Hi Brit,
Sorry to keep bringing this up, but news is news. It would seem that there is another blow to the crotch of the Church of Global Warming riding the wires of the press services, not that it will make it to TV or anything higher than page 30 of a major paper, Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions. Now, just the title should be enough to make us Deniers sing and dance, but, buried in the report, is this gem, “Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe.” This brings us back to the methodology the “climate scientists” use to “average” temperature data in order to prove their pre-decided conclusion of Global Warming. Using this method, each of these weather stations is given the same weight as hundreds of stations in other areas. Obviously, this has the potential to propagate even tiny errors into serious ones, bringing the whole data set the theory is based on into question. It’s also interesting to note that the number of weather stations in the Arctic, where the most Warming is said to be occurring, is never mentioned. For that matter, I spent an hour or two not that long ago trying to find that information on the net, with no success. Now, I may not be the best researcher, but I can find out what Britney Spears’ beaver looks like, the background of the head writer of the latest IPCC report, raw economic data on almost any country, that John Kerry had the worst attendance record in the Senate last year, and the lyrics to almost any song ever recorded. That something as important as the number of weather stations in the Arctic doesn’t jump off the screen with a simple Google search, makes me very suspicious of the data. I would say that I’d just look it up in the latest IPCC report, but only the summary of that has been written. While we are on the subject of raw data to support Global Warming, just try to find the actual temperature data record. If you can find it, kindly leave me a link.
the Grit
February 17, 2007 at 8:23 am
Did you read the news report (let alone the actual report)?
Look again at these snippets:
And
The study doesn’t seem to contradict global warming at all.
February 17, 2007 at 11:56 am
Hi Ed,
I read the article. The IPCC report hasn’t been completed yet, only the Summary for Policy Makers. Of course, since the IPCC has stated the data and conclusions in the actual report will be revised to match the summary, I guess that;s good enough.
Your quotes from the article make my point, which is the science is not final. We don’t know enough as much about climate as the Alarmists claim.
the Grit
February 17, 2007 at 2:11 pm
The serious question is, do we know enough that we should do something — and the answer to that is “yes.” Controlling our effluent greenhouse gases is certainly justified. Developing plans to mitigate man-made influences world-wide is overdue — on what we know.
So, is your claim that Gore is wrong that we should act now? That’s foolish under any construction of pollution study and control. Is your claim that we don’t know everything? That’s rather the point — we don’t know the total damaging effects our actions have. Waiting too see is like waiting to see whether it’s true that we can bleed out four pints of blood before we get really woozy after a bleeding accident. Or it’s like saying “we don’t know enough to act yet” when your kid has a temperature of 104 degrees F. What’s the cause? — “let’s wait to find out what is causing the fever before we do anything” is the wrong, often fatal response.
Science isn’t final, it never is.
February 17, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Hi Ed,
I disagree with your opening remark. We do not know enough about climate to even know if there is change, let alone that such change is caused by human activity. Furthermore, even if we accept that there is warming and it is caused by people, we don’t know how much warming there will be, or how much effort is needed to correct the trend.
My claim about AL Gore is that he is using this issue as a political tool by grossly overstating the “disaster” of Global Warming, and using it as a means to effect social change. The UN is using the issue to gain power. The growing number of “climate scientists” are using bad science to fatten their wallets and underhanded tactics to silence anyone who dares to question them.
This is a complicated subject playing out on many levels, but being fed as propaganda to a gullible public by our biased news media. Click on our Global Warming category and read our posts on the subject. Follow the links. There is plenty of evidence to cast serious doubt on the claims of the alarmists and demonstrate their true motives. Of course, to see the truth, you’ll have to keep an open mind.
the Grit
February 17, 2007 at 5:37 pm
So, then, you deny the Donora, Pennsylvania disaster? You deny the great London killer fog?
Air pollution is a problem even if it’s not changing climate. The ONLY THING the scientists disagree about is how much change there will be.
Your kid has a fever of 104. You decide that, since you don’t know what causes the fever, you should do nothing. In most states, today, that could get you a child endangerment charge.
The stakes are a little higher for the climate. It’s the entire planet we’re talking about.
Our “biased” news media, by the way, are biased against getting the news of global warming out. Considering that bias, it’s late. Time to trim your wicks and get oil for the lamp.
February 17, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Oh, and so far, the only scientists found to have fattened their wallets are those who question the severity of global warming, not those who warn us of it. You have a uniquely skewed lens on news and science.
February 17, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Hi Ed,
You obviously have a personal, and irrational, attachment to Global Warming. I’ve provided massive amounts of evidence to cast doubt on the hoax, but you refuse to read it, meaning that you are not interested in facts, so much as the politics of the situation. For instance, I’ve collected many articles on scientists, actual climate scientists, who dispute that there is any global warming and/or that it is caused by people. The “2500 climate scientists” touted by the IPCC have such poor credentials that they are not even listed in that report, which only gives the authors’ initials and last names. Hardly something to give one confidence in their work.
If you had followed my advice, and read our posts on this subject, you would have known, for instance, that the lead author of the IPCC reports, on which all this nonsense is based, is a physicist, with no formal training in the field of climate science. You’d also know, that UN officials applied a great deal of pressure on the people who actually wrote the base documents to reach the “correct” conclusions to support Global Warming. This, as you might suspect, included threatening the loss of grant money for future research.
Speaking of money, the only charges against skeptical scientists taking money from Big Oil that have been proved are that some were paid $15,000 to contribute to a report some oil company was compiling. Compared to the $6 BILLION in research funding that just the US is handing out, that is hardly likely to persuade anyone to falsify research. On the other hand, considering that “deniers” somehow seem to get cut out of Government funds, a billion here and a billion there can apparently buy whatever scientific opinion one wants.
Do some reading. Start with the IPCC reports that you can find through any search engine. I should warn you though, that the actual raw data is not so easy to come by.
the Grit
February 18, 2007 at 2:08 am
And if I were working in air pollution, which I have been, I’d know that 99% of the reports are dead accurate. And if I understood how science reports to political bodies work, which I do from a couple of decades of experience, I’d understand that a physicist heading a science report is no problem — it’s all in the data. And if I knew anything at all about climate and weather, I’d know there was a problem from simply watching the weather report.
And if I were an American, my insurance rates are already rising because the insurance companies, who don’t gamble on such things, know that global warming has already affected our weather and they anticipate worse in the future.
But if I were completely oblivious to science, statecraft, politics and economics, yeah, I might put some stock in those few who deny the evidence.
Do some reading. Start with meteorology. Spend a while studying air pollution (don’t forget Donora and London). Get the reports of the old Office of Technology Assessment (they may still be available at your local U.S. Government Depository Library). Spend a couple of decades reading the trends.
$15,000 to do a report is grotesquely outlandish, per scientist. And no, the U.S. is not spending $6 billion on climate research.
Geeze, is there anything accurate here?
February 18, 2007 at 4:51 am
Oh, and that record snowfall in New York? The Great Lakes, and the Finger Lakes, didn’t freeze this year. Warming causes increased snowfall from the lake effect over open water.
Global warming causes more severe weather, higher highs and lower lows, drier droughts, and wetter areas in some places. Malaria is creeping back into North America.
Denial won’t change it.
February 18, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Hi Ed,
And, again, you are completely wrong. Read my latest post on the subject.
the Grit