The world has never seen such global freezing heat!!

[szh]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opi...0.xml.

As usual, the scare of global warming lies in the hands of a few people who insist on spreading lies.

Z

[themadscientist]

Next you will tell me Al Gore didn't invent the interwebz.

[szh]

Next you will tell me Al Gore didn't invent the interwebz.

Z

[szh]

I forgot to include many appropriate quotes from the article:

"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."

"A sudden cold snap brought snow to London in October. 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."

"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."

And, why haven't US newspapers picked up on this issue?

Z

[hsckris]

why haven't US newspapers picked up on this issue?

What is the mass media is too biased, Alex?

[szh]

What is the mass media is too biased, Alex?

Uhhh ... who is Alex?

Z

[hsckris]

[szh]

Ah! Okay ...

Z

[OriginalWheelman]

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+I...5.htm

An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels. In sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979.

[OriginalWheelman]

And, why haven't US newspapers picked up on this issue?

They would have to admit they were wrong. Now as soon as they can slander a scientist we will hear about it, say if NASA climate guy gets fired for this it'll be all over.

After all it's about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCOqSUNspHA

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[HashiriyaS14]

I almost want to start filing MMGW discussions under "religion", lol.

I'm joking, but just barely.

The problem with MMGW discussions as a political topic is that really, none of us know what the hell we're talking about. No one is capable of interpreting the data except for those people who do it professionally.

Thus, it entails a certain degree of blind faith and a willingness to believe in "X" because someone else tells you it's the right thing to believe in. None of us can claim to be reasonably drawing our own conclusion in consideration of the facts and all their complexity. Sounds a lot like religion to me.

We're either in the "for" or "against" camp and we can pick and choose the news and findings we want to use to bolster your point, but ultimately we're just getting spoon-fed information from other sources instead of really drawing our own conclusions independently.

Meh. I'm going to nose out of these discussions from now on, lol.

[OriginalWheelman]

We're either in the "for" or "against" camp and we can pick and choose the news and findings we want to use to bolster your point, but ultimately we're just getting spoon-fed information from other sources instead of really drawing our own conclusions independently.

Well TBH, I'm not concerned at all about destroying the planet. It will never happen. More accurately, we would destroy ourselves, by making our environment inhabitable. The planet will endure, even if not in the Eden state we currently have. The whole of our society has developed in what is, when compared to the average global temperature over the known geological history, a warm period. I'm more concerned about the next ice age than the a warm period.

[OriginalWheelman]

The problem with MMGW discussions as a political topic is that really, none of us know what the hell we're talking about. No one is capable of interpreting the data except for those people who do it professionally.

Speak for yourself.

And furthermore, I think the "professionals" have done a good job proving they don't know WTH they are doing either. One unnamed scientist seems to think that changing the numbers to suit his cause is acceptable.

[WDRacing]

I almost want to start filing MMGW discussions under "religion", lol.

I'm joking, but just barely.

The problem with MMGW discussions as a political topic is that really, none of us know what the hell we're talking about. No one is capable of interpreting the data except for those people who do it professionally.

Um, broad strokes homie. It's a valid topic and one we can easily discuss it without needing to understand all of the equations and data.

For instance, one need only consider some of the temperature station locations placed around the US to form your own opinion on whether they hold water or not. Like the one that's placed behind the blast fence at an airport...ON THE TARMAC. Don't need to be a scientist to form an opinion about that do we?

WD

[hannibal]

What an embarassing blunder! No one reviews the data before its released?!? You gotta remember this is the same NASA which screwed up the Hubble. Hopefully, this wasnt a billion dollar mistake.

Another issue, not sure how these temp measurements are controlled for differences in season. You know, its usually getting warmer in the southern hemisphere when it begins getting colder in the north. I guess most of the world's land mass and population are in the north though.

Why are people so skeptical of global warming? Is it that hard to believe our pollution and industrial activities have influenced our atmosphere?

[WDRacing]

It's not really a matter of skepticism per se', but a difference of opinion when it comes to the world ending if we don't take some type of drastic measure. To truly have a positive affect of global warming, we'd have to globally change. China alone puts out enough toxicity in a month to trump what the US does in 6.

We can cite different sources for days.

What we should all agree on is that YES, we are having a negative impact and that YES, eventually things will be bad enough to have a negative effect on humanity. But only when we are all personally effected will people actually give a crap.

[C-Kwik]

Why are people so skeptical of global warming? Is it that hard to believe our pollution and industrial activities have influenced our atmosphere?

The question isn't if its hard to believe. Its whether or not its true. So far the only data that seems to be thrown around is the relation between CO2 levels and temperature. Al Gore's video emphasizes this. But offers no technical data to explain the findings. Yet we have videos out there like the Great Global Warming Swindle that refute claims made in the Al Gore documentary with pretty convincing arguments BACKED by data that supports it. It also pretty much negates the claim that the temperature is caused by higher CO2 levels.

I by no means consider myself a climate expert, so I don't know who is right. But if I were a jury deciding between the two matter, I'd side with the Great Global Warming Swindle Documentary simply because it offers more technical explanation that makes sense. The MMGW people could have easily offered a rebuttal with factual info by now. With Al Gore backing them, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to get the funding needed either. Of course, why would they bother. People have bought into it regardless of if its true or not...

[hannibal]

I havent seen either argument so I'm less informed than you. But the way I see things, its quite possible. I also see an incentive for certain portions of the energy industry to cover it up aka refute the evidence suggesting global warming is real.

I also find it contradictory for developed nations to point at less developed countries as the source. We used these simple forms of power produciton for decades (even centuries). Now that we've developed more efficient, environmentally friendly forms of energy we cant turn around and prevent them from doing it. Unless... we provide them our current energy production technology at reasonable prices. But you wont see us selling nuclear power to China anytime soon...

In China's defense, I know theyve spent almost 20 years working on the largest hydroelectric power plant the world has ever seen. So they are in fact trying to be green while fighting as an emerging economy.

[audtatious]

zerothread?id=324923!!!!

I popped this into the Global Warming thread the other day....

[Urabus GodofTraction]

First they gave us Global Warming.

Then, it kinda turned out that the Earth is always doing crazy things.

So they gave us MAN MADE Global Warming.

Then, it kinda turned out that somebody misplaced a decimal point.

So they gave us Climate Change...

File me under "D" for Doesn't Give A Damn.

[HashiriyaS14]

Um, broad strokes homie. It's a valid topic and one we can easily discuss it without needing to understand all of the equations and data.

For instance, one need only consider some of the temperature station locations placed around the US to form your own opinion on whether they hold water or not.

Oh you can definitely discuss it, you just cannot, IMO, discuss it intelligently. You cannot reach a definitive conclusion, all you can do is sling opinion.

Slinging opinion is fine on subjective matters such as, say, whether or not marijuana should be legalized.

The problem is that this is NOT a subjective matter, it is 100% purely objective. MMGW is either happening or it isn't. No other discussion matters, and not one person here (myself included, of course) is knowledgeable enough to state conclusively, without doubt, whether it is happening or not.

Opinions are worthless because no opinion is better or worse than any other, so it's just people flapping their gums. Unless you can say *conclusively* that it is either happening or not, it's a worthless conversation.

I mean, I'm not going to start editing the threads or anything, I don't care, no skin off my back, I guess I just don't get it.

I mean, we spend all day in here arguing over subjective matters, trying to change minds, and I think that's great, that's how it should be with those issues.

On something hard-and-fast however, such as whether or not humans are having an effect on global climate change, you either know or you don't, and we don't. Our opinions mean nothing because it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of indisputable fact, and none of us are in possession of any indisputable facts. We're just regurgitating what we hear from whatever sources match our preconceived uninformed opinion.

EDIT: Charlieo

Who is "they"? The scientific community? The people who brought you supersonic travel, the microwave, and the sequential transmission? Are you, for some reason, under the impression that they're all in collusion together, belting out theories for the sole purpose of influencing public action? They find what they find. It's their job.

[WDRacing]

The problem is that this is NOT a subjective matter, it is 100% purely objective. MMGW is either happening or it isn't. No other discussion matters, and not one person here (myself included, of course) is knowledgeable enough to state conclusively, without doubt, whether it is happening or not.

See, the "no other discussion matters" only applies to you. Or else this entire forum would fall under the same basic thought process unless you have a degree in poli sci. Your opinion is that, "no other discussion matters", our opinion is that, well we like to discuss whatever.

[HashiriyaS14]

See, the "no other discussion matters" only applies to you. Or else this entire forum would fall under the same basic thought process unless you have a degree in poli sci. Your opinion is that, "no other discussion matters", our opinion is that, well we like to discuss whatever.

The problem is that Political Science, moniker notwithstanding, is not a science. It deals in matters that are fundamentally subjective.

This is not subjective. This is like asking "Does God exist?" It is a purely objective question, and like that question, it is not one that any of us here are prepared to answer conclusively.

I'm not going to stop anyone from discussing it, I'm just saying, again, that I don't get it.

[WDRacing]

Of course you don't "get it"...

I'm just baiting you into a thread you didn't want any part of homegirl

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Who is "they"? The scientific community? The people who brought you supersonic travel, the microwave, and the sequential transmission? Are you, for some reason, under the impression that they're all in collusion together, belting out theories for the sole purpose of influencing public action? They find what they find. It's their job.

The people that brought us the above aren't the people giving us global warming.

All in collusion? No. Green makes money these days, though, and a scientist who say, wants to study squirrels in the park is going to call his study "The Effect of Global Warming on Squirrels in the Park."

"They" are constantly changing their mind on what they've found. See the big NASA SNAFU:http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci....html

Edit: "Climate Change" Science and Political Science are damn near the exact same thing. Without ways to test a hypothesis, they're both examples of making theories and projections based on gathered, uncontrolled evidence. Political Science can certainly be objective; I can objectively explain voter trends, for example.
Modified by charlieo at 7:09 PM 11/19/2008

[audtatious]

Opinions are worthless because no opinion is better or worse than any other, so it's just people flapping their gums. Unless you can say *conclusively* that it is either happening or not, it's a worthless conversation.

I find fault with this. If no opinion is better or worse than others then why is Gore, the UN, Obama, McCain, environmental agencies and others trying to press forth their viewpoint that they are correct and use supporting "evidence" that has been debunked or shown to be inconclusive (remember the "all scientists agree" statement that was tossed around to dismiss others viewpoints)? I'm not talking about "Global Warming" as history shows us the earth goes through weather cycles. I'm specifically talking about MMGW which states WE are causing the warming cycle. The viewpoint of MMGW is very political in nature and the impact of following through with law/direction to "fix" it will impact the nation and people as a whole. If the discussion is "for or against" the viewpoint then it would be worthless scientific discussion here but with it being a political viewpoint which is resulting in direction via our Gov it's fully valid.

I'm all for lowering our impact on the planet but not to the point where we destroy ourselves in the process. Technology improves and we become more "green" but you can't simply force a generation or two of improvements by simply having the Gov mandating it and penalizing everyone as a whole.

[OriginalWheelman]

You know, I can't stop thinking about how green we'd be if the same people pushing us to cut out CO2 had not been pushing us to stop using nuclear power 30 years ago.