backtop


Print 117 comment(s) - last by Kurz.. on Aug 21 at 7:34 PM


  (Source: Rensselaer)
New State of the Climate report provides evidence

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released its 2009 State of the Climate report, and found that the past nine years (between 2000 and 2009) have seen the warmest temperatures since the beginning of modern temperature records, and concluded that global warming is undeniable

The report included research on 48 countries conducted by more than 300 scientists using 700 weather stations. According to the report, the year's 2000 to 2009 were warmer than the 1990's, and the 1990's were warmer than the 1980's. In addition, each consecutive year from 2000 to 2009 was hotter than the year before.

Since the 1960's, there has been an average surface air temperature rise of 0.6 degrees. While this may seem small, the scientists noticed warming climate effects in the increased sea level and humidity, declining glaciers, snow and sea ice and increased lower atmospheric and land temperatures. Signs of warming has also been found as far as two kilometers down below surface in the oceans, since, according to the report, 90 percent of warming has been absorbed by the Earth's oceans.

"Don't be fooled by anyone telling you that global warming is caused by the urban heat island effect or problems with thermometers - the satellite data don't suffer from these issues," said Neville Nicholls, president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. Nicholls also noted that since the satellite record began in 1979, the warming trend has been "identical" for thermometer and satellite data. 

Australia, in particular, was hit by three noteworthy heat waves in 2009. These occurred in the months of January, August and November. January's heat wave claimed hundreds of lives due to the heat and brushfires. August's broke heat records, and November's caused the city of Adelaide to witness eight consecutive days above 35 degrees. 

While warming continues to show its presence, cold spells are still expected to arise occasionally, but not often, according to the report. 

"The mid-Atlantic coast of the U.S. was extremely cold and snowy," the report stated. "At the same time, other regions were unusually warm and the globe as a whole had one of the warmest winters on record."

While this new report from the NOAA represents their firm stand on the side of global warming,not all scientists are pro warming. According to a report from the Canada Free Press, 31,486 Americans with science degrees (9,029 PhD, 7,157 MS, 2,586 MD and DVM and 12,714 BS or equivalent) have "signed on" with the Global Warming Petition Project, which sends the message that "the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not the issue
By Spivonious on 8/5/2010 11:43:20 AM , Rating: 5
I think most reasonable people agree that Earth's temperatures are rising. The important piece, which is as of yet unknown, is whether or not human-released greenhouse gases are to blame. There are many studies indicating that many other factors contribute greenhouse gases naturally (e.g. cattle), and others that indicate warming is a function of solar activity, and still others that claim the warming is simply part of a natural cycle between ice ages and tropical ages.

We need to construct scientific experiments to test the various factors before coming to the conclusion that the global warming being experienced is something unnatural.




RE: Not the issue
By The Raven on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not the issue
By YashBudini on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not the issue
By zinfamous on 8/5/2010 3:10:43 PM , Rating: 5
the raising of cattle can certainly be connected to human activity.

but you lose credibility when you try to claim that there is something "unnatural" about eating animals.

We evolved to eat fucking animals. This is undeniable. no way in hell the apes that climbed down from the trees and stuck to eating grapes and berries would have ever achieved the necessary protein compliment to sustain the evolving human brain.

IN FACT, the only way that we now have nearly comparable protein compliments in plant matter (as we find in meat) is due to our generations of human cultivation of plant matter, FOR OUR BENEFIT. Humans surviving purely on flora is in no way "natural."

"Morals" about eating animals? wtf.

Does the ave. American diet contain too much eat? pretty much. Is the ave american population compared to the world population, and our typical dietary compliment a huge factor when you consider the world population? I'm not so sure, but I'm inclined to say "not likely."


RE: Not the issue
By ClownPuncher on 8/5/2010 3:56:30 PM , Rating: 5
To be honest, I've been eating bacon for every meal for 16 years and I can move objects with my mind.


RE: Not the issue
By quiksilvr on 8/5/2010 4:38:39 PM , Rating: 5
I'll have what he's having.


RE: Not the issue
By HostileEffect on 8/5/2010 6:10:49 PM , Rating: 1
Same here, ketogenics FTW.


RE: Not the issue
By jmunjr on 8/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By gixser on 8/5/2010 4:21:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
We evolved to eat fucking animals.


Can't we at least wait until they have finished?


RE: Not the issue
By Suntan on 8/5/2010 9:25:38 PM , Rating: 5
Ah, but they taste much better when they are all sweaty...

Anyway, most every documentary I've seen on Animal Planet shows that other carnivores on this planet tend to kill there prey by clamping down on their throats and slowly suffocating them over the span of a couple minutes before promptly eating them in front of their family/group...

...But we're the unethical ones.

-Suntan


RE: Not the issue
By The Raven on 8/11/2010 4:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
The noble preying mantis will get his head bitten off whilst in the act. The much larger female having done nothing but eat will devour the male mid-coitus.


RE: Not the issue
By spoerad1 on 8/5/2010 4:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
while i myself eat meat and agree that it is natural, what is natural has little to do with what is moral or ethical. Its natural for animals to do many things unthinkable to us. How ever this line of thinking quickly snowballs, where do we stop. Why is wrong to eat animals? if its because they suffer during the raising and slaughter process, we can prevent that, if its simply morally wrong to eat other living creatures than you could add flora to the list of living beings and say eating is morally wrong. Not that any of this is really has any validity of others but ethics is a tricky, subjective matter at best.


RE: Not the issue
By JediJeb on 8/5/2010 7:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think he was actually saying that what is unnatural is that we have morals at all. Instead we should live like the animals just killing each other off in droves so there would be no advancement in society and we would be living like we were back in the stone age. Oh wait, some still live that way.


RE: Not the issue
By The Raven on 8/11/2010 4:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say that eating MEAT was unnatural.
But it certainly can be said that eating TOO MUCH meat is unnatural. Especially when in our society, we have no natuaral predators who will hunt down and eat the fat ones.
That is what I was referring to when I mentioned morals. We do not believe that murder should be allowed as a society. Animals murder themselves all the time. That is how carnivores get their food in most cases.

I think people missed the part about me agreeing with the OP's premise.

I love meat. I don't wish the cow to be extinct. But without human intervention, I believe it would be.

And that is why I said 'cattle' shouldn't be placed in the 'natural' category of possible global warming causes.


RE: Not the issue
By Aenslead on 8/6/2010 10:35:13 AM , Rating: 1
At the risk of stating the obvious, I beleive he meant that 40% of methane gas in the atmosphere as of now is created by cows. They fart a lot. Specially with the diet they are fed with.


RE: Not the issue
By The Raven on 8/11/2010 4:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
Ironically, I pass 40% more gas after eating delicoius beef jerky. Where will it end?!!


RE: Not the issue
By tbhuang2 on 8/5/2010 12:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a great argument for why the global temperatures rising is unnatural:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c... (From David MacKay's (University of Cambridge Physics professor) book, "Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air".)
Start at the bottom, "The climate-change motivation."
Here's a small excerpt:

"We start with the fact that carbon dioxide concentrations are rising. Figure 1.4 shows measurements of the CO2 concentration in the air from the year 1000AD to the present. Some “sceptics” have asserted that the recent increase in CO2 concentration is a natural phenomenon. Does “sceptic” mean “a person who has not even glanced at the data”? Don’t you think, just possibly, something may have happened between 1800AD and 2000AD? Something that was not part of the natural processes present in the preceding thousand years?
Something did happen, and it was called the Industrial Revolution."

It is my great hope that after this read you will be convinced that human development has initiated global warming.


RE: Not the issue
By chripuck on 8/5/2010 12:45:10 PM , Rating: 3
Ahh the polite global warming alarmist.

Tell me then, when David MacKay states that a "skeptic" is "a person who has not even glanced at the data" did he ignore the entire 1970's cooling cycle when analyzing manmade global warming? You know, back when a family sedan gave off 100 times more CO2 than a Hummer? Back when coal made up 90+% of our energy supply? Back when scientists were telling us that we were entering a new ice age?

I'll entertain this dope smoking hippie professor's opinion when he stops insulting those who would argue against it.


RE: Not the issue
By tbhuang2 on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By Ammohunt on 8/5/2010 1:27:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Also, are you saying you'd rather believe scientists from the 1970's than scientists in today's day and age?


So are you saying that trust modern scientists over the Einstein's of the last century? Besides that my answer would be yes! Political agenda's weren't near as rampant in science as they are today.


RE: Not the issue
By Paj on 8/9/2010 12:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the manhattan project was politics free!


RE: Not the issue
By JediJeb on 8/5/2010 7:18:13 PM , Rating: 1
Well my question would be; What initiated global warming after all of the past Ice Ages? Man was not here to do it, so I guess it was the dinosaurs, oops they died during the ice ages, or well before the ice age, so I guess it was the mammoths, but they died during the ice ages also so it wasn't them.

Well I'm all out of ideas what caused the warming after the ice ages, seems everything was dead except the sun.


RE: Not the issue
By roadhog1974 on 8/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By gamerk2 on 8/8/2010 3:08:38 AM , Rating: 2
Weather changes, changes to the chemical layout of the atmosphere, etc.

For instance, the last Ice Age was caused due to Antartica and South America still being joined together, preventing the warm waters of the Atlantic from interacting with the Pacific, which caused a cooling feedback loop. The Ice Age ended when Antartica and South America split up. In short: Weather patterns have a major effect on global temperatures.

Likewise, previous warming cycles have been connected to changes in the layout of the earths atmosphere. In particular, theres a great deal of coverage between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures...


RE: Not the issue
By gamerk2 on 8/8/2010 3:08:38 AM , Rating: 2
Weather changes, changes to the chemical layout of the atmosphere, etc.

For instance, the last Ice Age was caused due to Antartica and South America still being joined together, preventing the warm waters of the Atlantic from interacting with the Pacific, which caused a cooling feedback loop. The Ice Age ended when Antartica and South America split up. In short: Weather patterns have a major effect on global temperatures.

Likewise, previous warming cycles have been connected to changes in the layout of the earths atmosphere. In particular, theres a great deal of coverage between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures...


RE: Not the issue
By DarthKaos on 8/5/2010 12:59:48 PM , Rating: 5
I think it is funny that anyone can stand firmly on one side of this issue or the other at all. We have been on this earth for such a short amount of time. The planet may have destroyed and rebuilt itself hundreds or thousands of times before humans or this generation of humans existed.

So there was a cold snap in the 70's. This does not mean people are wrong about the earth warming now. Maybe the cold snap in the 70's would have been much worse if there had not been so much man made CO2 in the atmosphere at the time. Maybe the man made CO2 caused the normal cooling and warming cycle to be disrupted and we needed to have a small ice age to avoid a severe warming. Maybe we are not affecting the earth as much as we think and the cooling and warming would have taken place regardless of human intervention.

No matter what the cause scientists from all over the world using sophisticated equipment have discovered that for the last 30 years average temperatures have been going up. I don't know what that means but I know that we should prepare for warmer climates globally or at least have some sort of plan b in case things to get much warmer.


RE: Not the issue
By tbhuang2 on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By Da W on 8/5/2010 1:17:01 PM , Rating: 1
Is burning oil a good thing? No? Then try to burn as little as possible, that's all.


RE: Not the issue
By ppardee on 8/5/2010 3:53:09 PM , Rating: 4
Burning oil is bad? How so? There are some that believe that it is the only worth-while contribution humanity can make to the future of the world. Burning oil releases carbon. All life (that I know of, could be wrong) on the planet is carbon-based. Carbon is a finite resource. We are freeing it from its rocky tomb (you like that? I'm a poet!) making it more available for living organisms to use.

Saying that burning oil is bad is like saying chocolate is bad. Just because your mother (or Al Gore) told you it is so, doesn't make it so. Chocolate is a very nutrient dense food with lots of happy vitamins and minerals. Oil is dark like chocolate... need I say more?


RE: Not the issue
By gixser on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not the issue
By Kurz on 8/5/2010 5:21:57 PM , Rating: 5
Except CO2 levels were what? 8 times during the Dino age.
That time period had great levels of diversity in the ecosystem. CO2 is plant food pure and simple.

With that plants getting what they need we get energy from them. Win win

I still don't get how something that makes up .03% of the atmosphere lead to global warming.


RE: Not the issue
By JediJeb on 8/5/2010 7:36:23 PM , Rating: 3
Well the unexplained fact they never want to discuss is that 8 times greater CO2 concentration in the past. The simple fact that when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere existed we also had one of the highest growth rates for plants and not a total global meltdown killing all life on earth that their models say will happen at levels 2 times what they are now.

If doubling or tripling the levels of CO2 will cause the world to turn into deserts and the oceans to cover most of the land mass, then why did it not do that when the levels were many many times more that the supposed critical level in the models now?

Maybe the CO2 levels increasing and warmer temperatures in the last 200 years coincide with the industrial revolution because the warmer temperatures allowed man to be more productive with his time instead of spending most of it trying to gather food and fuel to survive the long hard winters. Just something to ponder.


RE: Not the issue
By Laitainion on 8/6/2010 4:32:14 AM , Rating: 2
One possibility is that global conditions were different in general, the location of the continents was completely different, air/sea currents were different. Who can say what effect that would had? I agree, the current predictions that doubling CO2 levels will kill everything is likely wrong as I think there are too many variables involved but I don't agree that comparing it to a different situation from millions of years ago is proof of this.


RE: Not the issue
By JediJeb on 8/6/2010 12:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
This is what I have been saying for a while now. There are just too many variables to consider to place one above all others as causing changes in climate. Solar output varies, our orbit varies slightly, heck it was even shown that after the earth quake in Haiti and Chile that the rotational period of the earth changed minutely. Now with a study pointing to soot being stronger at warming than CO2, what else are we not seeing that can cause it. How much do we know about warming periods after ice ages in ancient times to say wether or not temps will rise quickly or slowly? One article this year even pointed out that tree rings do not necessarily grow faster in warmer years but seem to also be dependant on the levels of cosmic radiation. Who knows, what we are experiencing now may be perfectly normal and yet we are trying to stop it.

Reduce pollution for the sake of a cleaner world, reduce energy usage for the sake of saving money and prolonging our supplies. It has been warmer in the past, it will be warmer in the future even if man disappeared from the face of the earth today. We need to learn how to adapt to the changes more than worry about our tiny contribution if any to the changes.


RE: Not the issue
By gamerk2 on 8/8/2010 3:13:14 AM , Rating: 1
Wrong conclusion. For one, its a known fact that weather patterns were significantly different in the past. For example, Dinosaurs didn't need to worry about coastal flooding overruning the world centers of commerce. Likewise, with so much plant life, the sustained warmer temperatures wouldn't have had a major effect on the food chain. [The opposite is true now, especially considering we already have a food supply problem...]

quote:
If doubling or tripling the levels of CO2 will cause the world to turn into deserts and the oceans to cover most of the land mass, then why did it not do that when the levels were many many times more that the supposed critical level in the models now?


Different weather patterns. Remember, the geology of the contenints is totally different now, and the land/ocean layout plays a significant role in global weather patterns.


RE: Not the issue
By cerx on 8/6/2010 11:56:38 AM , Rating: 2
We've also had several ice ages and other climate changes since then ... do you think humanity (as we know it) could survive another? Not saying a thinning of the herd wouldn't be good ... I just think it's already too cold where I live ...


RE: Not the issue
By Kurz on 8/21/2010 7:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
Then move?


RE: Not the issue
By the3monkies on 8/6/2010 1:21:21 AM , Rating: 3
I too believe that this AGW stuff is nonsense; but I recognize that a little proactive ass-covering is called for just in case Florida disappears under the waves. So what I've done is construct my argument in such a way that regardless of what global temps do, I can never be wrong. (You might object that this is the position taken by most of us AGW deniers, but I think I deserve credit for putting it all in black and white.) Here it is:

Scenario 1) global temps don't rise, therefore the theory is obviously wrong and I'm right.

Scenario 2) global temps do rise, in which case I'll explain it away as just another example of natural variation in the earth's climate and not proof of AGW, and therefore I'm right again.

So take that you liberal, tree-hugging, Frenchie-loving fairies - I am invincible!


RE: Not the issue
By Lerianis on 8/8/2010 5:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, I'm extremely liberal and I don't believe in AGW. Neither do most liberals I have talked with.

The fact is that global temperatures RISE AND FALL.... they don't stay the same forever, they are constantly varying with various things.

It could also be that the temperatures are RISING because we are still coming out of a time when the world was COOLER than it should be.


RE: Not the issue
By the3monkies on 8/18/2010 12:36:17 AM , Rating: 3
Yes but only liberals believe this nonsense.

In any case, I think it's our duty not only to expose the lie of AGW, we also need to explain why practically every climate scientists on the planet is deliberately deceiving the public. I mean, this is serious stuff! I can think of no other instance where the vast majority of the professionals in any scientific discipline have set out to deliberately and maliciously spread obvious lies. So either all these PhD's and technicians are too dumb to see what is obvious to non-scientist, casual web surfers like us, or there is a vast conspiracy to delude mankind. I know that greed plays a role here, but surely, given the extent of the fraud, something more sinister is going on!


RE: Not the issue
By hashish2020 on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not the issue
By cocoman on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not the issue
By zinfamous on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By Kurz on 8/5/2010 5:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
We did look at the variables and the way climate scientists record and manipulate data is shameful.


RE: Not the issue
By zinfamous on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By hr824 on 8/6/2010 10:59:36 AM , Rating: 2
Talk about not looking at the data, the 1970's were a bit cooler then the 60's because of el nina but was still warmer than the 50s , 40s 30s, ect.

"Back then" there were only 4 papers the predicted global cooling and one of them made the news but there were 40 papers predicting global warming but hey lets just ignore them.

Oh and lets not forget there are 2 billion + more people in the world then in the 70's and oddly enough the warming seems to follow the rise in population ahhh must be a coincidence.


RE: Not the issue
By tbhuang2 on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By chripuck on 8/5/2010 12:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
A relatively constant level of CO2? Do you even understand what you're talking about?

Research oh I don't know, the entire age of the dinosaurs. The Earth was a giant greenhouse for MILLIONS OF YEARS before man ever climbed out of the trees.


RE: Not the issue
By tbhuang2 on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not the issue
By Schrag4 on 8/5/2010 1:45:00 PM , Rating: 1
I think you missed the point. Scientists tell us that the atmostphere used to have 10x the concentration of CO2 (you know, all the CO2 that's trapped in the form of oil) compared to today, and life THRIVED under these conditions. Nobody's claiming that it's not warming. We're just not convinced that it's a bad thing. Many of us aren't convinced that the CO2 concentration has a huge influence on global temperatures either (but instead it's minor). It seems that it was 'better' for life on this planet back then, so why would it be 'worse' this time around?


RE: Not the issue
By Exodite on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By jbartabas on 8/5/2010 1:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's important is what we're doing to combat the problem, regardless of cause.


You can't combat a problem efficiently if you don't know its cause. Not knowing the cause limits you to an adaptation strategy, and pretty much rules out any mitigation potential. But even considering the adaptation approach only, how do you scale your effort if you don't know the cause, hence can't project the amplitude of the problems to come. It seems that there isn't much you can do without knowing the cause.


RE: Not the issue
By theapparition on 8/5/2010 2:21:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
What's important is what we're doing to combat the problem, regardless of cause.

Are you that dense?

If it's not caused by human activity, then there is very little chance that we have any mechanism to combat it.

Tell me, what are you going to do when a Volcano erupts and temporarily emits 100X the current level of CO2? Anyway to stop that?


RE: Not the issue
By Exodite on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By CarbonJoe on 8/5/2010 4:12:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Tell me, what are you going to do when a Volcano erupts and temporarily emits 100X the current level of CO2? Anyway to stop that?


The best way I can think of is to fill all of the volcanoes with lawyers and politicians... It's worth a shot, right?


RE: Not the issue
By sweetspot on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 8/5/2010 6:12:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Stop living in denial that we humans did not severly alter the planets eco system, we have/did.


You know you people talk as if we invaded this planet from space. That we are not, in fact, indigenous to Earth. And that we, unlike every other life form here, don't have the right to live and breed and impact the eco-system. News flash, EVERY creature that lives on Earth "alters" the planet in some way. Just because man has a conscience suddenly means we can't live here too?

There's no going back, so just deal with it. Sorry but it's the truth. Even if we were all to accept the premise that this terrible climate ( is it honestly THAT bad by the way? ) is all our fault. The only possible solution would be to reduce the population by hundreds of billions of people and revert to a pre-Industrialized society.

Now I know that to YOU people that sounds like a great idea. But to the rest of us, you're freaking nuts. I'll happily accept all the greatness and achievement man has created so far for a potential and unproven 3 degree average increase in temperatures. Or carbon levels that don't even come close to what they were BEFORE MAN EVEN WALKED THE EARTH.

Just take a pill or something kid. Earth is fine! It's purpose is to support life, and it's doing a damn nice job of that.


RE: Not the issue
By Dorkyman on 8/7/2010 2:16:21 PM , Rating: 1
You mean "hundred of millions," don't you?

"Hundreds of billions" is a fragment that would accurately apply to the amount of money our Messiah in the White House has wasted. So far.


RE: Not the issue
By Magius on 8/17/2010 8:48:39 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the hundreds of billions wasted by the Messiah previous to the current one, right? Right?


RE: Not the issue
By NullSubroutine on 8/5/2010 10:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
I could have swore that 2007 or 2008 was one of the coldest on record...maybe it was northern hemisphere only.


RE: Not the issue
By rhjames on 8/6/2010 2:24:12 AM , Rating: 2
That's exactly right, though the magnitude of the warming (0.7 degC over the past 160 years) may be overstated.
So far, all the mathematical models have failed to match real data - eg they don't predict the lack of warming over the past 12 years - 1998 was still the warmest year in very recent times. There's normally three stages in testing a model,(1) use early data to create the model. (2) See whether the model predicts the remaining data. (3) If so, see if it predicts data as it happens now. The models fail.


RE: Not the issue
By cerx on 8/6/2010 11:52:49 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, the REAL issue is that its happening, whether it is man-made or not. And if we don't do anything to stop it (burning less oil for example) then bad shit could happen (idk, like an ice age).

I think it's hilarious how many arguments there are on this site about man-made vs. natural ... and how ignorant most of the arguers are ... when the real issue is even if it is natural, the "natural" result is a drastic change in weather that would kill almost everyone. Solid.


Temp change does not equal "global warming"
By nafhan on 8/5/2010 11:40:05 AM , Rating: 5
It bothers me when average global temperature change, by itself, is used as evidence of human caused (anthropogenic) warming. Global temperature staying the same for long periods of time would be more unusual historically. The effect humans are actually having on global temperature is not something we'll be able to verify any time soon. Throw in a politically charged atmosphere surrounding the whole global warming debate and unbiased results become even more unlikely. Oh well... lets go build a solar plant in New York. That should help.




RE: Temp change does not equal "global warming"
By SPOOFE on 8/5/2010 12:12:47 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It bothers me when average global temperature change, by itself, is used as evidence of human caused (anthropogenic) warming.

It's a classic "moving the goalposts" fallacy, but in this case they move back and forth so much it's more like "vibrating goalposts".

The tactic works thus: Assert a slew of observations all pertaining to the same subject (the climates be changin'), and when you establish this notion in the lexicon, you start slowly pushing the "we be causin' it, y'all" angle. And when that spin starts having a strain (like it did around the time of the CRU hullaballoo), you back off on the rhetoric and start focusing on the "slew of observations" phase again.

It's mere circular logic with a twist. Pretzel logic. Suddenly people that are arguing against the extent of man's influence on the environment are accused of denying climate change entirely, solely to put them on the defensive.


By xpax on 8/5/2010 12:49:47 PM , Rating: 4
++++++++

I was just thinking as I read this that the whole NOAA viewpoint on this seems deceptive. There's a big difference between denying that the climate is warming and questioning whether or not humans are the cause (primary or secondary).

They also seem to be trying to make the scientists who signed that 'petition' look like hacks. Sad.


By nafhan on 8/5/2010 3:22:12 PM , Rating: 3
Very well said. They are definitely going back and forth between observed data and pure speculation. The short 10 page report (the one that most journalists will probably read) is half temperature change numbers and half reports of random natural disasters around the world.
The one I actually found amusing was a report of flooding in Brazil, that they called "the worst in 100 years", which gives one an idea of the timescales they need to restrict themselves to.


devil in the details
By GruntboyX on 8/5/2010 11:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association has released its 2009 State of the Climate report, and found that the past nine years (between 2000 and 2009) have seen the warmest temperatures since the beginning of modern temperature records , and concluded that global warming is undeniable.


So we are looking at a small 30 year window to determine a process that is slow and gradual. And justifying Global Warming on a 9 year period. I hardly believe the data is statistically significant.

Call me a skeptic...but I think now that people are seeing the effect on their wallet, everyone is jumping off the bandwagon. This seem like a sensationalist press release only to keep the public attention.

I think we need to look at solutions that make life easier, not less convenient. Solutions that benefit the middle class.




RE: devil in the details
By Connoisseur on 8/5/2010 12:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
I think that by "modern temperature records" they're also counting the couple of hundred years of record-keeping before computers and satellites were invented. They don't mean the "computer age" and up. People used to use paper and pencils you know...


RE: devil in the details
By chripuck on 8/5/2010 12:50:22 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah and those hundreds of years of record keeping were being made at weather stations that never changed locations. Tell me with a straight face that sheer amount of concrete around the temperature monitoring stations in New York or London didn't affect temperature records in 2010 vs. 1950 vs. 1800. Right...

And if you happen to be a proficient Googler, I realize that most of these studies take that into account, but any data analyst can tell you that data that has been modified loses its' significance. If their compensation calculations were off by even a fraction of a degree it would impact our analysis of global warming hugely.


RE: devil in the details
By karielash on 8/5/2010 3:18:23 PM , Rating: 3

Totally incorrect, a large proportion of the data measuring sea temperature comes from British naval archives, it was common practice (for many navies) to record in sea logs rather impressive amounts of weather information, every hour on the hour in fact, which as some of these 'stationary weather' stations in some circumstances spent years at sea, often far from modern shipping lanes the data they are now providing is invaluable.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/arti...

Not that I am arguing for global warming or against, just pointing out that you have your head up your ass.


RE: devil in the details
By InvertMe on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: devil in the details
By chripuck on 8/5/2010 12:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty common in life. Why would I sacrifice for something I really don't care about?

What would you rather see? "Damn the environment. Let's all go burn rubber tires, cut our catalytic converters out of our cars and leave the lights on 24/7?"

Most people with common sense are for keeping our Earth clean in a manner that doesn't impact humanity's growth. Like it's even fair to propose massive carbon cuts to developing third world nations much less expect them to agree.


RE: devil in the details
By FITCamaro on 8/5/2010 1:38:32 PM , Rating: 3
Well said nations won't care considering idiots in the UN and like Obama want you and me to pay them to do so.

I'm all for recycling, researching alternative energy, etc. How is it wrong to wish that technologies be mature and cost effective before trying to introduce them on a large scale? (responding to the guy above you)

Solar and wind power isn't cost effective without the government paying a large part of the cost. Something it has no power to spend taxpayer money on. And even if the government didn't use our money to help build the plants, it doesn't work. It can't reliably provide power 24/7/365. So you still have to build other power plants to fill in the gaps. And then what was the point of building solar and wind?

Pure electric cars can't meet the needs of most people. People need a car with the ability to get them across town AND across the country if they so choose to go there.

In any other science, a potential cause (mankinds technological advancement) is not the sole focus of the investigation into an effect. The only reason so many scientists are focusing on mankind as the cause for any warming that is taking place is because there is massive grants from liberal governments to do so. If you disagree with man-made global warming, you likely don't have a job as a climate scientist.

It was hot at the beginning of the 20th century. It then got colder. Then it got hotter. Barely over 100 years of hard data is not enough to make an informed decision. And even if every year for the past 100 years had been hotter than the year before it, that still tells us nothing as to the cause.

And in the end, liberals desire to curb emissions in countries like the US has only led to greater emissions elsewhere. Pushing manufacturing out of the US to China meant that instead of putting out emissions that were at least somewhat controlled, they now are not controlled at all hardly. If the raising of cattle is made too expensive here in the US, someone is going to do it elsewhere. Likely where there are no pollution controls (nor should there be on animals farts and feces).


What this world needs
By Suntan on 8/5/2010 12:48:40 PM , Rating: 5
What this world really needs is another balls-to-the-wall, all-out loss of rational sense, nuclear standoff between two superpowers...

That kind of stupidity was preferable and more conducive to happy living than the stupidity that has been allowed to bubble up around the world in the last 20 years.

-Suntan




RE: What this world needs
By chripuck on 8/5/2010 1:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
Too funny. Read Michael Crichton's State of Fear. He basically argues that very point.

As a species Man has evolved to be afraid. We are so weak physically compared to the rest of the animal kingdom that for millenia if were ever "not afraid" then it meant probable death.


RE: What this world needs
By roadhog1974 on 8/6/2010 1:25:44 AM , Rating: 4
speak for yourself

me 10576 ants 0

bwahahahaha


Explanation please
By andrewdover on 8/5/2010 1:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
Go to http://www.climate.gov/#dataServices/dataLibrary
and set the "Global Climate Dashboard" start date to 1925 and end date to 1975/

Look at the 50 year period from 1925 to 1975. I don't see any increase in temperature. Why not, when there was an increase in the 25 years before that?

Were CO2 concentrations increasing or not during this period?




RE: Explanation please
By jbartabas on 8/5/2010 2:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Were CO2 concentrations increasing or not during this period?


Yes, but so were the aerosols.


RE: Explanation please
By andrewdover on 8/5/2010 2:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
And why was 1925 to 1975 particularly different? (Pun intended !)

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/...


RE: Explanation please
By jbartabas on 8/5/2010 4:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And why was 1925 to 1975 particularly different? (Pun intended !)

For the pun :)

Let me first correct the previous statement: temperature has increased during 1925-1975, actually it has increased between 1925 to about 1940. After that it's the (likely) aerosols-induced flattening in the net signal.

During the first period (up to the 40's), the net warming is attributed in large part to natural causes: increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity. The net anthropogenic effect being negligible during this period. After that period of largely natural increase, the flattening results from anthropogenic effects still compensating each other. At that time, sulfate and GHG increase in tandem. After 1975, the increase in sulfate becomes slower than the one of GHG and the impact of the latter shows in the net signal. You can see a figure reporting the attribution to various forcings there:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/RadF.gif


RE: Explanation please
By andrewdover on 8/5/2010 4:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, I learned something.


RE: Explanation please
By mememine69 on 8/5/2010 4:06:00 PM , Rating: 1
Since voters are the ones with the consensus, the REAL consensus that counts, it's fair to say that unless the voting public actually starts swimming to the polls through a 1970’s-like smog cloud in a Canadian winter, starving from food shortages and dying of thirst, the entire issue of the environment being doomed, cannot be sustained for another 24 years with this needles fear.
So that leaves us with "all the scientists agree". Ya, and we were told priests wouldn't abuse boys, politicians don't lie and arms of the government such as NASA, UN, IPCC, NOAA, and the EPA are not pawns of politics? The National Academy of Sciences is under the direction of the Senate. What happened to doubting, questioning and challenging authority? Why have we become such obedient Greenzis scaring our kids with threats of death by CO2? And since when did scientists all of a sudden understand climate? Wouldn't THAT be nice eh? So how do the scientists tell the difference between what they don't understand and so-called human climate? Well, you pick a conclusion, a conclusion that nobody can prove or disprove. And there you have it, scientists, media, politicians and PR firms ALL telling the lie of climate change BUT it's not a lie when you can't prove if it's a lie or not a lie. Is this a repeat of an ancient climate? Yes, and saying it isn't is not sustainable with public support. Ask yourself three questions:
-Why are there countless thousands of consensus scientists, compared to the number of protesters? You would think it would be the scientists marching wouldn't you?
-When has anything ever been as bad as anyone has ever said it was going to be and considering that Climate Change is an "end to life as we know it -IPCC" prediction, it makes it laughable to tell our kids that their kids are going to die, correct?
-Why would people so easily, thoughtlessly and so flippantly jump to the gleeful conclusion that the planet "MUST BE SAVED" ? That’s not Green, it’s Mean!
At this moment, the political movement of global warming has entered an irreversible death spiral. It is kaput, finito, done.


Mistake
By jbartabas on 8/5/2010 11:08:43 AM , Rating: 4
I know mistakes can always happen, even after careful reading, but come on! First sentence:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association [...]

I seriously doubt this thing has been re-read before posting ...




RE: Mistake
By The Raven on 8/5/2010 12:04:23 PM , Rating: 5
No this is not a mistake. These are the same guys who won't let me paint my house neon green.


RE: Mistake
By sweetspot on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
The Government
By ZachDontScare on 8/5/2010 2:16:28 PM , Rating: 5
So NOAA, a government agency, wants everyone to know that Global Warming - a threat that, not suprisingly, who's solution is found in giving government ever increasing power over individuals and money - really isnt a hoax.

Pardom me if I dont give a rats a** what they think.

You know, its funny, if a 'study' is funded by 'big oil/coal', its immediately attacked as biased. But anything the governmnent says must be true... because they cant possibly be attracted to the massive power and wealth they can sieze control of because of it.




RE: The Government
By shin0bi272 on 8/7/2010 12:38:29 AM , Rating: 2
You sir, just won the common sense award. Congrats! dont spend it all in one place.


The Man Behind the Purple Curtain
By clovell on 8/5/2010 1:24:24 PM , Rating: 4
It kinda seems like you're letting this get the better of you, Tiffany.

But, I'm gonna stick to business here:
> "Don't be fooled by anyone telling you that global warming is caused by the urban heat island effect or problems with thermometers - the satellite data don't suffer from these issues," said Neville Nicholls, president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. Nicholls also noted that since the satellite record began in 1979, the warming trend has been "identical" for thermometer and satellite data.

First off, we haven't said a single thing about what the cause of global warming is, so to say that it's not UHI or instrumentation issues doesn't hold much more weight than someone who doesn't think it's driven by people. Secondly, satellites don't suffer from that issue because they don't measure temperatures on the ground. We both know that atmospheric warming and surface warming are two different bests. I can somewhat understand your reticence to make the effort to fully educate the public so that they may be informed, likely because you're afraid of misquotes on Drudge, but let's stick to the facts.

Third - you know it hasn't been 'identical'. That's a foolish thing to say. A true quant would say 'remarkably similar', but never 'identical' - because 'identical' leads anyone who IS a quant to suspect that you've fabricated data.

> Australia, in particular, was hit by three noteworthy heat waves in 2009. These occurred in the months of January, August and November. January's heat wave claimed hundreds of lives due to the heat and brushfires. August's broke heat records, and November's caused the city of Adelaide to witness eight consecutive days above 35 degrees.

Yes, and the summer of 2009 was one of the mildest in recent memory in Chicago. Why did we switch from talking about global satellite temperature data to anecdotes from Australia?

> "The mid-Atlantic coast of the U.S. was extremely cold and snowy," the report stated. "At the same time, other regions were unusually warm and the globe as a whole had one of the warmest winters on record."<i/>

And still, no one has explained the science behind how Global Warming forces colder winters and blizzards (that would be an interesting article, Tiffany).




By clovell on 8/5/2010 2:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
Just to clarify - all the 'you' & 'we' I have up there is referring to Neville Nicholls, not Tiffany.


Daily Tech just lost a reader
By pugz3d on 8/5/2010 6:14:35 PM , Rating: 3
I want to thank you for introducing me to the tech news blog type site so many years ago.

However, the horrifically absurd "reporting" on the global warming / climate change subject has dumbfounded me for the last time. I understand not every post can be a novel, but COME ON.

"While this new report from the NOAA represents their firm stand on the side of global warming,not all scientists are pro warming. According to a report from the Canada Free Press, 31,486 Americans with science degrees (9,029 PhD, 7,157 MS, 2,586 MD and DVM and 12,714 BS or equivalent) have "signed on" with the Global Warming Petition Project, which sends the message that "the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity."

I have an IT degree, does that make me an expert in CPU design, Moore's law, OOP, cloud computing? Get a fricking grip.

Seriously, this is how you ended it? How about the tiniest effort of balance? How many "scientists" DIDN'T sign the petition?

I'm all for healthy debate, but ending an article by stating an amorphous random collection of people with the minimum of credentials are skeptical is just lazy and pathetic.

It is a radical idea that 6 billion people and the insanely massive infrastructure they require would affect the climate...

Thanks for the memories. Get back to what your good at and let the "scientists" do the science.




By JimboK29 on 8/6/2010 7:59:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah DT really became a mickey mouse site lately. A bubble gum reporting type of site. It's a shame but there are plenty of other great tech sites out there so consider it a small loss. CNET, ZDNET, Bing News(Sci/Tech), Threatcore, Yahoo Tech, etc.


'scuze me...
By hsew on 8/5/2010 8:26:01 PM , Rating: 3
But how about the UNDENIABLE FACT that SOLAR ACTIVITY has the greatest effect on our climate? Care to look at the charts? The temperature fluctuations recorded over many decades compared to the fluctuation in solar activity is almost too close to be coincidental.

Face it, Global Warming is probably the biggest scam in history. It's just another way for the government to tax the living hell out of us. Sure, THEY have no problem saying that global warming is real BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES GETTING FREAKING PAID WITH OUR TAX MONEY! And then they tell you that it's all being "put to good use". Hah. This is just another scheme for the government to tax us.




RE: 'scuze me...
By MikieTImT on 8/8/2010 3:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's not so much a scam as it is a power grab. The only way for the government that "represents" our constitutional republic to increase its power over the people it "represents" is to generate enough fear through the compromised media to cause the people to cede the power they hold to a government they've been conditioned to believe can solve all of their problems. Trouble is, government is not in the problem solving business, but in the accumulation of power business. Any non-trivial problem has always been solved either at the grass-roots level, or by free enterprise seeking to make a profit. If this crap keeps up, the UN might actually get some real power one day and we'll be just that much less "represented" than we already are.


Duh
By the goat on 8/5/2010 12:48:39 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
the past nine years (between 2000 and 2009) have seen the warmest temperatures since the beginning of modern temperature records, and concluded that global warming is undeniable.


If all the change only happened in the last nine years that would be cause for concern. But the fact remains the temperature has been rising since the last glacial maximum (a.k.a Iceage) 20,000 years ago!

How many gasoline burning cars were there 20,000 years ago? How many coal fired power plants were there 20,000 years ago?




By lenardo on 8/5/2010 12:49:13 PM , Rating: 4
but 2000-2009 have not been hotter year after year

in fact 2000-2009 the temp has actually slightly DECLINED per year.

moving goal posts gotta love it. 2009 was one of the cooler years in recent memory...

hottest year on record is still 1934 and or 1998 depending on how you manipulate the data.

love the fact that they do the temps to one hundredth of a degree when the thermometers used are only accurate to tenths... and even then there is an error of plus or minus




One sided debate
By JimboK29 on 8/5/2010 2:14:36 PM , Rating: 4
How come DT never reports the faulty sensors, erroneous graphs and manipulations when they become uncovered? It is only the doom-and-gloom side of it.

Follow the money. The Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. Its been through several ice ages and heating trends. What is the problem?




Such warm temps!
By JakLee on 8/5/2010 5:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Australia, in particular, was hit by three noteworthy heat waves in 2009. These occurred in the months of January, August and November. January's heat wave claimed hundreds of lives due to the heat and brushfires. August's broke heat records, and November's caused the city of Adelaide to witness eight consecutive days above 35 degrees.

Well here in Washington it was over 90 for probably the past week, 35 is jacket weather!




RE: Such warm temps!
By jbartabas on 8/5/2010 5:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well here in Washington it was over 90 for probably the past week, 35 is jacket weather!


You may find that useful: http://www.wbuf.noaa.gov/tempfc.htm


adelaide distress!
By bryanW1995 on 8/5/2010 6:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
oh, no, not 8 days in a row of 35c. first of all, thank god the math is simple. 2nd of all, 95f isn't even that hot. I've personally experience several summers with 30 days consecutively at 95f or higher. DT needs to man up!




RE: adelaide distress!
By Will81 on 8/6/2010 1:04:54 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the definition of a heatwave here is 5 days above 35 degrees celcius. However during that heatwave, it got a lot hotter than that. I took a snapshot of the weather app on my iPod Touch just so I can remember how delightful the weather was.

On Wednesday at 4:54 PM, the time I took the snapshot, the temperature was 44.8 with 7% humidity.

The 7-day forecast was:
Wed - 27 min / 44 max
Thu - 32 min / 44 max
Fri - 30 min / 41 max
Sat - 25 min / 40 max
Sun - 23 min / 40 max
Mon - 22 min / 39 max
Tue - 22 min / 38 max

The summers in Adelaide are hot, but that heatwave was unusually hot and long.


Why is it so complicated?
By diggernash on 8/5/2010 7:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
If you choose to live in a cave and eat carbon-locking pond scum, please do. I give my solemn word that I will never protest against you.

And in return please allow me to consume natural resources in the form of electricity, gasoline, durable goods, and perishable food items at their production costs. Or as close to production cost as capitalism allows to happen. Please do not protest my activities by contributing toward the election of politicians that promote "sin" taxes to curb my evil, individualistic consumption habits.




RE: Why is it so complicated?
By roadhog1974 on 8/6/2010 12:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
Sure so long as you promise the toxic gases you create won't enter the air I breathe go for it.


skeptic
By Zingam on 8/7/2010 1:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
In my country the summers in the last 9 years are getting colder. In the 80ies we had lots of dry weather and water shortages. During the last decade it rains quite a lot.

Winters are also colder. So I say there is a Global Cooling.




RE: skeptic
By Lerianis on 8/8/2010 5:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
No, there is FLUCTUATIONS, which is part of the normal climate of the world. People are expecting it to be ONE temperature all the time. I am sorry, but climate and weather both are CHAOTIC systems.... they don't stay the same all the time.

I've also noticed that my area is cooler than usual for the past 10 years. In the 80's when I was going to summer camp, 100 degree temperatures were not uncommon (1/3). Now, they only happen about 1/10th of the time in the summer.


Could the author clarify that?
By jbartabas on 8/5/2010 11:16:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In addition, each consecutive year from 2000 to 2009 was hotter than the year before.


I don't know if it's a wording issue, or if the author did not understand what she's read, but I seriously doubt that 1) this is the case and 2) it is what NOAA has reported.




By mememine69 on 8/5/2010 4:01:50 PM , Rating: 1
Since voters are the ones with the consensus, the REAL consensus that counts, it's fair to say that unless the voting public actually starts swimming to the polls through a 1970’s-like smog cloud in a Canadian winter, starving from food shortages and dying of thirst, the entire issue of the environment being doomed, cannot be sustained for another 24 years with this needles fear.
So that leaves us with "all the scientists agree". Ya, and we were told priests wouldn't abuse boys, politicians don't lie and arms of the government such as NASA, UN, IPCC, NOAA, and the EPA are not pawns of politics? The National Academy of Sciences is under the direction of the Senate. What happened to doubting, questioning and challenging authority? Why have we become such obedient Greenzis scaring our kids with threats of death by CO2? And since when did scientists all of a sudden understand climate? Wouldn't THAT be nice eh? So how do the scientists tell the difference between what they don't understand and so-called human climate? Well, you pick a conclusion, a conclusion that nobody can prove or disprove. And there you have it, scientists, media, politicians and PR firms ALL telling the lie of climate change BUT it's not a lie when you can't prove if it's a lie or not a lie. Is this a repeat of an ancient climate? Yes, and saying it isn't is not sustainable with public support. Ask yourself three questions:
-Why are there countless thousands of consensus scientists, compared to the number of protesters? You would think it would be the scientists marching wouldn't you?
-When has anything ever been as bad as anyone has ever said it was going to be and considering that Climate Change is an "end to life as we know it -IPCC" prediction, it makes it laughable to tell our kids that their kids are going to die, correct?
-Why would people so easily, thoughtlessly and so flippantly jump to the gleeful conclusion that the planet "MUST BE SAVED" ? That’s not Green, it’s Mean!
At this moment, the political movement of global warming has entered an irreversible death spiral. It is kaput, finito, done.
Preserve, protect, respect, experience and love Nature, not save and rescue it. Rachel Carson is watching don’t forget.


Not a question of if, but how much
By Pederv on 8/5/2010 4:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
Until I can harvest shellfish anywhere in the Puget Sound and not worry about them being "unfit for human consumption" or fish in any river or stream and not worry about the fish being "unfit for children or pregnant women" or hear a news report that people with respiratory ailments should stay inside and not exert themselves, I'll have to believe that mankind is affecting its environment in ways not yet discovered.




I like your style
By shummer on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: I like your style
By Denigrate on 8/6/2010 1:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
Story? These are nothing short of Blogs dressed as a news story. Every single blog of her's that I've read has had so many factual inaccruacies it's pathetic.


By xxsk8er101xx on 8/7/2010 1:01:03 AM , Rating: 2
Flowers, the ocean, and many living creatures absorb CO2.
CO2 is necassary for life to exist.

How about that for science?


By sleepeeg3 on 8/6/2010 2:22:55 AM , Rating: 2
OMG! The sky is falling!

What about the other 4,599,999,950 years?

Vostok is bogus: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-g...
How about... solar activity -> temperature -> life -> CO2. Hence the 800 year CO2 lag. How else do you explain that?

NASA's Geocarb III shows temperatures over the last *600 million* years are not directly correlated with CO2 levels: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_cl...

Still believe in global warming, TK?




Does it matter?
By Miqunator on 8/6/2010 6:06:56 AM , Rating: 2
So people aren't sure just how big effect human activity has on the climate, and I'm fine with that.

But even if it was proven that humanity wasn't responsible should we just skip all the environment regulations since it wouldn't matter on a larger scale?




Tiffany wrote it
By Denigrate on 8/6/2010 9:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
I don't bother to read anything by this opinion writer. She consistently misquotes her sources, and much like many religions, takes a small piece of her Bible and makes her case on it completely ignoring the rest of the text.

It would be nice to have an alternate view point that is a bit more tied into reality around here.




ok
By xxsk8er101xx on 8/7/2010 12:57:45 AM , Rating: 2
I find it amusing that when the earth (particularly the southern part of the USA) is warm all of a sudden everyone panics and says we're all gonna die it's global warming.

Yet they or you ignore the record cold temperatures that we did have across the globe just 4 months ago.

While I can understand peoples fear of being burned alive by the sun I would argue that this fear is unwarranted and unproven.

Weather is a type of science that no one understands and no model can accuratly predict. Saying so is like saying you understand why jupiter has the big red spot. You don't because no one understands weather. No one.

The best we can do is predict weather with low accuracy for 5 days. This is with the most powerful computers we have today.

I would be far more concerned about the record cold temperatures we had just 4months ago that was global.

Just because 1/4 of the USA is hot (mind you it's summer if it was winter I would think twice) that doesn't mean there's "global warming" and we're all gonna die.




Bah
By monkeyman1140 on 8/7/2010 10:56:12 AM , Rating: 2
What does the NOAA know about weather!




Man Made Global Warming == SCAM
By phxfreddy on 8/10/2010 4:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
Pure and simple.

Liberals and Conservatives both believe in Gravity.

They both believe in Keplers view of the solar system.

Liberals believe in MMGW. Conservatives do not.
Liberals like taxes. Conservatives do not.

If you don't see this then you're just not street wise.

I am both street wise and book smart and from both sides I see huge gaping holes in the arguments.

But that will not stop liberals from wanting to tax every last action you take in your life.




"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki