Wash. Times' Pruden falsely claimed that "the earth has been measurably cooling for the last decade"
SUMMARY: In a Washington Times column, Wesley Pruden falsely claimed that "the earth has been measurably cooling for the last decade, despite everything [former Vice President] Al [Gore] and his followers have done about it." In fact, the United Kingdom's Met (Meteorological) Office lists as a "fact" that "[t]emperatures are continuing to rise" and states that "temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1° C per decade."
In a June 17 column, former Washington Times editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden falsely claimed that "the earth has been measurably cooling for the last decade, despite everything [former Vice President] Al [Gore] and his followers have done about it." But Pruden offered no source for his assertion that "the earth has been measurably cooling for the last decade," and in fact, widely used data sets by the United Kingdom's Met (Meteorological) Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia show that annual global mean temperatures have increased in the past decade. The U.K. Met Office lists as a "fact" that "[t]emperatures are continuing to rise" and states that "[a] simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1° C per decade."
According to the U.K. Met Office:
The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. This does not mean that next year will necessarily be warmer than last year, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures.
A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties, which are shown as thin black bars. The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.
1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2 °C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and air temperatures over land. Had any recent years experienced such an El Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not associated with El Niño conditions that boosted the warmth of 1998.
According to estimates from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the global mean temperature anomaly "continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years." Moreover, the GISS states that "[t]he eight warmest years in the [global] GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990." From the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis for 2007:
The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
GISS produced this graph showing its temperature data and the continued warming trend:
The GISS further stated:
"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.
From Pruden's June 17 Washington Times column:
We're not supposed to call global warming "global warming" any more. That's so very 20th century. Now it's "climate change," just in time for the political high season, and convenient when the climate leaves the natural warming cycle and enters the cooling cycle, as it has done for millions of years. Climate change is the change that Obama, Hillary, John and the rest of us can all believe in, because changing is what the climate does best. Best of all, the hysteria so beloved by Chicken Little and his disciples is preserved, like the pickle we were never in.
In fact, the earth has been measurably cooling for the last decade, despite everything Al and his followers have done about it. The solar cycle peaked, the sun is quieter, the suns spots have faded and everybody but Al is cooling off. Even the United Nations agrees, and who could disagree with the United Nations? The director of the U.N.'s International Governmental Panel on Climate Change concedes that nature has overwhelmed everything man can do and it might even be another decade before man can rally and the warming resumes. Until then the U.N. and related bureaucracies, which have blown through billions of dollars in "research" to prove that man not nature rules the cosmos, must work hard to keep up the hysteria level.
What drives the global-warming skeptics is that the science of weather, such as it is, has been overwhelmed by the politics of the special pleaders. Richard Lindzen, the Harvard-trained Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meterology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), is one of the skeptics. He agrees that the planet has warmed over the last century by 0.6 degrees Celsius, as measured by the global mean temperature, but he doesn't agree that man has caused it.
You know, once 1998 no longer marks (roughly) the beginning off "the last decade" what will these jokers cling to? from 1999-2008 the world has gotten warmer. 1998-2008 was warmer than 1988-1998. One year does not change a TREND. These guys insult our intelligence.
-- One year does not change a TREND -- niceguyeddie
I agree and here's a look at more than one year from Joseph D'Aleo, the director of meterology at the Weather Channel:
-- “The University of Alabama, Huntsville’s analysis of data from satellites launched in 1979 showed a warming trend of 0.14 degrees Centigrade (0.25 Fahrenheit) per decade.
This warmth peaked in 1998, and the temperature trend the last decade has been flat, even as CO2 has increased 5.5 percent. Cooling began in 2002. Over the last six years, global temperatures from satellite and land-temperature gauges have cooled (-0.14 F and -0.22 F, respectively)
Here's more, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm (You know, the BBC where thy still do some actual fact-checking?)
1998 was an exceptionally warm year because of the strong El Nino event. Variability from year to year is expected, and picking a specific warm year to start an analysis is "cherry-picking"; if you picked 1997 or 1999 you would see a sharper rise. Even so, the linear trends since 1998 are still positive.
Drop it into excel. Yep - the linear trend line def goes UP!
If you look at the data starting in 1998, you will see flat or even slightly declining temperatures; if you start in 1999, you see sharply increasing temperatures; if you go back to the 70's up to present, you will see an upward "trend". The slight cooling of the last few years is consistent with the 11-year solar cycle -- perhaps we can expect thing to warm up a bit in the next few.
John Christy (at Huntsville) is called a skeptic because he doesn't buy into the hype that says the sky is falling, and he's quite good at pointing out inconsistencies in climate model results. But he does recognize that GW is a problem and doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the economists, lobbyists, politicians. cattlemen's association presidents, science fiction writers and Evangelicals who wish that GW weren't so.
Salamadstran wrote:
>>John Christy (at Huntsville) is called a skeptic because he doesn't buy into the hype that says the sky is falling, and he's quite good at pointing out inconsistencies in climate model results.
Yes, John Christy is so good at pointing out such inconsistencies that he hasn't published a single peer-reviewed article backing up his skepticism. And, by the way, Christy is a fundamentalist who is guided as much by his beliefs as by his science:
lnk
Jeesh, those thing called "facts" again. This is yet another story, sort of like how someone on Fox or other conservative folks proclaim loudly about how global warming must not be real because it snowed a lot in Maine in January. Forgetting of course that we're talking about trends over a long period of time, and not the day to day weather. Also, these jokers seem to forget that we're talking about GLOBAL warming, meaning, you have to take the entire, you know, globe into account when calculating trends and mean temperatures, and things like that. I will normally hear them talk about how their hometown's temperatures have been decreasing for the past 2 years, or something silly like that to dismiss global warming, and climate change.
I don't know WHY conservatives can't see that what Gore, and his associates are actually trying to do is to reduce the damage that we, as humans are doing to the planet, and to preserve it, make it cleaner, and things like that. It's NOT a partisan issue. But of course, if Gore is driving the bus, it must be some sort of hard core liberal plot to, I don't know, to kill free trade or something crazy like that.
Another point of view; It all depends on who you source. The jury is obviously still out.......
Two authorities provide us with analysis of long-term surface temperature trends. Both agree on the global temperature trend until 1998, at which time a sharp divergence occurred. The UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies Had-Crut data shows worldwide temperatures declining since 1998. According to Hadley's data, the earth is not much warmer now than it was than it was in 1878 or 1941.
The average temperature of the Earth has always varied. Are you trying to make some sort of point or something? I don't get it.
There's no right temperature.
There are global temperatures that, if continued for long periods of time, will cause great human suffering.
The Earth will go on. The Earth doesn't care what temperature it is.
Humans do, because human civilization had gotten used to certain climates in certain regions, and rapid change will really badly affect most of the people in this world.
you are absolutely right.
one is picking a jury composed of scientific consensus and the other side is buying a bunch psuedo-scientific garbage in order to maintain their profit margins.
I forgot to spellcheck
"bunch of pseudo..."
Looking at the very site from which Tommy's data came from, their home page says
It's ridiculous to claim, like Wes Pruden did, that temperatures have been dropping. We don't measure global warming from one outlier year. It is trends and patterns and worldwide data that matters. Anyone who's done any research on this topic knows this. Anyone who tries to claim what Wes Pruden or Tommy did is either ignorant of the facts, and deserves no credit, or is purposely trying to deceive by stating that the jury is still out, and deserves no credit.
Tommy failed to link to his source either.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
The author, Stephen Goddard, is not a climate specialist at all.
It's not a "he said, she said" argument. The jury is not still out. Climate change is not measured based upon one outlier year.
"These people think that in order to be "balanced," lies should be given the same weight as the truth."
That's a hilarious assessment but so true!
The first graph in this post is Hadley data. Your graph appears to use some sort of smoothing, but doesn't disclose what it is. Your graph also uses partial year data which gives inappropriate weight to the first four months of this year--a strong la nina episode.
Again, it's pretty much the same data apart from your graph treating four months as a year.
The jury is obviously still out.......
So, in the meantime, we might as well do maximum harm to the planet.
It's not another study. It's the same data, but four months is treated as a year and apparently they use a smaller than standard moving average to make the swings look wider.
I could be wrong, but the graph lacks proper documentation.
Remember acid rain? anyone?
Didn't Jimi Hendrix record "Acid Rain"???
Stuff and nonsense.
http://www.skepdic.com/climateskeptics.html
-- he may very well have sourced other sources -- Tommy
Exactly!
-- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. -- The Earth Times
Do you think Pruden should have cited his source...assuming there is one?
What Wesley is referring to here - its interesting you didn't note the actual source, which was written by Dennis T Avery and was funded by a board member of the Hudson Institute (of which Avery is an employee) - is a book that came out in Sept of 2007. I encourage folks to Google 'Dennis T Avery', or 'Heartland Institute' to get a better understanding of the research cited here and the story behind the story - many of those same scientists are very unhappy with how Avery abused their research in his book.
Mr Avery, some might recall, received much-deserved scorn a while back for falsely positing that chemically grown food was safer than organically grown.
"500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares." -- Wesley
That is a pretty useless measurement. It is possible that the results of such a query would necessarily include at the very least some scientists who may agree with AGW, but disagree with some minor aspect of it.
You can pick nits if you want...I prefer to remain "open-minded" about the subject of man-made global warming.
The list of scientists who disagree with Al Gore and his scare mongers is growing. There is nothing settled about the debate.
You can pick nits if you want...I prefer to remain "open-minded" about the subject of man-made global warming.
The list of scientists who disagree with Al Gore and his scare mongers is growing. There is nothing settled about the debate.
So you are "open-minded" about Al Gore's "scare mongers"? Nice to know.
Nope...I'm not at all open-minded about the tactics and falsehoods spouted and practiced by the gasbag named Al Gore...as evidenced by one fact...he has to have a swimming pool heater for his own home...while preaching for everyone to conserve.
Maybe he should try swimming like his polar bear brethren.
I prefer to remain "open-minded" about the subject of man-made global warming. - wesley
only if "open minded" translates to "in the dark".
"You can pick nits if you want...I prefer to remain "open-minded" about the subject of man-made global warming."--wesley
I guess that would make the premise of the "study" you cited is a "nit" - as you call it. I never thought I would see you concede that so easily. It only supports my contention that it was indeed worthless. Thanks.
: )
Who am I??? I'm a nobody posting comments on a blog.
AL Gore won the Nobel for his "raising awareness of Global Warming" and is fair game for criticism.
Do you really not agree at any level that Gore is a hypocrite with his conspicuous consumption of electricity? At what point does he need to set an example?
And at some point you really will have to consider his message. We have a big problem to solve and should all be working on addressing it.
I don't presume to know the reason why one of Gore's homes has had increased energy usage - nor do I really care. I am sure that if it went down, or goes down in the future, a press release will not be issued effusively extolling his conservation.
If Gore's energy use goes back down, would you then believe anything he says? I doubt it. It is just apparently a convenient way for intellectual cowards to attack the periphery of the issue without resorting to a real argument on the merits. Lets just be honest here.
OPen Mind,
You're right - I won't believe anything he says. When he says "the debate is over", he loses all credibility with me.
It would be nice if you could prove him wrong by actually...debating.
: )
I think it was wrong for Gore to declare the debate over. I agree with you on that. The debate is never over in science. Anything and everything in science should be open to scrutiny and/or debate. It is unfortunate that Gore sometimes needlessly makes enemies - especially with his formidable intellect.
I will not just throw away his views and arguments based on that disagreement. In my own opinion, Gore has been a visionary over the years - probably moreso than any other single person - even while often being ridiculed by ignorant people all along.
Gore worked on legislation to create the modern public internet out of what was previously a government research program. He was also arguing to phase out the internal combustion engine 15 years ago.
During Gore's presidential run in 2000, many commentators remarked that Gore was stupid to be pushing for more business ethics and accountability during a huge economic boom. Of course the Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, MCI...etc. scandals proved Gore absolutely correct and way ahead of the curve yet again.
Gore was also strongly and correctly against the Iraq War at a time it was politically extremely difficult to do so. It took a lot of guts to do that.
It is hard for me to just write Gore off based on his attitude towards the level of certainty regarding Global Warming considering his previous pretty amazing track record and accomplishments.
"considering he may very well have sourced other sources for his claim than the ones MMFA does."
I'm assuming he cites these sources? You know, you can find these things out for yourself, instead of just saying "maybe he saw something different."
Dude, IT"S THE SAME SOURCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are only three sources for global surface temperature data, GISS, Hadley Center/CRU and NOAA. (Lower tropospheric temperatures are measured by MSU satellites and analyzed by UAH and RSS.) You have used a graph form CRU that includes the first four months of this year and weights them as one year. You obviously don't know what you found, so I told you and showed that it is inappropriate. I don't dismiss the data, but the graph is misleading because it includes an incomplete year.
Note that MMFA uses Hadley Center / CRU data and even links to what their experts say about the data. Your mindlessly linking graphs that you do not even understand does not change the fact that the data are FROM THE SAME SOURCE.
I'm not sure what you're trying to claim here. The graph makes it appear that the recent temperatures have been in decline. The data that the site says it uses clearly shows that the last ten years have been the warmest in history. It also shows that the first seven years after the spike year of 1998 show a mostly steady climb. The last couple full years after that dipped back slightly, but are still among the hottest in history. The data does NOT support the claim of "worldwide temperatures declining since 1998."
I think Crimson2 is correct. They're using some kind of moving average change and not full historical data on the chart. Their data agrees with the MMFA posted chart, but their chart differs. And it definitely is irrational to treat four months of 2008 as a full year.
Read the headline of this beef by MMFA > "the earth has been measurably cooling for the last decade".
The link and the study I linked to supports Pruden's assertion. MMFA says this is false, obviously there are studies out there who support Pruden. If you or Crimson don't like them or want them included for full disclosure here, then fine, that is your opinion.
If you or Crimson don't like them or want them included for full disclosure here, then fine, that is your opinion.
Umm... they've taken the time to state specifically what is flawed with them. You're not being shouted down, just refuted.
I presented a set of FACTS and you're just pretending that they don't exist. No, the earth has not been cooling for a decade. The data from the site YOU linked to shows that. The claim that your linked website shows it is cooling is a FALSE interpretation of the data.
I'm not using spin, I'm citing facts that you're unable to counter.
Your use of your ridiculous "it's your right" response that you dole out so generously makes no sense in response to a demonstration that YOUR FACTS ARE WRONG.
The data from your own site shows that temperatures have not been cooling for a decade. It does not refute MMFA's data, it agrees with it.
You have no facts supporting your position.
His "study" is not a study.
It doesn't show what he claims it says.
The jury is not still out.
Climate change is not measured based upon one outlier year.
My position? I posted a link that anyone could go and seek out for themselves, it is not my study Bill, sorry your arrows are pointed at the wrong person. And as I said, if you don't agree with it, fine.
Face it, you, and many here, just don't want another study introduced that does not support what you believe, well, too bad - they're out there, despite your protests.
Face it, you, and many here, just don't want another study introduced that does not support what you believe, well, too bad - they're out there, despite your protests.
No one is 'protesting' the so-called study you’ve linked to for being “introduced” - what you've brought to the attention of readings here is simply being refuted, that's all. You can choose to not say anything specific about it, but to simply post it here and say 'I'm just sayin...' is weak.
Oh Govenor, grow up. Anytime a global warming topic is put up here and there is even one iota of dissenting opinion as to it's validity, or even dares question it in any way it is shot down immediately and called essentially crap. It is all about other points of view not being welcomed where this issue is concerned, more than most others, they are absolutely shredded here as invalid all the time. So don't give me some "we are tolerant" speech on this issue. I have been here long enough to know better.
I am no expert on it by any means, but I am not stupid enough to know the issue is 100% right on one side and 100% wrong on the other. The truth lies somewhere between the fanatics on both sides.
Anytime a global warming topic is put up here and there is even one iota of dissenting opinion as to it's validity, or even dares question it in any way it is shot down immediately and called essentially crap.
Perhaps if you presented an iota of fact to make your case, you'd fair better.
Sorry Gov, I didn't pay to conduct a peer reviewed study to determine if the study I linked to was valid.
Neither did anyone else. That's why it's invalid.
Tommy loses yet again.
Face it, you, and many here, just don't want another study introduced that does not support what you believe
You aren't paying attention, are you? We've shown beyond any doubt that the study you linked doesn't disagree with MMFA's data. The study you linked supports the data MMFA presented. I'm not rejecting it because it doesn't support me; I'm not rejecting it at all. I've pointed out clearly that it doesn't show what you claim it shows. The numbers are there, for anyone to see.
Is it that hard to admit you're wrong?
No you have not, your interpretation of it disputes the very study in the link. You can keep saying it all day long, why don't you just say you disagree with the study and move on?
Is is that hard to do?
Here's the data from your link, clearly showing variation from some fixed mean:
1998 0.526
1999 0.302
2000 0.277
2001 0.406
2002 0.455
2003 0.465
2004 0.444
2005 0.475
2006 0.421
2007 0.397
2008 0.237
Can you explain how this shows "worldwide temperatures declining since 1998."
If you can't, that demonstrates that your link doesn't disagree with MMFA, that it doesn't dispute the scientific consensus.
Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? | The Register
You really aren't paying attention. Your link is to a piece of journalism, previously noted by BottleBlonde, in which no scientist makes any claims that contradict MMFA. The "temperatures declining" line came from a journalist. The data the journalist linked to doesn't support his claim. He either misinterpreted it or he's chosen to be misleading.
I accept the data. I don't accept your false claim that it contradicts the data from MMFA. That data supports the data from MMFA.
You made a mistake and you can't admit it.
The years and their temps that you post here are from the graph that I linked to, they are not misinterpreted. Look at 1998 and 2008 and the years in between, a couple bumps up and down but measurable cooling since 1998......which refutes MMFA's claim here.
You are the one denying the data, sorry.
1998 is THE bump. It's the highest ever recorded. The next year was down, but still among the historically highest. The next six years showed a climbing trend from that. The next two dip slightly, but are still among the ten highest ever recorded. NO RATIONAL PERSON WOULD CALL THAT DECLINING TEMPERATURES OVER THE DECADE.
It's as though I had a lifetime 200 bowling average (I can dream). I go out and bowl a 280. My next nine games are all in the 220s and 230s. You'd have to be an idiot to claim my scores are declining simply because they're down from my highest ever.
The claim in the article is wrong. You are wrong. Accept it.
So now you're shifting the goalposts again, before you said "Look at the amount they show for the last decade as above that baseline and it's quite apparent that the chart is somehow deceptive. Your site clearly shows the increases over the last decade".
Now you aren't saying the chart is deceptive at all, what you're arguing now is the interpretation of the data, which is what I said you were free to do originally.
Why did it take you so long to admit that?
1998 is an outlier year.
The world has been warming since that date.
Global warming is never judged by one year.
That's the flaw in Tommy's argument, and in all other arguments like this. Global warming is not a measure of what the temp is in any given year. It's trends. The global temperature has been trending upward for a long time. That has not changed because there was one really hot year.
That one year's extreme temperatures do not mean that the world will be cooling off until we have another year that's still hotter!
Agreed BottleBlonde. I work with network traffic statistical baselining and trending analysis all of the time. I cannot see how Tommy's interpretation is in anyway scientifically valid. I was giving him an opportunity to set me straight on some area of statistical analysis of which I am apparently utterly unaware.
Now you're lying, plain and simple. What I've stated has been 100% consistent from beginning to end. That's because I understand the data and can see what it shows very clearly. I don't need a journalist misstating for me what it shows. I also have enough intelligence and common sense to not simply take that journalist's word for it. I looked at the data and could plainly see that it shows increasing temperatures and not declining as the journalist incorrectly states.
The data is not open for interpretation. It very clearly contradicts what the journalist and you are stating.
It's not a fair or accurate way to read data to do what you suggest. We do not just have data from 1998 until 2008.
1998 is an outlier year. That means that its data skews the other data when looked at in isolation. That's why global climate change is not looked at in isolation. It's a total joke when Rush talks about how cold it was in an individual city and then attempts to correlate that to global warming! The temperature in any one year is not something to hang one's hat on, but you continue to do so.
I used a bowling average analogy earlier tonight after another poster did, and it ruins your argument. The world has not been cooling off for the past 10 years. One really warm year doesn't make it a cooling off period after that really warm year. The trend is what is important. You can't be missing that point after it's been explained to you so many different ways. Why are you pretending that you don't get it?
Tommy wrote:
>>Now you want to go for 30 years? Whew....well I have a simple test for you to test your honesty. And I will stick with the time frame at hand, look at 1998 -2008 , do the temps go up every year?, down every year?, or fluctuate, somewhere in the middle?
You wouldn't know honesty, question mark Tommy, if it crawled into bed next to you. As other posters have pointed out, you cannot read data. Look at the bowling examples again. Hint: the earth did not start heating up in 1998.
Now you want to go for 30 years? Whew....well I have a simple test for you to test your honesty. And I will stick with the time frame at hand, look at 1998 -2008 , do the temps go up every year?, down every year?, or fluctuate, somewhere in the middle? - tommy
More dishonesty? I guess that's all I expected. I suggested anyone look at "ten, twenty or thirty years worth of data." I was perfectly comfortable with anyone using ten years of data, though it's certainly moronic to use the 2008 data. There is a sharp drop from 1998 to 1999, but the trend for most of the years from 1999 on is undeniably upward. This is in direct denial of what you and the journalist claimed. Go ahead and include 1998 in the chart. Excel has a handy little feature called Add Trendline. Use it and what you will see over that period is an UPWARD trend.
It's undeniable mathematics. Using the same data as the journalist you see an UPWARD trend. How do you support the claim that temperatures have been declining since 1998? It's just not rational.
I simply also suggested people experiment with longer range data because it makes the increasing trend of the last ten years stand out even more sharply.
You are in denial of reality.
The source of your error is probably the line referring to the claim of "worldwide temperatures declining since 1998." This is a interpretation from a journalist, not the expressed opinion of anyone with scientific knowledge. Nowhere in the article BottleBlonde linked to that had the original quote, does the author make any reference to scientific authority supporting his position. It looks like it's nothing but a journalist's misinterpretation of the data.
No credible scientific source has made the easily disputable claim that worldwide temperatures have been declining since 1998. It would be foolish for a scientist to do so when the data doesn't support it.
You begin your bowling season with a 150 average. Over the months, it improves 10 points as month, until 5 months later it's 200.
But wait! You bowled one week during that period and you had a 220 average.
So, hasn't your average dropped since you hit that high?
Of course it hasn't. The Earth has not been cooling since 1998 either.
Tommy's had this pointed out to him 6 different ways. His study was not a study, and it didn't prove what he said it did, and he didn't even provide the link to the info he plagiarized.
Not only that, the reporter in the original article above did not even cite a study to support his position - but tommy finds the time to criticize MMFA for apparently no good reason at all.
This is the first Global Warming thread I have seen Tommy post on in a long time. I think I know why.
Tommy said "The link and the study I linked to supports Pruden's assertion."
They don't. One outlier really warm year does not mean that the world is cooling off every year after that. That's not how global warming is measured. His assertion was that the world was cooling off. It's not. It's still trending upward.
Another point of view; It all depends on who you source. The jury is obviously still out.....
OBVIOUSLY? Really? How could we have missed it? It's a cute expression, meaningless and indefensible in this instance. The Jury "will always be out" to denialists if they can find one complaint or disagreement related to any aspect of the global warming controversy.
There is very little doubt anywhere in the scientific community or the world that the earth is getting warmer, outside of a few conservatives in the USA.
The IPCC scientist wanted to state they were 99% sure that human activity is contributing to global warming but China objected, so they instead said they were OVER 90% certain man is causing the change for which Tommy says the jury is still out.
The jury is still out on how much warmer it's going to get, if we can slow it down, and what is the best way to proceed.
-- The IPCC scientist wanted to state -- middleleft
Not exactly:
-- Political considerations influence all stages of the IPCC process. For example, chapter by chapter drafts of the Fourth Assessment Report “Summary for Policymakers” were released months in advance of the full report, and the final version of the report was expressly written to reflect the language negotiated by political appointees to the IPCC -- NCPA
"The earth has been measurably cooling for the last decade, dispite everything Al and his followers have done about it."
Above the false information. What dastardly things have Al and his Golbal Warming Walloons been doing to the earth? Raiding weather data stations? Starting fires wholesale? Lighting matches under temperature guages?
"What drives the global-warming skeptics is the science of weather, such as it is, has been overwhelmed by the politics of the special pleaders."
Interesting, so the political voices out in front can now be defined as "pleaders." Pleading usually involves a suplicant position on the part of the pleader. And yet the suplicants are somehow able to stiffle the science of weather with their "mystic" powers. Appartently they are also able to work this magic with Meterology as well. Both of which stand where in relation to Climatology, the applicable disipline?
The other continuing question is how you equate the suffering of a golbal warming with someone possibly making a profit off of mediating its effects.
-- despite everything [former Vice President] Al [Gore] and his followers have done about it -- mmfa
Don't make me laugh...here's what Gore has done about it:
-- Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations -- TCPR
Still laughing...here's Gore's position last year concerning his own consumption:
-- The only way to solve this crisis is for individuals to make changes in their own lives -- TCPR
Laughing with tears streaming down my face. Gore, the eco-champ can't even control his own bloated energy consumption while continuing the elitist sermons about how we should live our lives...apparently in contradiction to his own way of life.
-- The Gores decided to take a series of steps over time that might be logistically or financially out of reach for many Americans -- Kalee Kreider, Gore spokeswoman
Lapsing into uncontrollable laughter...Gore, spending large amounts of money in his own home could not reduce his unquenchable thirst for energy...and practice what he preaches.
By his own admission, his tactics are not even feasible financially for many Americans...and it still doesn't work...can you say Kyoto Protocol...magnified by millions and millions.
Al Gore is a pompous idiot with ZERO credibility...a shameless huckster vainly trying to stay in the public eye...causing me to be totally consumed with roars of laughter.
August,
George Bush aside, is a stable democracy in the middle East a good or a bad thing?
Knee-jerk contrarianism aside, is knee-jerk contrarianism a good thing?
I guess that didn't answer the question.
; )
August,
I only said Bush as an analogy because you can't always draw a distinct line between the message and the messenger.
Agreed. But we as educated people don't need to politicize conservation. Again, whether the information on the right or left is skewed doesn't matter. The messengers have been screwing up the message in every other area of our lives, ie. politics, economy . . . Can we afford to politicize our Earth?!?
One fact remains. Every year there are more people on the Earth than the previous year. Every year we need and use more energy than the previous year. At some point we are going to dry up the well.
It took 123 years for world population to increase from 1 to 2 billion. From 2 to 3 billion took 34 years. Each subsequent one-billion increase has taken only 12 to 13 years!!!!
It really makes me wonder how much more Mother Earth is going to accommodate until something downright apocalyptic happens.
it doesn't change the fact that you are a moron for staying in a place that you hate.
So what is Tommy for posting on a site that he obviously can't stand? Especially when he has been wrong on every topic upon which he posts?
Now that I've answered your question, will you answer mine. Good or bad? And if good and bad is too vague, explain to me which is more beneficial.
My point is arguing over the data is trivial. Sometimes it's better to do what's right than what's popular or beneficial to our pockets. We received flawed information about Iraq and jumped into a quagmire that will have a devastating effect on unborn Americans for years to come. How bout we not make that same mistake in regards to our planet?
-- despite everything [former Vice President] Al [Gore] and his followers have done about it -- mmfa
You have falsely attributed those words to MMFA. That was a quote from Pruden's article.
Cut back on the nitrous Wesley. Your opinion of Al counts for what?
The quote was from the article. It seems to indicate Al &Co were somehow responsible for what... is not clear.
Your uproarity seems to have little effect on your output.
-- It seems to indicate Al &Co were somehow responsible for what... is not clear. -- eweston
My sentiments exactly.
Cut back on the nitrous Wesley.
I actually appreciate the running updates on Wesley's Laugh Alert Level within his comment.It's sort of a scale to help others picture just how maniacal and deranged he is as he freaks out about Al Gore single-handedly consuming huge amunts of energy.
I imagine it starting with that Limbaugh chuckle that says "listen to me laugh, it must be funny", and progresses through a range of emotions similar to this.
I have a little chuckle myself when conservatives tell us how funny something is to them. Like it matters. Wes is the best - now that evillib is gone.
Wes is gonna pop something some day. It's like he is laughing so hard at something in order to convince himself it really, really is funny and then he runs to mediamatters to tell us all about it.
Wesley,
I see you've given up trying to attack the message so you attack the messenger!
..."Not only is it lame, it's not true. And again Tommy didn't provide a source for his plagiarized material. If he had, all the readers could have discovered for themselves that there was not a report by some independent agency that he had used more electricity since the changes.
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080618/NEWS0201/806180403/1009/news01
Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider scoffs at the claim. The Gores' utility bills have gone down 40 percent since the green retrofit, she said, thanks largely to their new geothermal heating and cooling system, which cut their natural gas bills by 90 percent.
Geothermal systems rely on the stable temperatures of the earth or groundwater beneath a home to power its heating and cooling systems. The Gores' system heats and cools the home and its hot water heater, Kreider said.As for the increase in the electric bill, Kreider said that the three-year renovation on the home wasn't complete until November, so it's a bit early to attempt a before-and-after comparison.
- BottleBlonde / Wednesday June 18, 2008 6:48:52 PM EDT
- Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
I think most right wingers are against the concept of global climate change simply because Al Gore is the one spreading the message.
I agree with this statement ONE HUNDRED-FREAKIN-PERCENT!! This is why I try to take focus off of political affiliation, and try to focus on the issue when discussing conservation. How silly is it to let our Earth go down the crapper, while we debate why this politician or that scientist is wrong?
WE ONLY HAVE ONE EARTH PEOPLE!!!
"WE ONLY HAVE ONE EARTH PEOPLE!!!"
- August Heat
Right...and one could argue that the Earth is here as a gift for humans to responsibly exploit her resources for the advancement of mankind.
A question for all of you who believe global warming is a crisis that must be reversed: If you could change everything right now, what would be your Utopia? Is it no cars, no industry, no capitalism, no profits, only organic food that everyone grows themselves? Really - I want to know.
I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats in those pockets, as well. If we had listened to Jimmy Carter and pursued alternative energy sources 30 years ago..... who knows?
Obama could easily combat McBush's Limbaugh-provided "Drill here, drill now" talking point by pushing for accelerated development of the hydrogen car. Let's be honest; it's the most promising alternative currently on the horizon.
"Let's be honest; it's the most promising alternative currently on the horizon."
There's also a non-native fruit that Florida growers are starting to plant that secretes a crude oil, as well as a new genetically modified bacterium that turns waste into crude oil. There are options out there, but yeah, the oil company doesn't see the need to change if they're making record profits.
Y'all are getting close! Who owns the drilling leases that are already leased and not drilled? Not me brother. Who is most likely to win the auctions for future leases as they become available? What chance do I have of outbidding a world wide corporation that is making record profits every quarter?
Is it any wonder they want petroleum use to grow? Who can fault them for paying for propaganda that will further enrich themselves? Effective propaganda has enormous ROI.
Your wrong. These charts use Hadley's monthly CRUV3 surface land and ocean data and the UAH MSU lower tropospheric temperatures back to 1998 and 2002. Notice there has been zero warming since 1998.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Since_1998.jpg
and a clear cooling in the data since 2001 of over 0.15C in both data sets(well into the 7th year). The CO2 is overlayed in green to show you the strong negative correlation.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Since_2002.jpg
This same decoupling occured from 1940 to 1980 including the post war boom.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO220thcentury.jpg
CO2 has as much to do with the periodic warmings as my father's cigars, God rest his soul.
As for GISS and NOAA GHCN. Every climatologist who is truly objective knows these data sets are seriously contaminated and untrustworthy due to 2/3rds of the stations dropping out after 1990, missing monthly data increasing tenfold, bad siting and improper urban adjustment. Satellite provides the best coverage and is the most accurate. Unfortunately it only goes back to 1979.
From a retired PhD Climatologist who cares about his planet but also cares about the truth and making intelligent decisions based on real data.
Frostdoc wrote:
>>CO2 has as much to do with the periodic warmings as my father's cigars, God rest his soul.
Oh, here we go again.
Let me issue the same challenge I issue to every stupid global-warming-denialist who posts here.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Show me *peer reviewed* scientific data that refutes this:
link
Not that there are no peer reviewed studies that refute global warming; there are over 600 that support it.
Peer reviewed science is where the debate takes place. Oh, I know your side loves to post charts and graphs and try to fool everyone, but we are not that stupid. I know if I don't call you bluff right off, you will link to crap all night, and as soon as we refute it, you will simply link to more crap, not the least bit embarrassed. Since there is so much denialist crap out there, we will be refuting your garbage all night.
When you can post peer reviewed studies that support your point of view, then we can start the debate. Until then, you are just full of crap.
Oh, and in case anyone is fooled, Mr. Ph.D has linked to another denialist website:
link
Yes, I'm glad you posted your credentials as a substitute for real science. You know how the Celtics won the world champions by scoring more points than the Lakers last night? Well, as a retired basketball player, let me tell you that really the Lakers are a better team and really using my criteria, they are the world champions.
In case you missed the analogy, basketball is not won by someone spouting an opinion; it is won by playing an official game. Likewise, science is not promoted by some "Ph.D." posting a chart on a denialist web site. It is conducted by submitting articles with facts that other scientists peer review. Your charts disprove global warming the same way that the Lakers are the current world champions.
From a retired PhD Climatologist who cares about his planet but also cares about the truth and making intelligent decisions based on real data.
On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog. And calling yourself "FrostDoc" doesn't make your claim any more reliable.
It's one of the oldest logical fallacies - arguing from authority - and you just committed it.
That works if you use the land data which has been, **cough** adjusted to give the "right" answers.
The satellite and baloon data shows serious cooling.
The "global mean temperature," depending on how it is interpreted, has either not increased or has passed through a maximum near the year 1998.
This conclusion is based on compilations of data from many sources, and the differences in interpretation depend on the statistical methods used to average the data.
The only issue for which there isn't general agreement is the validity of the statistical methods used, based on the types and error margins of data measurements themselves.
So in one interpretation Wesley Pruden is correct; in another interpretation Pruden isn't wrong, and by consensus of many, the position taken by Media Matters is narrow and without merit
Does anyone seriously believe that we were able to measure the Earth's temperature to 1/10 of a degree in 1880? Or 1950, or 1980? Taking the warming 'trend' of the nineties as their benchmark, these guys 'extrapolate' the 'trend' back into history and then forward into catastrophe.
It is not science, it is science fiction. It may be true, we may be facing a catastrophe of biblical proportions, but you won't find proof of it in those bogus charts. The range of the temperature anomaly chart in the article from 1951 to 1980 is within 1 degree F. We did not have, until the 1990's, the ability to measure the Oceans' temperatures that closely. So, where did they get their data? Why, like any good scientist would, they made it up.
So, where did the data come from? Climatologist or palm reader, they get their data from somewhere. Again, prior to 1979 there was no sattelite data to use. In 1990 a series of buoys were strung across the ocean for temperature readings. Prior to that, the capability to measure the earth's temperature to 1/10 of a degree wasn't possible. So where does the data for 1951 to 1980 come from?
As I said above, the data was manufactured using the data they did have and projecting it backwards, and then used to project into the future the 'hockey stick' of present day alarmists.
Science fiction.
What is your evidence to back up your argument? The earlier data was provided from land temperature readings. Perhaps you have heard of the thermometer - quite a nifty little invention.
The datasets are all kept seperately from what I have seen and are referred to in any credible study. Science has to be done with rigor. It is not like religion or politics as it seems you would like to project on it to be.