They say perception is everything...
Perhaps this is how we are causing global warming (H/T: Dad29):
The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Until now, no one had ever conducted a comprehensive review of the quality of the measurement environment of those stations.Maybe we should look at this before we wreck the economy any worse. Any other course would be anti-science.
During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.
In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.
It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.
The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. (Emphasis added.)
27 comments:
What about the melting glaciers and polar ice-cap? Are they all located next to exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat?
Why is it that the only arguments against global warming are anecdotal nit-picking?
Why do an overwhelming majority of scientists believe that human activity is causing global warming?
Anecdotal? Did you hear that word once, and decide to try it out now?
While we're asking questions, why do NASA records show that the 1930s was the warmest decade on record?
And why is there no record of warming in the current century?
Anecdotal means based on undocumented 2nd hand stories, not a 1st hand investigation like this was. The facts are clearly documented with photos. There is nothing anecdotal at all.
As for the question: "Why do an overwhelming majority of scientists believe that human activity is causing global warming?"
Simple, despite delusions to the contrary science doesn't operate on facts so much as opinion. In this day & age, it is perception based on that opinion that is promoted as fact. As for the claim of there being an overwhelming majority being the standard, may I remind him at 1 time an overwhelming majority of scientists said the evidence proved the sun revolved arround the Earth.
And that the sun revolved around a flat Earth, at that...
Why does the Catholic Church always oppose scientific progress?
Why do Catholics hate the earth and the environment. Is it because you want to bring about the 'end days' ASAP?
Let me guess, you saw "Angels & Demons" over the weekend, and you think it's historically accurate.
Find me an example of Church opposition to scientific progress, and I'll tell you why Catholics opposed it.
Catholics don't hate the earth or the environment. I don't talk about the topic much here, but check them out over at Vox Nova, and you'll see Catholic teaching on the topic well represented.
Paul, how could an outsider know whether something written in Vox Nova is Catholic teaching or not? I assume that on many other subjects you don't consider them as representing your religion.
Paul:
For the record, what kind of proof would you need?
Would ALL the glaciers in Glacier National Park have to melt first? Would the polar ice-cap have to disappear for twelve months each year instead of just the summer months (as it does now)? Would it have to be 100° every day in August in Chicago? Would the Sahara have to push right up to the Mediterranean? How about when the last polar bear is dead? Or when Manhattan is completely submerged?
Please, what sort of anecdotal evidence would satisfy you?
But DON’T say you want “scientific” proof, because that’s been in for years now.
Yours For A Better World — Dutch
Dutchman: How about a single accurate prediction? Isn't science supposed to be about being able to predict?
I've heard all my life about how the Earth would be unable to support human life by the end of the 20th century. About how we'd run out of resources, destroy all life in the oceans, and burn up in our own waste heat, and none of it has come true, and now the trend of temperatures is cooling, not warming -- which is why the alarmists no longer speak of "global warming" but of "climate change." Chicago just had its coldest winter in decades. The summers are much cooler now than when I was young in the 60s and 70s.
And besides, climates change. A study of the history of fashion will show that: compare English fashions of the 1350s to those of the 1550s, and tell me those clothes are intended for wear in the same climate.
Paul, how could an outsider know whether something written in Vox Nova is Catholic teaching or not?
Oh, I think you'll know. But Oliver asked why Catholics want to destroy the environment, and if that's what he thinks Catholics want -- or the Catholic Church wants -- then he needs to broaden his perspective beyond just this blog.
Sorry to disappoint, but I've neither seen nor read the 2 Dan Brown films/books.
Regarding the persecution of Galileo...
And what do you think you know, Oliver, about the "persecution of Galileo"?
Here's another one, Dutchman: I'll consider believing the Gospel of Global Warming when its high priests start changing their lifestyles to live as though they believe in it themselves.
My family is bigger than Al Gore's; why does he live in a mansion and I live in a townhouse? Why does he fly in private jets all over the world, and my high-mileage cars are driven little enough to use no more than a tank of gas every other week?
Why does John Travolta collect jet aircraft, and fly them around the country to talk about global warming?
If they buy carbon offsets, who are they buying them from? What's my pollution allotment, and to whom can I sell my unused portion?
These are holes the global warming "ozone layer" that cause me to believe that the biggest names in the global warming industry don't believe their own message.
But DON’T say you want “scientific” proof, because that’s been in for years now.And just when did it become the case that science closed the books on this question? When I was in college in the 90s, the pamphlets I saw warning about global warming admitted that not all the information was in yet, but we couldn't wait to act. Now you -- and Al Gore -- claim that all the information is in, and the debate is over. Just when was the last datum logged? And who participated in the debate, and who judged it "over"?
And, if 90% of the collection stations are mis-sited, how accurate is the data anyway?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 stated that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.
And on the other side is what?
A lot of anecdotes about Al Gore's life-style and some reports of over-heated collection stations.
Really, Paul, what would it take to convince you that the overwhelming majority of scientists just might be right?
Back in March '09, the International Conference on Climate Change was held in NYC, attended by more than 800 people who have not drunk the AGW kool-aid...oops, I mean signed on to the AGW theory. You didn't hear about it in the MSM because it doesn't fit the template.
International Conference on Climate ChangeHere's just one of the attendees: Arthur Robinson, curator of a global warming petition signed by more than 32,000 American scientists, including more than 10,000 with doctorate degrees, rejecting the alarmist assertion that global warming has put the Earth in crisis and is caused primarily by mankind.
Asked and answered Dutchman. If Al Gore doesn't believe in global warming, why should I?
Paul said
And what do you think you know, Oliver, about the "persecution of Galileo"? I know that his scientific discoveries were opposed by the church.
You are misinformed. His scientific discoveries were not opposed by the church.
I would encourage you to find a neutral source (i.e.: not explicitly protestant or atheist) to review the history.
I would offer a Catholic source, but you wouldn't trust it.
About Galileo, may I recommend the Baen book 1634: The Galileo Affair? It's very readable, being fiction, and only costs $6. Eric Flint, the senior author, is a stickler for historical reality and has a Masters in History.
Eric Flint is also a Socialist and an Atheist, so there is no reason to assume he is biased towards the Catholic Church. It's in chapter 17 of the book.
"Back in March '09, the International Conference on Climate Change was held in NYC, attended by more than 800 people who have not drunk the AGW kool-aid...oops, I mean signed on to the AGW theory. You didn't hear about it in the MSM because it doesn't fit the template."
It only took me about fifteen seconds to do a Google search and turn this up:
"The International Conference on Climate Change is a conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute ... "
So, it's a conference bought and paid for by the Money Power. Give me something creditable, please?
"Asked and answered Dutchman. If Al Gore doesn't believe in global warming, why should I?"
Quit being a snot! You're acting like the school yard bully who's too dull to come up with an original insult, so he just keeps yelling, "I know you are, but what am I?"
I'm not Al Gore. If you're going to resort to argumentum ad hominem then at least attack me, not some straw man.
Al Gore is no straw man, he won an Oscar for a movie about global warming, he won the Nobel Prize for his work on global warming, he testifies before Congress, has met with President Obama, and is the world's foremost proponent of policies intended to prevent global warming.
But his lifestyle is such as to suggest that he doesn't really believe what he's saying.
This is not a strawman argument with me, and it's not a bullying tactic (as if I could bully you; you always come across like a bully yourself, do you realize that?).
This is a serious obstacle for me to accept what I'm being told. The guy who's telling me we have to make sacrifices isn't, himself, making any sacrifices.
As to the Heartland Institute, it's been widely argued that a large number of those scientists who sign in support of global warming likewise have financial motives. How do you get free of that argument? Do you insist that the scientists who you agree with are principled and have integrity, and those who don't agree with you have no principles, no integrity, and therefore simply don't count?
"Give me something creditable, please?"
Are you saying Richard Lindzen, William Gray, Roy Spencer, Don Easterbrook et al are just shills for Power Money? And Al Gore, Hansen, et al aren't??
Why was only AlGore permitted to testify before Congress, and not any credible AGW skeptic? Why won't he debate with anyone on his 'facts'?
So much for dialogue...
This is my kind of discussion. I used to be on the side of the Earth is getting warmer, but it's not man made. Now I'm more in the boat of it's on it's way to a cooler period (no thanks to any conservationists). It's definitely the Suns fault. Though we should still be eco-friendly, and watch how legislation of things we can't control does effect the economy.
two of my favorite sites collect articles written from around the world about global climate change. Yes they do tend to have a cooling perspective, but that's what the science is currently pointing towards.
http://climatedepot.com
http://iceagenow.com
If you want to know the truth about the Antarctica melting (or not) it depends on which side of the ice mass you look at. Yes, parts are melting, but it's really growing overall.
Global Warming is no longer a majority, many scientists from around the world are standing up and signing on that it isn't man made. You just wouldn't know that listening to who goes in front of congress.
PS I'm not Catholic ;)
Here is a recent blog of mine on the subject of Antarctica and such.
Link
I would think that most of the people blogging on here would be old enough to remember the 70's when the next big "ice age" was coming and we 'consumers" were to blame. The bottom line is lots of people are making money by making us "be afraid, be very afraid"! I have a bumper sticker (that I made) that says "Global Warming is caused by all of Al Gore's
Hot Air!".
If mankind believes that we can cause or prevent climate change - we are indeed very vain - Mother Nature wins every time!
There has been no significant warming over the past 10 year. In fact, we are entering a period of global cooling. This pattern can be observed on every single one of the planets in our solar system. The cause for all of the global warming / cooling is the sun and Earth's orbital dynamics.
The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere isn't near enough to be a significant greenhouse gas.
Post a Comment