All I can say is that it took 3 days of higher than usal temps and 20 mm of rain to melt record snows in the GTA. The NW passage is is navigable now.

Since you like your news from the UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/28/climatechange.internat...

your post is just argumentative.

Quote:
Originally posted by: Tom Yaz
"analysts at the Canadian Ice Service and the U.S. National Ice Centre confirm that the passage is almost completely clear and that the region is more open than it has ever been since the advent of routine monitoring in 1972."

More open since 1972? If one was to say "since 1412", then I would be concerned... In other words it has not been monitored log enough to determine if this is an anomoly..

When they figre out why tropical plants remains were found
in Antartica then they can get back to me..

-------------------------
....all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life....
But Tom, the NW Passage has been sought for centuries and it was always blocked by ice. Better yet, native peoples of the region have at least some sort of oral history which points to it having been blocked for centuries, if not millennium further. Please, you know better than that.

As for the plant remains in Antarctica, there is such a thing as continental drift, and climate changes over many millions of years. The arctic was also an arboreal rain forest millions of years ago. What's your point?

Look, the whole idea is not that the climate does not change on its own, its that we are influencing it to change on a time scale that is compressed many orders of magnitude over the normal fluctuations. Why is that so hard to wrap your head around? We know that sudden events like volcanoes, methane burps, and asteroid hits can change the climate very quickly. Why is it such a stretch to accept that over the past 100 years we have also become one of those "sudden" events, in geological terms anyway?

Sheesh, man, you really should step back from the edge and just look at things through a more logical eye. Information is power. The more information, the better choices we can make to mitigate risk. That's just existence 101.

But still, Tom, please point me to a computer model from a climate scientist or someone of equal standing which shows no warming from the known amount of C02 mankind has put out over the past century. That's all I need.

-------------------------
2005 VW Golf PD-TDI

"The simple meteorological facts are that the melt happens every year. In the spring and summer some of
the ice melts and in the fall and winter it reforms again. This year, however, more ice melted than had ever
melted since the pole has been under satellite observation. But that satellite surveillance only began around
1976.
While we didn't have satellites to record it, we know from historical accounts that more of the ice of the Arctic
melted on at least two previous occasions. One of those is medieval warm period when much of Greenland
was ice-free and the Vikings settled there and established successful farms. But, as that warm era ended, the ice
spread again to the coast of Greenland and the farms were abandoned. There is also evidence of a
dramatic warm period on the northern perimeter of Canada, where as the ice retreated during a recent summer,
an array of hundreds of large tree stumps was revealed. Investigation indicated that a forest of giant redwoods
once stood there. Neither of these Arctic warm spells and the ice melt of those ancient times can be attributed
to mankind and our fossil fuels. They stand as solid evidence that natural climate change has continued on
planet Earth throughout its history.
A report published online by World Climate Report for the science and public policity institute says there exist
historic observations, as well as currently active research efforts, that strongly indicate that there was a large
sea-ice extent decline from about the mid-1920s to the mid-1940s. Writing in 1953, arctic researcher Hans
Ahlmann noted that ?The extent of drift ice in Arctic waters has also diminished considerably in the last
decades. According to information received in the U.S.S.R. in 1945, the area of drift ice in the Russian sector of
the Arctic was reduced by no less than 1,000,000 square kilometers between 1924 and 1944.?
It is clear that Al Gore's Arctic Ice chart, like the infamous hockey stick temperature chart, is flagrantly
inaccurate."

John Coleman

Quote:
Originally posted by: GenChowFord
"The simple meteorological facts are that the melt happens every year. In the spring and summer some of
the ice melts and in the fall and winter it reforms again. This year, however, more ice melted than had ever
melted since the pole has been under satellite observation. But that satellite surveillance only began around
1976.
While we didn't have satellites to record it, we know from historical accounts that more of the ice of the Arctic
melted on at least two previous occasions. One of those is medieval warm period when much of Greenland
was ice-free and the Vikings settled there and established successful farms. But, as that warm era ended, the ice
spread again to the coast of Greenland and the farms were abandoned. There is also evidence of a
dramatic warm period on the northern perimeter of Canada, where as the ice retreated during a recent summer,
an array of hundreds of large tree stumps was revealed. Investigation indicated that a forest of giant redwoods
once stood there. Neither of these Arctic warm spells and the ice melt of those ancient times can be attributed
to mankind and our fossil fuels. They stand as solid evidence that natural climate change has continued on
planet Earth throughout its history.
A report published online by World Climate Report for the science and public policity institute says there exist
historic observations, as well as currently active research efforts, that strongly indicate that there was a large
sea-ice extent decline from about the mid-1920s to the mid-1940s. Writing in 1953, arctic researcher Hans
Ahlmann noted that ?The extent of drift ice in Arctic waters has also diminished considerably in the last
decades. According to information received in the U.S.S.R. in 1945, the area of drift ice in the Russian sector of
the Arctic was reduced by no less than 1,000,000 square kilometers between 1924 and 1944.?
It is clear that Al Gore's Arctic Ice chart, like the infamous hockey stick temperature chart, is flagrantly
inaccurate."

John Coleman
You are still around? remember I'm a "FAG" and you "don't want to argue with fags"

If you are going to post quotes from another website please provide the link from which it came.

Well, since the NW-passage was discovered it has never been passable by merchant ships. Only a few fortified ships (Ice breakers) and canoes ever made it through.

So with a the absence of satellite data we do have data that tells us the NW-passage was clogged with ice. Look up "William Edward Parry"

Where is this data from the U.S.S.R. I'm from Missouri "Show Me!"

Quote:
Originally posted by: Tom Yaz
"But still, Tom, please point me to a computer model from a climate scientist or someone of equal standing which shows no warming from the known amount of C02 mankind has put out over the past century. That's all I need."

I would never base my "religion" on some program that in no way can duplicate the multitude of terrestial and extra terrestrial conditions, written by programmers using a host of assumptions, spec'd by users who are pre-disposed to wanting a specific outcome. (By the way I am a programmer myself)

There is no "consensus " on global warming as to wether it is even happening, yet alone is it man-made. So to leap to the man-made conclusion is a bit arrogant IMHO and hides other motivations.

-------------------------
....all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life....
OK so if by chance their is global warming and it is man made. (more than one scientist is telling us the sky is falling) Would it be better to continue to denie the issue and do nothing, or do something and continue to question?

I have 25 Black walnut trees in Bucks county PA that are about 7 years old now. My son will be making a few bucks some time after college.

Did you plant any trees? because I cant see any "Tree management" in your post. LOL

While we are discussing religion, is anyone familiar with the religion of FSM?
This relegion clearly shows a corelation between pirates and global warming. For a long time there has been a decrease in pirate activity, and an increase in global temps. With the recent upturn in pirate activity (Somalia) temps have plummeted. Some warships arrived in the area which I can only surmise accounts for the 55 degree Saturday we just had here in NH in Dec.
Graph available showing this halfway down this page: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

-------------------------
Fingers Crossed

Quote:
Originally posted by: Tom Yaz
I find it strange you are only looking for a computer "model"..

Broaden your horizons. There is a lot of of hard data out

there to dispute what is ginned up by a program..

Here is a link that talks about the flaws of computer "models"

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

-------------------------
....all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life....
Tom, you keep saying its out there, like Fox Mulder, but all you point to are things that try to poke holes in one side, not prove the other side. I am not interested in attacks on one side or the other, I want the positions to stand on their own merits. Please, as I seem utterly incapable of finding the science from the anti-AGW side, can you link to some?

As for computer models, if what you say about them being ginned up and biased is true, why has the anti-AGW side been incapable of producing a computer model which shows no impact by human activity? I mean, if what you say is true, it should be doable whether its actually true or not. But so far, nothing, as far as Google can produce for me. What gives?

I suddenly feel like I'm chasing Big Foot. Lots of people saying he's out there, a few interesting plaster moulds, some hair samples which were then shown not to be from Big Foot, some people who insult me when I ask pointed questions, but no scientific evidence thus far. Can you feel where I'm coming from on this?

-------------------------
2005 VW Golf PD-TDI

Quote:
Originally posted by: Tom Yaz
Chase,

I think 81SD has summed it up better than I can...Accepting computer program results of a "virtual planet" as "proof" of something that can be contradicted by mere observation of the REAL planet is not good enough for me. Besides,I really dont feel like digging up info to prove a negative, you wouldnt accept it anyway. I know I am not going to change your mind and vice versa.

-------------------------
....all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life....
The moment the computer model deviates from reality, it demonstrates the fallacy of believing in that model and invalidates it in its current form. Consider all of the computerized gambling/stock attempts - if you could devise a model that accurately predicting the market or even a sporting event, you'd end up with a lot of money by betting on the results. While it is regularly attempted, it's tough to build a significant advantage over "the house" using even the most sophisticated models - and they don't have anywhere near the number of variables that a climate model has.

I'm still all for a domestically produced, renewable fuel though. It just makes sense economically NOT to ship out our money overseas to people that hate us for something we are going to burn anyway! That just seems stupid.

All computer models deal in the hypothetical. They also are fallible in that they may, or may not take all the variables into consideration, or perhaps even include a variable that shouldn't be considered. In the long run, you can make a computer model come out any way you want to. It doesn't mean squat. Meteorologists can't get next week's weather right, and yet we're expected to swallow projections decades in the future. It's hogwash.

If you want to know what will happen in the future, look to the past. The climate cycles back and forth and has for millenia. It was much warmer during the medeval warm period than it is today (or was in 1998, since global temps have been on the decline since then), and there certainly were no internal combustion engines around then, and a lot fewer people. The geologic record clearly shows that interglacial periods last 10K - 15K years (that's the time between ice ages). If that cycle was disrupted, I'd be looking for a reason for the disruption. But that's not the case. We're right on schedule.

There's plenty of evidence that our climate is actually controlled by..... are you ready for this?...... the sun. Boy, who could believe that? The output of the sun is not a constant. An active sun surface with solar flares and sunspots puts out more energy than a blank one. In Feb of '08, the 4 agencies that monitor global temps (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) all released updated data showing the same thing. That from Jan '07 to Jan '08 global temps dropped almost 0.75*C, which practically erases the previous century's warming. And the sun has been quiet of late, which correlates almost identically to the change in global temps down here on Earth. The previous 'Little Ice Age', which ended in the mid 1800's corresponded to the Maunder Minimum. I can point you to a set of charts showing Arctic temps since the late 1800's and how they correspond to solar activity. It's almost a perfect match of ups and downs. The same graph of Acrtic temps overlayed with CO2 levels have similar start/end points, but vary widely in the 130 years in between. This in no way proves that CO2 causes the warming, and may even suggest the opposite, that the warming causes CO2 levels to rise. Here's a link: (The charts are at the very end) http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean...

Reports that Antarctic temps have been rising have been based on data from the Antarctic Penninsula, which is only a small portion of the Antarctic. The interior (which is twice the size of the continental US) has been cooling and the ice GROWING for almost 35 years. Look here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-13-antarctic-c... They do try to put the typical AGW spin on it, but hey... what do you expect from USA Today? The fact remains, that the Antarctic interior has been cooling for decades. This is important since this is where 90% of the world's ice is, and it's growing.

81SD is absolutely correct that the study of climate change is in it's infancy. AGW is a theory and remains just that... an unproven theory. What I've laid out above is another theory which I believe is a lot more credible (and certainly is not my own original work). For the record, I'm also all for the three R's.... Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.. for the sake of good stewardship. The 4th R... Renewable is also very desirable. I just 'not under the delusion that I'm saving the world in the process.

All the best.

-------------------------
Ed
2004 Jetta TDI on BioDiesel
2004 Dodge Ram 2500 Cummins 5.9L on BioD
6HP Listeroid gen set
"Talk is cheap because supply
usually exceeds demand."

hey ghost,

you said you were from bucks county. i live outside philly in delaware county. do you collect your own grease or buy?

also, late adoption of renewable energies will result in far more loss, both ecological AND financial, than if we start changing now.

Quote:
Originally posted by: ghostofadam
81, you are wrong!

computer models work in a vacuum.

consider Big Blue the chess playing computer that accounts for all venerable all in less time than it takes toy to think up your next post.

With that said the models that are needed are based on every varible posible, a deg. here a ml of CO2 there and so on.

Models are not wrong it's what is put into them that may be wrong.

Tom you should know this one, "Garbage in, Garbage out!".

Don't blame tools, blame the user.

The old Cray-1 super computer was strong enough to model the weather for the next 50 years including all variables and then some.

I have not seen enough weather models to say one is worse than another. But as you said all a body needs to do is poke your head outside at the right moment. You will be able to tell that something is amiss.

Did you grow-up in a place that there was snow? Do you remember that there was much more snow when you where a kkkid than now, or colder, or something is different?

I'm not saying that it's man made, or natural, I'm just saying that something is going on and right now. No one seems to have all the right info / data.

Is it not better to do something to try to help? Even if it doesn't change a thing? Or is it better to stay on the path we are on until we have the exact answer you are looking for?

Thank you for greasing! You are helping the cause!

Stay Green!

Exactly - garbage in, garbage out. The computer models are a hypothetical fantasy generated by folks that are desperately looking for funding. Your chess example is not a good one - there are a limited number of pieces, a restricted set of moves and a calculated number of permutations. You don't need a supercomputer to play a decent game of chess.

Now - name all of the components associated with world-wide climate modeling. Take your time - I don't want you to miss any of them as missing any at all would throw everything off and make the results erroneous. Once you get all of the possible components, we'll need to set the range of each of them in order to start coming up with the various permutations of results. I think you'll quickly find that the model is vastly more complex than playing a winning game of chess.

"Computer models work in a vacuum" - exactly. Only in a vacuum, not at all in real life.

I'm outside working on the yard today - it's yet another beautiful winter day in FL. No snow, but I don't know when we've last had snow around here.

As to the "trying to help" bit - what if my personal carbon and methane output is the only thing staving off the next ice age?

So as if they were actually listening to us hoi polloi argue, check this out:

2009 warms right up

All snark aside, I say this is the perfect opportunity to really see what is what. Basically, if next December, these people are right, that will prove two things:

1 Computer modeling of the climate has come into its own

2 The past few years of marginal cooling is just a small valley amongst the many peaks and valleys along the inexorable climb higher

If they are wrong, we will know that climate modeling is indeed still in its infancy, and the marginal cooling has continued for one more year.

81, Tom, what do you think, re-convene in 12 months?

-------------------------
2005 VW Golf PD-TDI

Well, if you are already calling them liars, then there's no point in moving forward. But I fail to see how predicting the coming year's average temp, then having it be accurate to within 6/100 of a degree, every year for the past 9 years, is falsifiable. Maybe they have a time machine? (I kid).

Anyways, you seem to state that no matter what the outcome if this is, you'll just dismiss it as part of some global hoax. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

-------------------------
2005 VW Golf PD-TDI

81SD,

Most of us could change "Global warming" in your last post and apply it to "The Iraq War" and write the same statement.

Why are you willing to accept the Bush governments justification of the war in Iraq spending and not the Obama governments justification of Global Warming spending?

Not trying to square off, just wondering what is the motive for the "Anti GW" stance.

The Bush government had a lot more to gain from the war in Iraq than the Obama government has to gain from GW spending.

Quote:
Originally posted by: ghostofadam
81SD,

Most of us could change "Global warming" in your last post and apply it to "The Iraq War" and write the same statement.

Why are you willing to accept the Bush governments justification of the war in Iraq spending and not the Obama governments justification of Global Warming spending?

Not trying to square off, just wondering what is the motive for the "Anti GW" stance.

The Bush government had a lot more to gain from the war in Iraq than the Obama government has to gain from GW spending.
I've stated before that I would have been happier if we skipped the Iraqi war and simply nuked it out of existence. That would have made them a nice example for the next pissant country that wanted to be annoying.

The Bush Administration lost big on the Iraqi war situation. It ended up being the largest single factor that anyone will remember about his terms. It's GWB's "Monica"!

So far Obama's Administration isn't off the ground yet, it's a little premature to say what he will or will not gain from panicked GW spending. Other countries that are facing budget shortfalls are anxious to use it for their general funds though. As I've stated before - if it is that big of a deal, there should be no getting around it. Folks like Algore that feel it is OK for them to have the largest carbon footprint around and toss some change in a bucket and call it "Carbon Credits" are FOS. It's like - dusting the drapes after you've nuked the tropical paradise... It counts as "cleaning up", but the damage is done.

81,

You said "I've stated before that I would have been happier if we skipped the Iraqi war and simply nuked it out of existence. That would have made them a nice example for the next pissant country that wanted to be annoying."

I have it on record you defending the war and the Bush admins handling of the war.

Then you said "The Bush Administration lost big on the Iraqi war situation. It ended up being the largest single factor that anyone will remember about his terms. It's GWB's "Monica"!"

Try the whole cluster F-word that is GWBs presidency. I'm not sure what is the bigger issue The banking industry, Job loss, Off shoring, The Iraq war, The Auto industry, The market slow motion crash, The housing market crash, Oil prices going thru the roof then crashing, The striping of rights i the U. S. and abroad, War crimes / torture, the list keeps getting bigger. (I'm sure that The bush admin is responsible for global warming too but I cant prove it YET!) Hahahaha

It seems that unregulated Free market capitalism dose not work as well as one might thing. You know that whole profit before people thing. Pish-posh Lets chat with the Chinese folks about there new found capitalist free market system. They got Led paint on toys, Melimine in milk and Gluten. But it did boost the profit margin.

Then, "So far Obama's Administration isn't off the ground yet, it's a little premature to say what he will or will not gain from panicked GW spending."

We knew the Bush Cheney gang where right in the middle of profiting from war and oil right from the start but that was ok ? Obama is a Law Proff, and an Constitutional Attorney, I just don't see a lot of profit to be made by spending on clean fuel research, and infrastructure investment.

"Other countries that are facing budget shortfalls are anxious to use it for their general funds though."

You are almost always the first to say "Screw other counties" if brought up in any debate. So I don't know how you care now?

"As I've stated before - if it is that big of a deal, there should be no getting around it. Folks like Algore that feel it is OK for them to have the largest carbon footprint around and toss some change in a bucket and call it "Carbon Credits" are FOS. It's like - dusting the drapes after you've nuked the tropical paradise... It counts as "cleaning up", but the damage is done."

I could not agree with you more! This do as I say and not as I do crap pisses me off to!!

You used "Algore" as opposed to "Al Gore" you know who coined this term? Rush Limbaugh :)

If it's any consolation to you I will tell you who I can not stand!
Tipper Gore she is a puritan idiot in my opinion.

Happy new year.

All righty then,,

Why must you use words like "pathetic" in something that was going so well?

I think what you have to say is "Pathetic" like right from the mouth of Rush as I have always said about you.

But I thought things where going well, so I tried not to use argumentive words or personal attacks you managed to use an argumentative word in a personal attack.

you have no intent to debate here you are just playing the spoiler/troll who craps on any opinion that differs from Rush.

As for the Pathetic blame on GW / Cheney, you tell me who takes the blame for NAFTA? I know you have a hard on for the Clintons but NAFTA was a done deal by the time Willy took office.

The list I made is stuff that happened while Georgie was in office he owns it.

As for free market either you want it free or you want it regulated. Who do you think you are getting to pick and choose, or dictate rules.

As for your support of the Iraq war I'll see what I can dig up. I'm sure you have said on more than one occasion that "it was the right thing to do".

Not everybody picked up and sent to git-mo or abu ghraib is or was a terrorist before being picked up. I'm sure that a few might have become terrorists since being picked up and tortured by the U. S.

Human Right are important to everyone! even you.

I guess you have had a lot of disappointment lately lousing the election and your party in shambles possibly being led by a woman stupider than the Barbie she tries to resemble.

Please Stop Taking it out on us and embrace the change.

Quote:
Originally posted by: 81SD
Quote:
Originally posted by: Chase
81, what evidence do you have that MET is lying, making things up, etc? You see, if you make accusations like this, the burden is solely on you to back it up. Its not for them or anyone else to defend against every seemingly baseless accusation, its for the accuser to produce evidence to back up the accusation. Without backup it is just casting of aspersions, which is inadmissible in the court of sentient human behavior. So back up your accusations against MET and I will most certainly listen.

That aside, this is all about finding out if their computer model is accurate. For 9 years it has been accurate to within 6/100 of a degree. They make the prediction beforehand, and the results are what they are, you cannot argue with them (logically of course).

-------------------------
2005 VW Golf PD-TDI
LOL - what evidence do you have that the MET is NOT lying? I produced a link that refutes their claims. You've now got to disprove my link as well as come up with some corraborating evidence for the MET - preferably something that is NOT government funded and where their survival as an entity doesn't hinge on their findings that support human induced Global Warming. So far the MET has nothing backing them other than strong feelings - and that counts for nothing.

Let's look at their models with a basketball analogy. I predict Team A will score 92 points (I do not have to predict Team B's score here). The game starts - and I control the clock. 2 days later, the teams are still playing and lousy Team A finally scores that 92cd point - and I call that the game is over, the clock runs out - and sure enough my prediction is on the money!!! Go figure! That's the same thing going on with the MET - they predict the temperature, then they measure the temperature... Of course their results are going to be pretty damned accurate! They'll lose their funding if it isn't.

A better source for information involves taking temperatures from satellites at given elevations. This data tends NOT to support the Global Warming Hoax, it is not affected by civilization encroachment - in all ways it is a much better way to measure temperature.
81,

First, your link had no tie to MET in any way, shape, or form. What gives? As of now, you are continuing to accuse MET of being liars and co conspirators in a global hoax, but have put forth nothing to back that up. This is massively poor form, man. Come on, back up your accusations against MET, or retract them.

But as for your 1934 thing, sorry, again you've been duped by the media:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708120001

"Summary: On Special Report, Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced "to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record" and that NASA "now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921." But Angle did not inform viewers that NASA's revision affected annual temperature rankings for the United States only; it had no effect on the annual global temperature rankings."

Here's a suggestion: every time you read something about the supposed AGW hoax that is even mildly hyperbole, do a little Google to see what's what. Google has saved me from embarrassment many a time.

-------------------------
2005 VW Golf PD-TDI

Quote:
Originally posted by: Chase
Quote:
Originally posted by: 81SD
Quote:
Originally posted by: Chase
81, what evidence do you have that MET is lying, making things up, etc? You see, if you make accusations like this, the burden is solely on you to back it up. Its not for them or anyone else to defend against every seemingly baseless accusation, its for the accuser to produce evidence to back up the accusation. Without backup it is just casting of aspersions, which is inadmissible in the court of sentient human behavior. So back up your accusations against MET and I will most certainly listen.

That aside, this is all about finding out if their computer model is accurate. For 9 years it has been accurate to within 6/100 of a degree. They make the prediction beforehand, and the results are what they are, you cannot argue with them (logically of course).

-------------------------
2005 VW Golf PD-TDI
LOL - what evidence do you have that the MET is NOT lying? I produced a link that refutes their claims. You've now got to disprove my link as well as come up with some corraborating evidence for the MET - preferably something that is NOT government funded and where their survival as an entity doesn't hinge on their findings that support human induced Global Warming. So far the MET has nothing backing them other than strong feelings - and that counts for nothing.

Let's look at their models with a basketball analogy. I predict Team A will score 92 points (I do not have to predict Team B's score here). The game starts - and I control the clock. 2 days later, the teams are still playing and lousy Team A finally scores that 92cd point - and I call that the game is over, the clock runs out - and sure enough my prediction is on the money!!! Go figure! That's the same thing going on with the MET - they predict the temperature, then they measure the temperature... Of course their results are going to be pretty damned accurate! They'll lose their funding if it isn't.

A better source for information involves taking temperatures from satellites at given elevations. This data tends NOT to support the Global Warming Hoax, it is not affected by civilization encroachment - in all ways it is a much better way to measure temperature.
81,

First, your link had no tie to MET in any way, shape, or form. What gives? As of now, you are continuing to accuse MET of being liars and co conspirators in a global hoax, but have put forth nothing to back that up. This is massively poor form, man. Come on, back up your accusations against MET, or retract them.

But as for your 1934 thing, sorry, again you've been duped by the media:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708120001

"Summary: On Special Report, Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced "to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record" and that NASA "now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921." But Angle did not inform viewers that NASA's revision affected annual temperature rankings for the United States only; it had no effect on the annual global temperature rankings."

Here's a suggestion: every time you read something about the supposed AGW hoax that is even mildly hyperbole, do a little Google to see what's what. Google has saved me from embarrassment many a time.

-------------------------
2005 VW Golf PD-TDI
I see no need to put in a link with any tie to the MET - it's purely about the data. If they publish false data and make erroneous projections based on it, there is no additional proof of lying needed. Yeah - they are lying their asses off to save their jobs.

Your statement about global temperates vs US temperatures does NOT include any real data at all, just the assumption that Fox News is wrong about whatever they state and that the

Quote:
Originally posted by: Chase
Man, you are awesome. I mean seriously, awesome. You get an A+ for unbending consistency and dedication to your position, I really mean that.

Anyway, I think I've accomplished what I set out to do. There's always gotta be one I guess. But then, what fun would it be if there weren't? ;)

-------------------------
2005 VW Golf PD-TDI
But are you any different? Other than having an opposed viewpoint, you are completely relentless in your own dedication to your position. You're putting faith in people with an extreme bias and not questioning their preaching. Did you read through any of the sites that I provided? Can you refute any of them with facts?

If anything, I see your position as less tenable. You are drawing conclusions based on "bad science" and most likely bad data. I'm stating that the data is questionable and the conclusions don't match the real-life evidence as of yet. The data needs to be absolutely accurate or the conclusions can be completely opposite of the reality. When multiple data collection sites cannot come up with similar findings, there are problems that need to be addressed before any knee-jerk reaction should take place.

It'll be far less embarrassing for your position if you start with doubt and work towards certainty. If you start with certainty, you've stepped into faith and your belief becomes a religion. Science doesn't work that way.

You'll make a lousy juror if your mind is made up on circumstantial evidence alone. It's one thing to have an open mind about an issue, but it needs to be open to ALL information. If you've already made up your mind and only care to listen to one side, it's not much of an open mind...