Once again I have the pleasure of poking the myth of Global Warming in the eye with a literary pointy stick. According to the “science” behind the theory, the more CO2 in the air, the higher the temperature should climb. Fair enough. However, according to this, 2006 was Earth’s 5th warmest year, it would appear that CO2 levels have dropped, else, 2006 would have been the warmest year. Other than making the obvious case that Global Warming rests on shaky foundations, the story is short enough to include completely, and make detailed commentary on. My comments will start with ***
Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century.
Other groups that study climate change also rank these years as among the warmest, though the exact rankings vary depending upon details of the analyses. Results differ especially in regions of sparse measurements, where scientists use alternative methods of estimating temperature change.
*** What? Temperature is temperature. If you don’t have adequate measurements, concentrate on getting them, not “alternative methods!” How many BILLIONS of dollars do you “scientists” need to scatter some thermometers around? Of course, until you do, all the jabber about Global Warming has to be considered a total lie.
Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.
*** Which is like mixing apples and oranges? If the satellite measurements are reliable, why bother with other means? Could it be that the satellites don’t confirm your predictions?
“2007 is likely to be warmer than 2006,” said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS, “and it may turn out to be the warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements. Increased warmth is likely this year because an El Nino is underway in the tropical Pacific Ocean and because of continuing increases in human-made greenhouse gases.”
*** Which is like, hedging one’s bet? If El Nino is responsible, why, if not for propaganda purposes, blame greenhouse gases? Can you prove that guess? Obviously not, else you would. Does your research grant depend on connecting Global Warming to human activity, obviously it does.
Most places on the globe have warmed in recent decades, with the greatest warming at high latitudes in the Arctic Ocean, Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Climatologists say that warming is not due to local effects of heat pollution in urban areas, a point demonstrated by warming in remote areas far from major cities.
*** Except earlier in the article it was pointed out that adequate data is not available for remote regions. So, this bit is obviously a lie.
In their analysis for the 2005 calendar year, GISS climatologists noted the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century.
*** Which leaves us with the obvious, and unanswered, question, why wasn’t 2006 even warmer? I don’t recall seeing any reports that CO2 levels were declining, or levels for any other greenhouse gas going down for that matter. This tends to indicate that the “climate scientists” may not know as much as they claim they do.
Heck people, if this doesn’t wake you up to the fact that you are being played, I don’t know what will. Make sure you click over to the original article; they deserve the traffic.
Oh, it occurred to me that even if I quit driving a vehicle powered by internal combustion and went back to a horse and buggy, these same twits would be bitching that my equines were causing Global Warming because of their flatulence.