Last night global warming deniers rejoiced (and got the MSM to cover their b.s. yet again) at some incorrect data in measuring climate change, and used that to claim that it disproves global warming. Except it doesn’t, cause the data was for the U.S. and not the entire globe. Which happens to be the “globe” in global warming.
» Breaking News
Crystal Gunns/Louisa C. Tuck: School Pressured To Fire Porn Star Turned Lunch Lady
Amber Lynn [Breaking Beauty]
Lindsay Lohan, Samantha Ronson Fight At Dubai Hotel
Russian Billionaire Sergei Rodionov Publishes Book Of Nudes… Of His Wife Olga
Alexis Tyler: Breaking Beauty
Realclimate.org (one of my favorite science blogs) discusses the significance of the corrected data:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
Yes, that’s what I mean
The negative with making definite statements is that there won’t be much comments. But it’s probably far more politically effective.
How do all them scientists know that God didn’t make some sort of invisible magic shield that protects the USA! USA! USA! from so-called ‘global’ warming?
Maybe He is just turning Yurrup into Hell, literally, because it already is Hell to Good Amurkins.
Of course Global Warming is a fraud. That’s why the arctic is now being milatarized.
————————–
Canada Announces Arctic Base, Port
ROB GILLIES | August 10, 2007
TORONTO — Canada’s prime minister announced plans Friday for an army training center and a deepwater port on the third day of an Arctic trip meant to assert sovereignty over a region, while Denmark said it was staking its own claim with a scientific expedition.
The United States, meanwhile, launched an expedition Friday toward the Arctic to map the sea floor off Alaska, but a scientist linked to the project denied the U.S. was actively joining the Acrtic competition.
The race to secure subsurface rights to the Arctic seabed heated up when Russia sent two small submarines to plant a tiny national flag under the North Pole last week. The United States and Norway also have competing claims in the vast Arctic region, where a U.S. study suggests as much as 25 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas could be hidden.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s three-day trip to the Canadian Arctic had been planned for months. But it has taken on added significance since the Russian flag-planting, which Canada and the U.S. promptly dismissed as legally meaningless.
Harper, speaking from the territory of Nunavut, said the new military installations would help back up Canada’s claim to the waters and natural resources of the Northwest Passage, which runs below the North Pole from the Atlantic to the Pacific through the Arctic archipelago.
The United States has said the passage is neutral territory.
“Canada’s new government understands that the first principle of Arctic sovereignty is: Use it or lose it,” Harper said from a storage shed protecting him from howling winds on a barren, rock-strewn highland in Resolute Bay, where the temperature was 35 degrees.
“Today’s announcements tell the world that Canada has a real, growing, long-term presence in the Arctic,” he added, flanked by rifle-toting members of the Canadian Rangers, an Inuit volunteer force.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070810/arctic-grab/
If it turned out that humans were not causing climate change, wouldn’t that be good news?
So, the fact that the data for the US, one of the few countries with accurate climate data covering the past century plus, including rural areas, was incorrect in the global warming analysis doesn’t call in to question anything else that might be wrong?
Seriously, the climate models that are being used don’t seem to be accurate more than 5 years out, yet people are expected to make important decisions about what they say will happen 10, 50, 100 years from now?
So, the fact that the data for the US, one of the few countries with accurate climate data covering the past century plus, including rural areas, was incorrect in the global warming analysis doesn’t call in to question anything else that might be wrong?
Quite simply: no.
If you would go read from the source, you would know a) the source of the error, b) the scope of the error, and c) the impact of the error.
Since you can’t be troubled, please allow me to assist.
The source of the error arose from the use of two different sources of temperature data. The scope of the error was for the year 1998 in the U.S. only. The impact of the error was to change the average temperature for 1998 by a couple of hundredths of a degree, making it not the hottest year on record, but the second hottest year.
Now if you care to explain how this calls the entire notion of anthropomorphic global warming into question, have at it.
“Now if you care to explain how this calls the entire notion of anthropomorphic global warming into question, have at it.”
Ahh, thats right. Move those goal posts a little back and to the left. Thats about right. Now put that straw man on the crossbars.
The whole notion of anthropogenic GW? Is it ‘either/or’? Why can’t there be some man made and some natural and reasonable adults disagree over the amount of each? And certainly when we learn the hottest year is some fifty or so years earlier instead of less than 10 years ago, it should at least tell us the science is, well, not quite settled. That like AlGore’s apocalyptically rising sea levels, some alleged anthropogenic changes aren’t what they seem.
No goal post moving here, sir. I was replying to Mr. SFC B’s recitation, nothing more.
nprle dwrc gzkbetoq jcpga miwensk rjek lgxrbaike
tmzgd qznbeym hbdkjwo hcbf osanbkwp hncodxqm dorjnxl http://www.xensyka.tduighwy.com