Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is, and it even says so in NASA's own claims (1934 being the hottest).
Again, those were US READINGS ONLY - not global readings. Just because the US was hottest in 1934 does NOT make the entire world hottest in 1934. Different areas have different weather from year to year.
The Global readings continue to point to 2005 being the warmest, with 1998 next, etc, etc, etc - just as in the NASA report.
Already did, read the links on Hansen, he is a hack pushing for a personal crusade. Much like most of the media.
Here is also some information on surface records.
Climate Audit - by Steve McIntyre » Surface Record (http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=50 - broken link)
Note that Climateaudit.org is MERELY Steve McIntyre's personal blog - and he has his OWN personal crusade. Note too that McIntyre - although trained in mathematics, is NOT trained in climatogy. He caught a math error - good for him, but it did NOT change the Global statistics - a point he conveniently neglects to mention. Only the US stats were changed to any significance.
Note that Climateaudit.org is MERELY Steve McIntyre's personal blog - and he has his OWN personal crusade. Note too that McIntyre - although trained in mathematics, is NOT trained in climatogy. He caught a math error - good for him, but it did NOT change the Global statistics - a point he conveniently neglects to mention. Only the US stats were changed to any significance.
Ken
Ahh, yes... I was waiting for the attack the source, not the content, typical in these debates. This "personal blog" was responsible for finding the errors in Hansen's code. This "personal blog" is strictly an auditing site as you can see by the very fact that it runs the numbers, does analysis on the data itself. It is far more scientific in its pursuit than I would say even the IPCC is in their wishy washy application of summations without providing clarifying means to their results.
This "personal blog" consists of many many scientists in all areas of climate research. Also, you might want to look up a bit on Hansen's qualifications concerning the field as you might find that he is also not the "specialist" you seem to put faith into.
McIntyre is a mathematician, he questions the the math which is strictly in his field and which he is far more qualified than Hansen in.
Here is the problem. The math isn't adding up. The methods they use to come to their conclusions are wild and often confusing to even those who are experts in that area to the point where one claiming the research (Hansen for instance) can't even fully explain how they come to the conclusions they do. There is also some poor practice in the peer review of this field as well as the policy of documentation and publication. Its shady at best.
McIntyre doesn't have a position on global warming, he is interested in the science of the issue. He does however state that poorly derived evidence should not be driving policy and that is a fact nobody can dispute.
Now you may not like his site because he doesn't paint colorful speculations and "summarize" the facts to support his case, but the fact that you refuse to accept his work that has already been proven correct in many areas is a personal issue, not a scientific one.
If you want to take his information and call it wrong, by all means, contest it, but you can keep the political angles for another thread. Am I to expect the next stage of your reply to be calling me a "denier", that you have no time to argue this issue because the matter is settled? If so, please don't bother to responded as that drivel is best left to the subjective topics filled with sheep and arm chair experts.
First of all I NEVER said ANYTHING about Hanson's credentals. The issue I have with McIntyre is that he's trying to reduce the Global Warming issue to personal fight between himself and Hanson - but Global Warming evidence is not just coming from Hanson. As I've said, virtually EVERY major scientific organization all around the world that has studied this issue has come to nearly the same conclusion. These include: The Royal Society in Britain (the oldest science organization in existence), NOAA, the Royal Meteorological Society (UK), the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the European Geosciences Union, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the European Science Foundation, Federation of American Scientists, the World Meteorological Organization, etc, etc, etc - the list goes on and on.
And unlike the organizations that have come out against the Global Warming theory, these organizations are older, well-established groups that did not suddenly crop with with the specific goal of either promoting or debunking the Global Warming theory. They are the cream of the crop in scientific organizations all around the globe, with impectable creditials and long histories of serious scientific research.
The fact is, neither you nor I - nor probably anyone else on this board - likely has the scientific background to tell if one or the other is lying to us. Statistics can be thrown around and modified and made to say pretty much anything you want them to say. Under these circumstances I choose to go with the ESTABLISHED scientific community rather than brand-new, fly-by-night organizations who's funding sources are often murky at best. Like the scientists hired by the Tobacco Lobby in decades past, many of these new organization get their funding almost entirely from companies or groups with a vested interest in stopping Global Warming legislation - bringing up the question of just how predefined the outcomes of their scientific evaluations really are.
So again, I'm going on the side of the ESTABLISHED scientific community.
Clearly you choose to do otherwise - but make no mistake about it, the core organizations of the scientific community have almost all aligned themselves on the side of those warning that man-made Global Warming is taking place.
You can deny that all you want, but look at the list yourself, they are a vertitable who's who of respected scientific organizations:
First of all I NEVER said ANYTHING about Hanson's credentals. The issue I have with McIntyre is that he's trying to reduce the Global Warming issue to personal fight between himself and Hanson - but Global Warming evidence is not just coming from Hanson. As I've said, virtually EVERY major scientific organization all around the world that has studied this issue has come to nearly the same conclusion. These include: The Royal Society in Britain (the oldest science organization in existence), NOAA, the Royal Meteorological Society (UK), the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the European Geosciences Union, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the European Science Foundation, Federation of American Scientists, the World Meteorological Organization, etc, etc, etc - the list goes on and on.
And unlike the organizations that have come out against the Global Warming theory, these organizations are older, well-established groups that did not suddenly crop with with the specific goal of either promoting or debunking the Global Warming theory. They are the cream of the crop in scientific organizations all around the globe, with impectable creditials and long histories of serious scientific research.
The fact is, neither you nor I - nor probably anyone else on this board - likely has the scientific background to tell if one or the other is lying to us. Statistics can be thrown around and modified and made to say pretty much anything you want them to say. Under these circumstances I choose to go with the ESTABLISHED scientific community rather than brand-new, fly-by-night organizations who's funding sources are often murky at best. Like the scientists hired by the Tobacco Lobby in decades past, many of these new organization get their funding almost entirely from companies or groups with a vested interest in stopping Global Warming legislation - bringing up the question of just how predefined the outcomes of their scientific evaluations really are.
So again, I'm going on the side of the ESTABLISHED scientific community.
Clearly you choose to do otherwise - but make no mistake about it, the core organizations of the scientific community have almost all aligned themselves on the side of those warning that man-made Global Warming is taking place.
You can deny that all you want, but look at the list yourself, they are a vertitable who's who of respected scientific organizations:
You quote administrations. Even the scientists who reviewed and submitted material for the IPCC's reports do not agree with the wide summarizations the IPCC's administration makes. Each of those "administrations" are political first, scientific second.
It is much like the EPA and their studies which are often misleading summarizations of the research.
McIntyre as I said is not merely contesting Hansen, but much of the work the IPCC has done. He is not trying to disprove global warming as I said he has no opinion on it. He is however contesting the methods of analysis, data collection, and processes of due diligence by these people who ARE coming to conclusions.
Go to the site and read some of the research and you will see this is more about preserving proper science than anything else. Those who attempt to put his work into the category of someone pushing an agenda do so because they can discredit him without having to contest his findings.
Seriously, there is a lot of underhanded politics going around this field right now. Hansen is only a part of it. There are improperly handled surface data records and stations that are an issue, poorly concluded analysis of the data, conclusions based on data that is inconclusive and often nothing more than noise and even to the point of "fill in the blank" estimations being done to achieve a preplanned conclusion. That is not science, it is politics.
He has numerous corespondents with the agencies concerning these errors and questions about the data to which he has been treated often with contempt you would expect from someone trying to protect a bias.
I am not be a specialist in the field, but I can do the math and his questions concerning the conclusions they are making on the data is not unfounded. Much of the research he has questioned and found errors in is met with hostility by those who did the research by refusing to release any of their data so it can be audited.
This isn't an "opinion" site we are talking about. There are major discrepancies in the proclaimed "smoking gun" data and there are no answers to why it is. Just politics and unethical hand waving to disregard his work. Again, this is not science, this is pure politics.
And just so you understand, I can (others in these topics have as well) provide you with lists and lists of organizations and climate scientists who disagree with the rash conclusions being made, yet they are all waved away. So maybe, we should stop playing the "My Dads better than your Dad" and look to the data. Isn't that what science is about anyway? Aren't we supposed to strive to look for truth, not a means to prove us right?
Global warming? Eh.. as the sun gets older, it gets warmer and increase in solar activity... tough, deal with it.. as to CO2 causing global warming... I believe the tooth fairy has the actual evidence for that...
And just so you understand, I can (others in these topics have as well) provide you with lists and lists of organizations and climate scientists who disagree with the rash conclusions being made, yet they are all waved away. So maybe, we should stop playing the "My Dads better than your Dad" and look to the data. Isn't that what science is about anyway? Aren't we supposed to strive to look for truth, not a means to prove us right?
The problem is, you and I are probably not QUALIFIED to analyize the data (I KNOW for sure I'm not) any more than you or I are qualified to analyze an illness or serve as our own attorney in a court of law. That's why we have SCIENTISTS - to collection and analyze the data for us and report the findings. It takes a lifetime of learning to become an expert in feilds such as those we're discussing and I have my own areas of knowledge. I'm not expecting myself to be an expert in every field.
You make the claim that scientists in these various organizations don't agree with the stands the the organizations make - and no doubt there are some (as I said, with ANY scientific theory there will be those who disagree), but I find it hard to believe that virtually EVERY major established scientific organization that has taken a stand on Global Warming is somehow doing it for some "political reason" like it's some kind of "Vast Left Wing Conspiracy". That's just way too paranoid for me.
It simply makes no sense that all these well-regarded and well-financed organizations would all suddenly decide to become fraudulant. On the other hand, the attempted discreditation of legitimate science through the use of "counter-experts" was well rehearsed by the Tobacco Industry and the techniques of instilling doubt and confusion among the general public are well documented from that previous example.
So yeah, I know you can put up your "lists" of organizations questioning Global Warming, but once again, I doubt they have anywhere near the credentials of the those that have backed the Global Warming theory. I've little doubt that most of those organizations are pretty much unknown to most of us - for the simple reason that until recently they simply did not even exist. Most of them were probably created for one reason and one reason only - to confuse the public about the realities of Global Warming - at task which apparently they've been quite successful at.
I don't know about you, but I like to make my decisions based on the opinions of experts - and most of the well-established organizations of experts back Global Warming.
And that's a fact.
If and when these groups change their opinions, then I'll change mine, but until or unless that happens, I'll believe what the vast majority of the scientific establishment says is the case - that Global Warming is real - and that Man is a major cause.
Apparently he's a pretty knowledgable guy, but he's also on the payroll of the energy companies.
Now he MAY have kept his scientific integrity intact - but whenever you are reliant upon one of the sides of a controversial subject for your livelihood, it seems to me that it always leaves you a bit suspect - rather like those doctors who prostitute themselves by spending all their time testifying in court cases.
Is he really saying what he believes - or is he saying what his employers expect him to say?
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-24-2008 at 02:16 PM..
Global warming? Eh.. as the sun gets older, it gets warmer and increase in solar activity... tough, deal with it.. as to CO2 causing global warming... I believe the tooth fairy has the actual evidence for that...
Yeah RIGHT!!!!!!
Like a star that's 4.5 BILLION years old and has another 5 BILLION years or more to live is going to show any kind of appreciable difference in it's output due to changes in it's age over a couple of hundred years.
Don't you make this silly claim every time the subject of Global Warming comes up?
Yes the sun will SOME DAY swell up and fry the earth - but that process will not even begin for another 4 BILLION years at least.
Any variation the sun shows at this point in it's life is NOT due to age. As someone with a keen interest in astronomy this is an area I know quite a bit about and any contention that the Global Warming is occuring because of the aging of the sun is nothing short of laughable.
Arguments that periodic variations in the output of the sun affecting the earths temperature are open to debate, but the current heating of the earth due to an increase in output of the sun (because it is aging) is pretty ignorant of even basic astronomy.
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
