 07:14 PMKind of like using a 150 year segment of the earth's +/- 6 Billion year existence to claim global warming is man's fault.
Brilliant.
How about this graph? Seems that we're in a gradual cooling trend, doesn't it?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 26, 2009 08:01 PMThat climate trend of record low temperatures and increased sea ice goes against Al Gore. There is another very interesting presentation from New Zealand that shows that Al Gore and company are wrong along with Obama's future changes that he wants to have with our economy.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/pwood.pdf
So I am going to enjoy the sun this week!! Hopefully you can too!
(BTW your comment "Making ad hominem attacks is relevant when someone doesn't bother reading what they present" only applies to yourself!)
Posted by: Tim on July 26, 2009 08:02 PMThe IPCC relies on the "settled science" that you ascribe to. Their model didn't forecast a cooling variation over that time, did it?. Why not? Did CO2 output fall? The NOAA does not know why the oceans have been cooling since 2003. They don't know where the heat went. One of the NOAA scientists, who is also an IPCC author, says the excess heat may be escaping to
space. Space? I thought the "greenhouse effect" made that impossible.
So where is it? I've actually heard a scientist say "it's hiding" (yes, an actual scientist) and that it will burst out 30 years from now.
C'mon...
No wonder governments are so desperate now. Their jig is almost up.
All of the leftwing progressives will obfuscate, tell half truths or outright lies to promote their political agenda of control and come across as useful idiots. If you want to get more specific, bring it on, but any argument for cap and trade has holes in it. Oh yes, the local heat wave here is a window in your world to promote this with your psychobabble.
Climate has become more random since industrialization has put more pollution into the atmosphere, but we are making progress in reducing smog in larger cities. Look at the facts. CO2 is not a good indicator of warming of the earth's surface and finally Al Gore is in this industry for the money and is full of CRAP...
Posted by: KDS on July 26, 2009 09:24 PMModels can be quite useful in organizing data to enhance understanding the interactions between the various forces involved. What they can't do is reliably forecast because there remain too many poorly understood or opaque relationships between the various forces.
What the IPCC writes reports about is speculation, perhaps informed, but speculation.
When scientific understanding advances the indicators will be improved weather forecasts over larger areas over longer time frames. Instead what we get is the UK Met Office repeatedly forecasting scorching summers while the weather delivers cool to arguably cold.
The argument may be satisfying but such intense debate over the meaning of a single 30-year period is a bit silly. Put the whole thing in context.
Hmmm... given that humans haven't been able to make substantive changes in the environment until the very recent past (geologically), what are you expecting? Should we wait around for a million years before making any substantive statements about climate change?
@62. Demo - Climate can change and the trend over the last several years has been cooling as evidenced by more sea ice and cooler summers as evidenced by the link I provided. That author was only presenting data and quoted "The article was not meant to be a commentary on Climate Change or Global Warming". In other words, the trend this summer has been for cooler weather which to me over time is a change in the overall climate.
What you're essentially doing is lying. You're presenting this sort of graph as "proof", and claiming that a few years' data negate trends over a longer term.
That climate trend of record low temperatures and increased sea ice goes against Al Gore. There is another very interesting presentation from New Zealand that shows that Al Gore and company are wrong along with Obama's future changes that he wants to have with our economy.
BTW your comment "Making ad hominem attacks is relevant when someone doesn't bother reading what they present" only applies to yourself!
I have some douchebag constantly calling me an "abortion". Don't whine about a little trash talking when you deserve it.
One thing you do is give us insight into the corrupt politicians' attitude on how they want to control people by using their fascism in passing legislation like cap and trade.
Posted by: KDS on July 27, 2009 01:00 AMPosted by: Gary on July 27, 2009 06:54 AM
Thank you for your comments!
Posted by: Tim on July 27, 2009 07:48 AMI have some douchebag constantly calling me an "abortion". Don't whine about a little trash talking when you deserve it.
I suppose I'm the douchebag you refer to? Please note I don't call you an abortion, I call you a FAILED ABORTION. You probably don't remember, but back when Obama's latest gaffe was defending his position on abortion, and he stated that he didn't want his daughters burdened with a child and thus abortion was needed. You agreed.
From that point forward, you were no longer "kid", you were a failed abortion, now a burden.
Oh, and SPFA?
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 27, 2009 08:08 AMIt is a religion.
That is why you can provide as much facts as you want and it doesn't change the debate one bit.
Truth really doesn't matter here so we need to fight them on a different level.
Show WHY they believe the way they do. And the reason they believe the way they do is because they Hate Humanity (except themselves which they have set apart from the rest of us) and this myth is a good way to justify all kinds of harm against humanity.
The "Global Warming Myth" is to the Envirocrazies the same as the "Aryan Race Myth" was to the Nazis. A way for them to justify why they can act in unimaginably cruelty.
Posted by: Steve on July 27, 2009 09:06 PMThe glaciers have been receeding for, lets say 10,000 years. I figure they are melting because the air has warmed up! Gosh, am I smart or what? They are still melting. Since we only know the factual temperature of the earth for about 200 years, hypothetical of course, then that is simply a click in time.
This Global Warming is simply a way to make money on someone else. Yes, things are changing and we need to concentrate on how to grow plants/food differently. We CANNOT stop global warming. My advice? Sell your waterfront property and move higher!
Posted by: mike on July 30, 2009 11:37 AM