mvdaog Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 Hey all, http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/22...dex.html?hpt=T2 Quick, start shooting this information down before someone actually believes in it. Stupid liberal media still pushing this craziness upon us. When will they learn... Quote
reevesr1 Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 I used to live in Clear Lake, Texas (where NASA is). Those guys are a bunch of fruit cakes. Anyone who lives in Texas knows all those engineering types are a bunch of left leaning, tree hugging, granola chomping, eco-terrorists. Most of them are from Michigan. Damn yankees. (sarcasm emoticon here) Quote
rehsifylf Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 Hey all, http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/22...dex.html?hpt=T2 Quick, start shooting this information down before someone actually believes in it. Stupid liberal media still pushing this craziness upon us. When will they learn... Well - I'm not going to debate the climate change but here is my problem. Here is what the CNN article says as its headline and in the article: NASA: Last decade was warmest ever So - I go to the NASA website and here is what the NASA paper says: January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. So - I guess thats the same thing, right? Well - if we consider that the CNN headline states that it was the warmest decade in the history of earth. It is generally accepted that the earth is roughly 4.5 Billion years old, the CNN headline states that out of the 450 Million decades since earth began, the last was the hottest - that is pretty disturbing. What the NASA report really says though is that on record - which is from 1880 to 2010 - or 13 decades, it is the warmest ever. So we have data on 13 decades out of 450 Million decades, but CNN feels that they ought to have a headline that says NASA: Last decade was warmest ever. I tend to think that there just might have been a few warmer decades somewhere in the other 450 Million decades since earth began. Especially when every climate specialist I've ever met has agreed that the earth has been warming and cooling since earth began. Its really hard to understand why us knuckle dragging non-believers might suggest the public is being misled when this is the kind of BS we have to read. Quote
hydropsyche Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 Combine the sensationalist headline with the article Sundance posted about thermometers being selectively chosen and you can't help but question if their statement the data "is readily available to the public.” means anything. Who's data? Edit to include snippet: "In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada." True or False? Quote
Ricinus Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 I used to live in Clear Lake, Texas (where NASA is). Those guys are a bunch of fruit cakes. Anyone who lives in Texas knows all those engineering types are a bunch of left leaning, tree hugging, granola chomping, eco-terrorists. Most of them are from Michigan. Damn yankees. (sarcasm emoticon here) I think everybody believed you. Regards Mike ( voice dripping with sarcasm ) Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 Hey all, http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/22...dex.html?hpt=T2 Quick, start shooting this information down before someone actually believes in it. Stupid liberal media still pushing this craziness upon us. When will they learn... There are two arguments to separate. 1. Is the Earth Warming...continuing to warm 2. Is their man made CO2 induced acceleration or exaggeration of global warming. then if you agree with point 2 above...the third question that must be asked is... 3. At what degree is global warming good or bad for Earth on a whole. Currently the weather is good for some...bad for others. If the Earth cools...it is good for some...bad for others. Generally though we are talking about a swing of 10 degrees over 20,000 years. And this is from the cyclical low. Based upon the Vostok data we can go another 2 degrees warmer and still be well within the geologic and ice core normals. This article I agree misleads the reader into assuming we have never, ever been warmer...hence the possibility man has caused the differential. One however must look at the overall fact that the Earth HAS warmed since the last ice age...therefore no one on either side is refuting Global Warming... (excluding anthropomorphic cause still up for debate). Looking at the study I posted regarding temperature consensus... one sees the scientists saying and I summarize....."Question 11 c...there is no consensus on the theoretical understanding of climate change. If the majority don't understand...yet they believe in man made global warming...this is a clear disconnect." http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/Rutan.AGWdataAnalysis%20v11.pdf this article I posted before also discusses historical geological temperature record which scientists agree is very important to climate research. Page 17, 23, 25 with 47 showing the Vostok ice core data as the simplest to read shows some temperature data. Clearly we are nearly a historic high but not near the highest. Statistically anyone can adjust this data to alter your impression but I like this peer reviewed data. Yes...I would have to agree this story is totally misleading and poor journalism. As the scientific consensus study agrees as Question 58...fear mongering scientists are getting lots of extra play with the media. The general impression of an ignorant population is that temperatures are rising, rising, rising until the surface of the Earth is like the Sun. The facts are we are in a cycle...if one says there is some effect of CO2 on the system over and above "natural" climate changes...is it significant enough to cause world wide panic? Is this fair impression of life to come as we can fairly assess? The scientists themselves in Question 24...clearly agree climate change has not created any natural disasters. How is it that the IPCC can justify putting a fear mongering video like this out in public and claim fairness. This video shows drought (like the Earth never had that before)...but floods, tornadoes, earthquakes...seriously. Where are the hundreds of millions of refugees coming from? Data shows sea level rise is natural since the last ice age and slowing. Try and tell me after watching that video that the IPCC is an objective party and not pushing an ideological agenda... Why can't they push facts? Because their data as far as I can discover his highly manipulated and not reproduce-able without disclosing the manipulations. Science does not like selective data use, manipulations, tricks to hide the declines. You should never start with trying to "make" the data "fit" the assumptions. The data should flow and decide itself if it is statistically relevant or proving or disproving of a "theory". ...and don't get me started on what value I see computer generated models giving us. If the scientists all feel the data is unproven or climate processes are unclear...but believe the models...what does that tell you of their objectivity? Show me data that shuts me up and I will freely admit it is troubling and needs further thought. Otherwise...first the hockey graph is trashed...data is showed to be manipulated and selectively chosen...scientists talk about refusing to share raw data...raw data is destroyed...the IPCC scientist is claiming new data tells him a mini ice age is coming...the IPCC crack research team allows a propaganda passage from WWF to be used in an international document so that now they say the glaciers are not in fast retreat. Glacier studies show some areas have glacier growth...others are retreating. It is not a worldwide problem. So where does this leave us? More interesting topics on global warming to debate and wait for. Climate gate has opened the doors for the IPCC to be forced to respond to concerns of data manipulations, unfair access to journals etc. Climate Gate some say helped allow Glacier Gate to be publicized rather than hidden and unreported on like the destruction of the Hockey Stick Model. The debate is so important...so much money is being expended...that maybe the ball is rolling to fast to stop...but maybe it can be steered to cause less damage to economies....cause in the absence of better data (models are a dismal failure to date) we are guessing as to what damage we are willing to do to our kids economic prosperity. IMHO Sun Quote
mvdaog Posted January 23, 2010 Author Posted January 23, 2010 Whew! Great job... that was a close one... Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 Whew! Great job... that was a close one... LOL...I thought about going ice fishing and posting tonight but the fear was it would of been too late. I am under such tremendous pressure...often all alone with my global warming fears... someone had to crap on that story maybe? Quote
Ricinus Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 If nothing else Sun, you keep everyone thinking which in the long run is all that matters. Regards Mike Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.