"global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever"

[Beardo]

... Or not
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

:algorecry

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Yeah, they realized that temperatures aren't really rising so they call it "climate change" now.

I'm still for helping out the environment, though.

[Beardo]

Then why do they intentionally fudge number to claim that it is rising.

[Fresh Prince]

There was a report saying that we are facing global cooling, you know within the next thousand years or so.

smh

[Beardo]

There was a report saying that we are facing global cooling, you know within the next thousand years or so.

smh

You mean like what happened thousands of years ago. Before humans were emitting any green house gases. And the earth cycled back to being warm again without Al gore?

SMH

[Fresh Prince]

Actually it's even better:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7722300.stm

We're preventing the next ice age.

[Beardo]

 

Ok problem solved. But the real question is, will ManBearPig survive the ice age?

[Himu]

lmao science

Islam

[Beardo]

lmao science

Islam

What if Allah put a jihad on weed? What would you do?

[Himu]

He wouldn't!

[ToxicAdam]

These two graphs have been slightly altered in the past 10 years and no official explantion to why.

I guess the "science is better" now.

[Mandark]

And here I was about to ask for a tinfoil hat smiley.

[Bocsius]

Well, that's a relief. Long live fossil fuels! Let's pour carbon and chemical pollutants into the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow.

[Beardo]

I wonder if manbearpig wears hats.

Well, that's a relief. Long live fossil fuels! Let's pour carbon and chemical pollutants into the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow.

Lets continue to make statements with no merit that are only intended to scare people.

[The Fake Shemp]

So you're saying that since evil liberals use false science to scare people that we should not conserve natural resources and promote environmentalism?

[Beardo]

Im saying that manbearpig is a real threat. I'm super cereal.

[The Fake Shemp]

Also, when did anti-global warming become a predominantly Republican platform?

[Rman]

Also, when did anti-global warming become a predominantly Republican platform?

I never got that either.  Why politicize environmental issues?

[Brehvolution]

Why politicize moral issues?

[Bocsius]

Also, when did anti-global warming become a predominantly Republican platform?

If it costs one red penny towards the bottom line, it is a ploy by communists to destroy America.

[Beardo]

Also, when did anti-global warming become a predominantly Republican platform?

I never got that either.  Why politicize environmental issues?

Why lie about facts?

[MrAngryFace]

I think the problem with Global Warming is it requires that people do something that may not bring immediate profit. Republicans dont like that much.

[Beardo]

I think the problem with Global Warming is it requires that people do something that may not bring immediate profit. Republicans dont like that much.

Why do liberals lie about the numbers. It just doesnt make sense.

[Brehvolution]

Maybe they are just a little more liberal with the calculations.

[Beardo]

I think the problem with manbearpig is it requires that people do something that may not bring immediate profit.

 

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Even if there isn't global warming, the truth is that we should take considerable measures to reduce the particulates and harmful gases that are emitted.  The byproducts of this can be somewhat beneficial too, depending on the byproduct.  So greedy business owners can still make money from their waste.  An example is power plants that can sell fly ash, which is used for various structural purposes.

[T234]

Oh, it's a beardo thread. He eats Republican shit (which is to say shit that lies to you, kills your son, and ships your job somewhere else) and then regurgitates on my Evilbore.

[Beardo]

Even if there isn't global warming, the truth is that we should take considerable measures to reduce the particulates and harmful gases that are emitted.  The byproducts of this can be somewhat beneficial too, depending on the byproduct.  So greedy business owners can still make money from their waste.  An example is power plants that can sell fly ash, which is used for various structural purposes.

I'm all for doing that once liberals stop using words like greedy profit every 2 seconds and calmly and truthfully talk abut the subject. I cant really have a conversation with someone who screams at you for being a  greedy profit grubbing corporation while lying about the facts.

(which is to say shit that lies to you, kills your son

umad?

[MrAngryFace]

Why does Beardo keep thinking anyone here respects his opinion? It just doesnt make sense.

Feel free to mis-quote that for humorous effect, Beardo.

[T234]

Even if there isn't global warming, the truth is that we should take considerable measures to reduce the particulates and harmful gases that are emitted.  The byproducts of this can be somewhat beneficial too, depending on the byproduct.  So greedy business owners can still make money from their waste.  An example is power plants that can sell fly ash, which is used for various structural purposes.

I'm all for doing that once liberals stop using words like greedy profit every 2 seconds and calmly and truthfully talk abut the subject. I cant really have a conversation with someone who screams at you for being a  greedy profit grubbing corporation while lying about the facts.

(which is to say shit that lies to you, kills your son

umad?

YES, INFURIATED BY CLOTS IN SUITS WHO TOOK MY COUNTRY TO THE CLEANERS OVER THESE PAST FEW YEARS

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Why does Beardo keep thinking anyone here respects his opinion? It just doesnt make sense.

Feel free to mis-quote that for humorous effect, Beardo.

u mad?

[Beardo]

Why does Beardo keep thinking anyone here respects his opinion? It just doesnt make sense.

Feel free to mis-quote that for humorous effect, Beardo.

You're the one in this thread replying to me and not refuting the facts.  

[Robo]

What's the agenda for the anti-"global warming" crowd?  Are we trying to roll back anti-pollution efforts?  Or do we just like to spite the fear-mongering hippies? 

I don't get it.

[Beardo]

What's the agenda for the anti-"global warming" crowd?  Are we trying to roll back anti-pollution efforts?  Or do we just like to spite the hippies? 

I don't get it.

Just trying to keep people honest.

[ToxicAdam]

Even if there isn't global warming, the truth is that we should take considerable measures to reduce the particulates and harmful gases that are emitted.

This has already been going on for 3 decades in America. In many aspects, we are leading the world.

[Robo]

Donning my eco-trrrst hat for a moment, if it takes inflated numbers and fear-mongering to get people, Congress, corporations, and the world to pay attention to, and act on environmental issues, I don't see a problem with it.  Call it a necessary evil.

What's the down side?

[recursivelyenumerable]

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

they have been rising, it's just that 1998 is still the peak year because it was the last major El Nino event.  I'm sure the next big El Nino will be warmer still.

[Beardo]

Donning my eco-trrrst hat for a moment, if it takes inflated numbers and fear-mongering to get people, Congress, corporations, and the world to pay attention to, and act on environmental issues, I don't see a problem with it.  Call it a necessary evil.

What's the down side?

Oh I dont know maybe I think forcing people to do things is wrong especially when its based on a lie.

[recursivelyenumerable]

[The Sceneman]

Im saying that manbearpig is a real threat. I'm super cereal.

  such a bad joke, yet so good

[BlackMage]

who cares anyway. we are all gonna die in 2012.

[ToxicAdam]

Donning my eco-trrrst hat for a moment, if it takes inflated numbers and fear-mongering to get people, Congress, corporations, and the world to pay attention to, and act on environmental issues, I don't see a problem with it.  Call it a necessary evil.

What's the down side?

Why not do the same thing in Iraq? Why not fudge a little bit about WMD's to get everyone on board? Surely, you want to see their people free?

What's the down side?

[recursivelyenumerable]

this thread is  , why isn't beardo lepered already?

[Beardo]

I'm super cereal you guys.

[Robo]

I wouldn't say motivating war and motivating anti-pollution legislation are quite the same thing.

[BlackMage]

I wouldn't say motivating war and motivating anti-pollution legislation are quite the same thing.

i think the similarity would be they both cost money

[recursivelyenumerable]

could we get off of robo's bizarre tangent and back to talking about how the original article posted is complete bullshit, please?

[Robo]

Yeah yeah.  I'm just trying to see what's on the other side of the fence while we're at it.

[Fresh Prince]

I'm on the wrong side.

Anyway I think there's become a simplfication of climate change data. It's like the Big Bang Theory everyone knows what it is but very few people take the time to understand how and why.

In the 70's people thought the earth was going to cool down, then they thought the world as a whole was warming up now it's some parts will cool while other parts warm. Seems like science on the fly to me.

[Beardo]

could we get off of robo's bizarre tangent and back to talking about how the original article posted is complete bullshit, please?

Go ahead. Explain how its bullshit.

[recursivelyenumerable]

In the 70's people thought the earth was going to cool down, then they thought the world as a whole was warming up now it's some parts will cool while other parts warm.

who is "people"?  who is "they"?

[recursivelyenumerable]

Go ahead. Explain how its bullshit.

bogus claim that the world hasn't gotten warmer over the last decade + cherry-picking of minor flaws in part of a large body of evidence, similar to tactics used by creationists.

[Beardo]

bogus claim that the world hasn't gotten warmer over the last decade + cherry-picking of minor flaws in part of a large body of evidence, similar to tactics used by creationists.

Yeah, catching liberals in their lies is such a wacky tactic. Just admit that the scientist lied when he said the earth was getting hotter.

[Fresh Prince]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

[Beardo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

You can't quote facts. Only creationists use zany tactics like facts. WTf ZOMG

[recursivelyenumerable]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[2] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, although Paul R. Ehrlich mentions climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968.[3] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend had stopped going down, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects.[4] In June 1976, in response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning that a very significant warming of global climate was probable.[5] It was known that both natural and man-made effects caused variations in global climate.

the 70s global cooling thing was just media sensationalism, it was never believed by climate scientists.

[Beardo]

the 70s global cooling thing was just media sensationalism, it was never believed by climate scientists.

Kind of like Al Gore

[Fresh Prince]

the 70s global cooling thing was just media sensationalism, it was never believed by climate scientists.

Exactly. However 10% of climate scientists believed global cooling would occur. What if the 10% were right and the 90% wrong?

[BlackMage]

the 70s global cooling thing was just media sensationalism, it was never believed by climate scientists.

Exactly. However 10% of climate scientists believed global cooling would occur. What if the 10% were right and the 90% wrong?

those are bad odds.

[Robo]

My tangent was less bizarre.