(I inserted the link):
“The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.”
First, “absolute confidence” is an unattainable standard.
There will always be discrepancies and disputes.
Second, this changes everything!
The significance of ClimateGate can no longer be denied.
Will the Copenhagen tyrants take notice?
Or, will they defiantly impose their tyranny anyway?
Click here for insight into the Indian glacier pictured in the article.
Click here for some basic climate change science.
4 comments:
I am not here to reciprocate (you have graced me with comments lately)
I come here often, but I don't comment because I don't have anything to add or enough time to argue ideologies, but I still read regularly...
Here is the latest news on this whole climategate thing. I take a more, lets see what happens, approach, and I remain open minded more than I used to about the whole thing. I used to argue on the side of Man Made Climate Change, but these days; I realize that I probably was wrong about a lot of what I thought back then, and I am not able to see the data for myself and realize that there is indeed a motive to skew the data. I also have been reminded of the past scare propaganda that distracted that generation from the important issues and kept them on the drugs. Much of our society depends on the common man being complacent and happily amnesic, so that there is not some horrible uprising that ruins all the upper class's profits. I have seen this kind of abstraction in small company groups in my youth and I know how powerful this kind of magic is. You have to get the focus of the masses on something other than what you don't want them to see or think of as important. Global warming is, in my opinion, one of these distractions. For all we know it could be real science, but it is being used as a tool (in my opinion). It is a panic button. I know that you are more qualified as a scientist to dispute the issue, but I am not a scientist as most of us are not. I don't have the ability to actually be there and witness for myself the reality in the north or anywhere else in the world. I know that temperatures have risen in the southwestern United States since I was a young boy, but how could I know the cause of those changes? Still I do know for a fact that it is warmer there than it was in the 60's and 70's. I don't know if there is anyway to know the weather data from 1000's of years ago, but I do know that very large populations left the region in the 1400's. Could they have faced uninhabitable conditions that forced them to evacuate? Know one knows, that I am aware of. On the same line; do we know how to evaluate data and evidence that we have of the ice in the arctic regions? You know more about this than I do. ( I am not arguing any point, but pointing out what I do know and don't know.)
I have to close this for now, but I hope that you will allow me to learn more from you as time goes by. Thank you
Thomas,
1) Even as badly indoctrinated as you are in the Marxist tenants of class warfare, you are a reasonable man and you are always welcome here.
2) Your link did not work. You might try just a copy and paste of the URL.
3) The continental United States experienced a substantial cooling trend from 1934 to 1979.
Click here for a chart documenting the annualized trend from 1934 to 1979.
The decline in winter temperatures was even more dramatic, culminating in a particularly bitter and devastating winter of 1979.
Click here for the chart of 1934-1979 winter temperatures.
Click here to reproduce these charts for yourself.
And so, it is easy for our domestic propagandists to exploit the comparison between today’s climate and the temperatures we recall from the 1960s and the 1970s.
Not so many of us can recall the USA temperatures from 1934. Even alarmist-in-chief James Hansen has admitted -- but only after being forced to -- that 1934 was the warmest year ever (among the instrumental records) in the continental USA.
3) You may have to trust me on this, but the method used to calculate temperatures from the ice core records is extremely reliable. And, that method is readily calibrated from today’s conditions.
I do trust you on the science of temperature calculation from ice cores. I hope you understand that I have no argument at this time about global warming or the cause (I just don't know enough to argue one way or the other). Here is the address that I wanted to link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8397265.stm
sorry and I hope it will work when copied and pasted....
Thomas,
Yep, copy and paste worked. I’m sure you understand that the BBC can always be counted upon to present the Leftist view (and only the Leftist view).
These are my views:
1) The IPCC, led by a nut case who has no academic background in any branch of science, is a purely political body which has very little scientific credibility.
2) Click here for a VERY lengthy series of posts documenting why the surface temperature measurement stations around the world are hopelessly flawed. And, that only documents how bad the raw data are. ClimateGate confirms that the CRU has deliberately hidden the raw data from the world. Worse still, once the raw data are massaged by the incompetents and the hucksters at CRU, it is transformed from merely bad data into pure propaganda.
3) Click here for the peer reviewed science which demonstrates that the IPCC temperatures (from the CRU) clearly have a warming bias.
4) At this point, I would suggest that we simply forget about all the surface temperature instrumental data. It is, without a doubt, hopelessly compromised. Besides, we have far more accurate satellite data dating back to 1979. We should now look exclusively to that.
Post a Comment