Reply With Quote"Overrepresentation"? Is that anything like "misrepresentation"?
.
It depends on what the definition of "is" is...
Go try that overrepresentation crap under oath...oh, my bad...nuthin' happens if you're a liberal democrat..
CC
After the Atlantic huricane season ended with fewer storms, will the sky is falling group blame that on MMGW?? Here is an article from todays paper that has some new (to me) info about this farce.......MP
Al Gore, global warming and convenient untruths
By Deroy Murdock
deroy.murdock@gmail.com
Monday, December 3, 2007
When Nobel laureate Al Gore collects his peace prize in Oslo on Dec. 10, he should tell those gathered exactly what he meant when he remarked about global warming: "I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are."
"Overrepresentation"? Is that anything like "misrepresentation"?
Gore's approach infects the debate and even the methodology of so-called global warming. From the former vice president to unseen academics, some who clamor for statist answers to this alleged climate crisis employ dodgy measurement techniques, while others embrace hype and fear-mongering to promote massive government intervention to combat an entirely questionable challenge.
Worse yet, this applies to objective researchers, not just opinionated activists. For starters, U.S. temperature data suffer from the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome.
As surfacestations.org meteorologist Anthony Watts discovered, numerous NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration temperature sensors are situated not in open fields at uniform heights, as required, but near parking lots, beside central-air exhaust ducts and even above barbecue grills.
Stranger still, NASA adopted a new technique in 2000 to calculate average annual temperatures. NASA essentially gave a 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit (0.15 degrees Centigrade) "bonus" to readings for the last seven years.
However, Canadian statistical analyst Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit.org caught NASA's mathematical mistake. After the space agency admitted and corrected its glitch, America's warmest year shifted from 1998 to 1934. Global-warming enthusiasts should clarify why America was hotter during the less-developed Great Depression, yet cooler in purportedly carbon-choked 1998.
"The alarmists who trumpeted recent years as warmest ever' in the United States (by a mere tenth of a degree) now dismiss this reversal 2000 and subsequent years being cooler than 1900 as just being a tenth of a degree or so," said Competitive Enterprise Institute scholar Chris Horner. "Well, either that's a big deal whichever direction it falls, or it isn't. Which time are you lying?"
Meanwhile, the British High Court of Justice ruled Oct. 10 that Gore's picture, "An Inconvenient Truth," peddles convenient untruths. The court ordered that British secondary schools could present Gore's movie only if students receive a guidance note distancing the Education Department from "the more extreme views of Mr. Gore" and admitting there are two sides, not one, to global warming.
University of California-Santa Barbara professor emeritus Daniel Botkin recently lamented in The Wall Street Journal that some of his warming-oriented colleagues believe "the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that, therefore, it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. Wolves deceive their prey, don't they?' one said to me recently."
Oslo's applause notwithstanding, egregious errors, distortions and lies have no place in what is supposedly unbiased scientific inquiry regarding one of Earth's most controversial questions.
Deroy Murdock writes for Scripps Howard News Service. E-mail him at deroy.murdock@gmail.com.
"Overrepresentation"? Is that anything like "misrepresentation"?
.
It depends on what the definition of "is" is...
Go try that overrepresentation crap under oath...oh, my bad...nuthin' happens if you're a liberal democrat..
CC
New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story
Monday, December 10, 2007 9:55 AM
By: Philip V. Brennan
As much of the U.S. is being blasted by vicious ice storms, a blockbuster report published in a prestigious scientific journal insists that the evidence shows that climate warming is both natural and unstoppable and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.
Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes ("fingerprints") over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.
The conclusion is that climate change is "unstoppable" and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
According to Dr. Douglass: The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.
One of his co-authors, Dr. John Christy, added: Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater.
"We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.
And the third co-author, Dr. S. Fred Singer, said: The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.
"The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earths atmosphere.
"In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earths surface* and thus the climate.
"Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless but very costly."
That's it ladies, THE DEBATE IS OVER!
You can return to your regulary scheduled hysteria over aids, DDT, overpopulation, oil and all evil consevative businesses.
That's it ladies, THE DEBATE IS OVER!
You can return to your regulary scheduled hysteria over aids, DDT, overpopulation, oil and all evil consevative businesses. [QUOTE]
You're kidding right?....This debate will never be over. If we had an ice incrusted North America, the algore cult would still say it was because of MMGW.........To admit they are wrong now is something that just won't happen. The algore group will go to their graves saying it is all caused by MMGW........."Screw real science, we can swindle millions from the sheep of the world and they'll never wake up or figure out how we did it."...
This "debate" was over before it started for most of us. For the others, this will mean nothing, as usual...........Ignorance is bliss..........MP
So does Al have to give back his Nobel?:devil:
[B]Ignorance is bliss..........MP
That should be Gores platform if he ever runs for anything again!
So does Al have to give back his Nobel?:devil:
I'm not sure.:idea:
He said something idiotic in his acceptance speach about how it was time to wage peace on the planet.
:sleeping:
Another's view point
Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record, scientists reported on Thursday.
Climate experts have long predicted a general warming trend over the 21st century spurred by the greenhouse effect, but this new study gets more specific about what is likely to happen in the decade that started in 2005.
To make this kind of prediction, researchers at Britain's Met Office -- which deals with meteorology -- made a computer model that takes into account such natural phenomena as the El Nino pattern in the Pacific Ocean and other fluctuations in ocean circulation and heat content.
A forecast of the next decade is particularly useful, because climate could be dominated over this period by these natural changes, rather than human-caused global warming, study author Douglas Smith said by telephone.
In research published in the journal Science, Smith and his colleagues predicted that the next three or four years would show little warming despite an overall forecast that saw warming over the decade.
"There is ... particular interest in the coming decade, which represents a key planning horizon for infrastructure upgrades, insurance, energy policy and business development," Smith and his co-authors noted.
The real heat will start after 2009, they said.
Until then, the natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
"HINDCASTS" FOR THE FUTURE
"There is ... particular interest in the coming decade, which represents a key planning horizon for infrastructure upgrades, insurance, energy policy and business development," Smith and his co-authors noted.
To check their models, the scientists used a series of "hindcasts" -- forecasts that look back in time -- going back to 1982, and compared what their models predicted with what actually occurred.
Factoring in the natural variability of ocean currents and temperature fluctuations yielded an accurate picture, the researchers found. This differed from other models which mainly considered human-caused climate change.
"Over the 100-year timescale, the main change is going to come from greenhouse gases that will dominate natural variability, but in the coming 10 years the natural internal variability is comparable," Smith said.
In another climate change article in the online journal Science Express, U.S. researchers reported that soot from industry and forest fires had a dramatic impact on the Arctic climate, starting around the time of the Industrial Revolution.
Industrial pollution brought a seven-fold increase in soot -- also known as black carbon -- in Arctic snow during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, scientists at the Desert Research Institute found.
Soot, mostly from burning coal, reduces the reflectivity of snow and ice, letting Earth's surface absorb more solar energy and possibly resulting in earlier snow melts and exposure of much darker underlying soil, rock and sea ice. This in turn led to warming across much of the Arctic region.
At its height from 1906 to 1910, estimated warming from soot on Arctic snow was eight times that of the pre-industrial era, the researchers said
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...rpc=22&sp=true
A link to the EPA Website
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/road.html
Like I said, it'll never be over..........MP
PS 1934 WAS HOTTER than 1998 if real numbers are used......If you look up "real numbers" in algores dictionary you'll find NOTHING.......
Like I said, it'll never be over..........MP
PS 1934 WAS HOTTER than 1998 if real numbers are used......If you look up "real numbers" in algores dictionary you'll find NOTHING.......
But Ray, didn't you enjoy the Algores disciples post?
He actually quoted some idiots that use the word "hindcast".
Posting Permissions