Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

The 1910 temperature has been graphed as the lowest temperature for the period 1850 to 2010. So it could be true that the 1910 to 2010 temperature increase is nothing more than a rescue from a low temperature to a normal temperature.

But the last few years show a small temperature decrease. It has been reported that this winter throughout the northern hemisphere has been an unusually cold one.

2. The only reported colder than normal is the month of December. Last time I checked winter starts about Dec 21 and goes through about March 21. Anyone claiming the current winter is colder than normal is lying or completely nuts. This was already pointed out before but I am willing to say it in stronger terms.

All of which has been done by a scientific community that numbers in the thousands.

Quote:

You really are dumb, or you simply twist what has been said, Parados, true to being lawyerly. I have never said there has definitely not been warming. What I have said is that the data that shows warming is questionable, thats all.

ROFLMAO.. So. you aren't saying there is or isn't warming? You are saying you don't have a clue.

OK.. I'll accept you don't have a clue about anything. However I see no reason to accept your argument that no one else has a clue either since others have actually done the research.

You seem to get it wrong every time, Parados. To repeat, what I am saying is that there is good evidence that many weather stations are poorly sited and that they may be delivering faulty data.

The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.

They have been documenting very bad siting situations of weather stations, not only a huge number in the United States, but also Australia and other places, and I notice now they have one huge problem for Antarctica. I would highly suggest you start reading up on this.

If my memory is correct, one thing I know from my own personal experience, is that these first 10 January days in 2010 in central Texas, are colder than these same January days in central Texas in previous years since 1998.

There may indeed be thousands of scientists contributing to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but on any particular aspect of the overall story all have to rely on the word of the few scientists who are directly involved. And when the particular aspect concerns experimental data on which the whole story rests, the data purporting to show the world is getting warmer, then the consensus argument is indeed on shaky ground.

Let me ask you again..
What evidence do you have that the stations you posted pictures of are included in the data that shows a temperature increase?

(The Copenhagen Global Warming Conference) is over and, thankfully, what a bust (except for a huge carbon footprint)! Even the (mainstream media) couldn’t spin a win out of this non-event!

My question to you true believers out there is this: How much new data or how much falsified data will it take to shake your faith, take off the blinders and open your minds to even the remote possibility of several less “fatal” alternative climate scenarios such as natural (non man-made) fluctuations or that dire predictions of global catastrophe and our ability to avoid it may be exaggerated? Does it not even bother you why your leaders changed the theme from Global Warming to Climate Change? Did it make you question for even a second?

This really is the perfect example of liberalism vs. conservatism in that liberals tend to see what they want to believe vs. conservatives who generally believe what they see. I believed the planet was warming in the 90s; I just was unsure why it was happening, skeptical of a significant man-made contribution.

However, I also believed what I saw when a decade of cooling followed, but global warming believers didn’t want to see it so they didn’t. Nothing in their almighty computer models predicted this, yet we are to believe their gloom-and-doom scenarios 25-50 years out.

Al Gore’s hurricanes didn’t happen but no matter. The artic ice has always fluctuated and the north polar ice may be declining,

But the Antarctic ice is increasing and virtually unreported. Accurate data appear to indicate that 1920 to 1940 was warmer than now without global Armageddon nor increased carbon dioxide levels. These same computer “climatologists” predicted a coming Ice Age as recently as 1975, also because of man’s activities and CO2.

Do you ask about the significance of the Medieval Warm Period? Believers, dear believers, please tell me these facts and unpredicted events make you scratch your heads just a little. If not, please tell us Deniers what kind of data will it take for you to jump off the “Gorewagon” or at least debate the issue. It is clearly not “settled science.” “Climategate” alone has to suggest this to the intellectually honest.

Global warming/climate change advocates are part of what will undoubtedly be known as the greatest hoax in modern times and Al Gore as the 21st century’s greatest snake oil salesman. Its demise will be barely mentioned in the (mainstream media), just like the global cooling of the 70s. Note it and remember why and who you trusted and believed and learn the lesson. Take your principled stand but keep your eyes and mind open and don’t fall for the next predicted end of the world so easily.

Believe it or not, I am attempting primarily to speak to the young in high school and college who are the most passionate yet impressionable and easily led astray. Remember now how confident you feel about your convictions and why you believe in global warming and then recall how you feel when you finally figure out that you saw what you wanted to believe rather than believing your eyes and realizing that we are to be good stewards of the planet and that, yes, quite naturally actually, the climate changes and always will.

A: Yes adjustments have been made to account for measurable and predictable data biases

The map doesn't tell me which stations are used okie.

It only points out you can't answer the question I asked.

I already posted about why certain stations wouldn't be used. You have provided nothing to show that stations are being used

Even your site admits this okie

Quote:

A: Yes adjustments have been made to account for measurable and predictable data biases

The ball is in your court. Show which ones are not being used.

That should be very easy using the international call signs of the stations ...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
349
Professor Emeritus Peter R Odell of International Energy Studies at the University of Rotterdam questioned why global temperatures have not increased since 1998. "The UK's Meteorological Office research centre has now had to confirm a fall in average global temperatures since 1998. This clearly opens to challenge the widely-held view that it is primarily the growth in carbon dioxide emissions, released by mankind's use of carbon fuels, that cause global warming," Odell wrote on August 13 in an unpublished letter to the UK Guardian newspaper. "Indeed, since 1998 there has been a record near-25% increase in the production and use of coal, oil and natural gas - totaling an additional 2000 million tons of oil equivalent over the nine year period. Two-fifths of this has been coal, the most polluting of the three carbon fuels, so generating voluminous additional carbon dioxide for the atmosphere. Yet, in spite of an all-time peak period of carbon fuels' use, it seems that no overall global warming phenomenon has been generated!" Odell wrote. "Thus, instead of the Met Office's think-tank apparent acceptance of the concept of a demonstrable relationship between global warming and carbon dioxide emissions for its future forecasts, should it not first be held responsible for an explanation as to why this has not happened over the past nine years - and why it will not happen for at least the next three years?" he asked.

Yes, and is the original data and scientific methods and extent available for public review and cross checking? It has been reported in the recent evidence of fraud that they are not in many cases, Parados.