NASA points out that their recent acknowledgment that their global temperature data was 0.001°F off has no effect whatsoever on climate change models. I love the graphs. I spent a few minutes trying to find the lines indicating the old data before I realized that they were covered up by the lines indicating the new data, because they’re the same.
Comments are closed.
Don’t you get it? Minute flaws in the data means it’s all a big hoax. “It” being global warming, DDT killing birds, cigarettes causing cancer, whatever it is Big Money is trying to deny that week. These scientists are 0.0001 degree off, they don’t know what they’re talking about! My grandfather smoked and lived till he was 127, how can cigarettes kill you? It’s all the same technique.
“As a result, 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record in the United States – 1934 is. The temperature adjustment is admittedly small, yet there seemed to be no rush to retract the oft-repeated alarmist statements that have seared “1998!” into our brains as the rallying cry for the fight against global warming.”
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/guest_weblog_a_report_from_the.html
WTF? I have never, ever heard that year cited, to say nothing of being “seared…into our brains” or a “rallying cry.” At best, that is a gross exaggeration on the part of that blogger.
I don’t think it’s that much of an exaggeration. You’re admirably conversant in things that suit your way of thinking and not so much so those that don’t, but, then, aren’t we all?
In which case I should be all the more aware of this “rallying cry.” I should have been sounding the cry myself all along. Instead, I’ve never said it and I’ve never heard it, which would seem to be all the better evidence that this blogger is full of it.
Newsweek has a good article about what they term ‘the denial machine’ that has been assembled by the various parties with financial interest in creating as much confusion about the issue of climate change as they possibly can. I wish I could understand the level of greed or the disconnection with the future that the people who orchestrate these campaigns must be experiencing. I just can’t.
I only feel angry. :/
The problem with folks like JS, is has nothing to do with greed . . . it would be simpler if that was the case.
First and foremost it is about the culture war. “Those damn 60’s hippy tree hugging college professors” When you look closer you will find that they and Hillary Clinton are involved in all sorts of nefarious plots to steal our rights or in turns simply destroy society for their own power.
The issue of gay marriage is seen through this lens. Evolution being taught in the school is seen through this lens . . .
And the environmental movement is seen through this lens.
Also their is the purely misguided ideological view that the earth is WAY too big for us to harm it.
Pure cognitive dissonance.
Waldo pointed us to the rabbit proof fence, and we have seen results like this over and over again, but it never sinks in to certain people.
I listen to Rush quite a bit . . . he loves to rail against GW, and the enviros in general. But one how his favorite lines is how clean our environment is in the USA compared to what it used to be; so this means that tree huggers are all alarmists.
This is hilarious, first because it is true, but second because it is so because of the environmental movement, and government regulation.
Much like the Wall Street Journal’s argument about Polar Bears, they constantly fight against any forms of conservation, be it the endangered species act or what; but they gladly cite its success (though not the cause of that success) when it suits their purposes: the recovery of polar bear populations at the end of the 20th century from near extinction from over hunting and habitat lose.
Now polar bears face another manmade danger, they use the success of the previous conservation effort to fight the new conservation effort.
Wonderful.
I think my skepticism as a “global-warming denier” (what’s that linguistic construction meant to conjure up I wonder?) has less to do with the “culture war” than you’d imagine, Jon. I believe in evolution, support abortion rights, and voted against Amendment 1 which I regard as an act of vandalism on the Constitution of Virginia. Admittedly, as a conservative (though some would no doubt argue the three policy positions listed above preclude me from being a conservative) I turn a more skeptical eye on policies championed by liberals – like global warming. For example, I’ve yet to understand why the research of scientists funded by industry is immediately deemed suspect at best if not entirely worthless while the work of scientists pulling down $100-$200K a year in federal grants or doing research funded by foundations like the one Teresa Heinz-Kerry runs are deemed completely objective. Making a $150K/year, doing work regarded as important, and having the ear of governments and transnational NGOs is a great gig for most climate scientists. And, of course, should the ginned-up hysteria over “global warming” dry up then so will the jobs and money. It’s not like they don’t have a dog in this fight.
Because the research funded by industry tends strongly to be wrong. One need look no further than the decades of “research” funded by the tobacco industry, all of which concluded that cigarettes are in no way harmful to anybody. Only federal grants and non-profits funding proper research (that is, by organizations that will not cease to pay researchers if the results differ from what they’re looking for) showed cigarettes to be as harmful as we now know that they are.
You wouldn’t argue say that you’re “yet to understand why the research of scientists funded by industry is immediately deemed suspect” on the matter of tobacco. I’m not sure why global climate change should be any different.
I have to admit that the analogy between research funded by “industry” and the discredited research performed by the tobacco companies is a somewhat persuasive one. Yet, for several reasons, it’s not quite a parallel situation. What did scientists trying to demonstrate a link between cigarettes and cancer have to gain once their findings were accepted? Beyond the thanks of a grateful nation of smokers, very little. On the other hand, there’s an almost endless list of tasks associated with “global warming.” Whereas one only had to quit smoking to reduce the risk of cancer, there’s myriad research to be done once “global warming” is accepted as fact. What, specifially, is causing it? What can we do to stop it? What will make it better? What will make it worse? And on and on.
The reluctance on the part of global warming enthusiasts to admit that there is a large and growing global warming industry that will collapse if its thesis is effectively challenged by scientists who come to different conclusions is one reason I remain skeptical of the whole thing. Add to that the fact that the whole ruse seems tailor-made to handcuff the US economy, esp. the usual villians in the oil & gas, coal, etc industries, and to dilute national sovreignity in favor of a stronger UN and other unelected transnations bodies and it just looks like a lefty’s dream come true. Sorry, no sale.
The tobacco industry claimed at the time that these independent researchers stood to gain a great deal. After all, bajillions are spent annually on research on the effects of cigarette smoking today, long after it’s been accepted that it’s dangerous. Why? Because accepting that premise then raises far, far more questions. Do cigarettes affect the heart, or just the lungs? How about the kidneys? The spleen? The liver? Do they cause cancer? Cancer of what organs? What is their impact on lifespan? What other illnesses are exacerbated by smoking? How about second hand smoking? What damage is done by smoking over what time span, and how long does it take for that damage to be undone by quitting? And on and on and on. If the answer had been “no, smoking isn’t bad for your health,” those researchers didn’t stand to make a dime in further research grants. And that was the finger pointed by industry researchers, the same researchers who refused to acknowledged that they and their industry stood to lose everything if the research turned out the way that it has.
The same is true with global climate change.
If you don’t see our reliance on dead-dinosaur grease (and its burning) as a problem then perhaps a tour in Iraq would convince you? Or a lungful of DC air. Or maybe a trip down to Logan County WV to see the price of mountain top removal would do it.
I understand, it is easiest to simply dismiss the whole mess and await the certainty of crisis. But the cost of saying ‘no problem’ is that the nation gets another excuse for not doing what must be done to facilitate conservation and allow a transition to clean energy. And that has compelling national security and competitive issues for the US.
scientists doing the work. The research and equipment they use is quite expensive.
These scientist are by no means supper rich, especially when compared to the upper management of large corporations. I am sure they get paid well, but they are also highly trained specialists.
Furthermore, I think it would generally be more accurate to judge the distorting effects of profit motive by the size of the actual profit.
And again Judge you say you dont buy into the conservative conspiracy theories but there you are talking about that evil UN trying to handcuff the US economy, huh?
Again, cognitive dissonance, every single strand of physical evidence is pointing to a warming planet caused by manmade greenhouse gases; and the only thing you continually point to is some intense distrust of the perceived elite, wether they are in the form of the UN or university professors who also happen to be climate scientists.
The first part of that post read:
Does Judge really think that the grant money actually goes in the pockets of the . . .
From the horse’s mouth:
“I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!”
http://www.mises.org/story/2571
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070820-global-warming.html
“Sea ice—frozen, floating seawater—melts and refreezes with the seasons, but some of the ice persists year-round in the Arctic.
The current rate of sea ice melt is much faster than predicted by computer models of the global climate system.
Just last year the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s Serreze said that the Arctic was “right on schedule” to be completely free of ice by 2070 at the soonest. He now thinks that day may arrive by 2030. ”
Yep. You’re right J.S. This whole ‘global warming’ thing is just a bunch of scientists trying to hop on the gravy train. There’s certainly no hard scientific data to support it. Nope..no-siree.
How sad that this issue has been so successfully cast into the “right vs. left” political scheme.
Oh yes some random dude posting on a decidedly ideological outlet is certainly “from the horse’s mouth”, in fact it seems like a a whole herd of horses mouths running us down, what a trend. My goodness, yes this has much more credibility doesn’t it?
At least as much credibility as the Gang Who Can’t Shoot Straight over at NASA whose very livelihoods depend on the perpetuation of the most monstrous hoax ever to be foisted upon the American people.
Get in line, the “most monstrous hoax ever foisted upon the American people” award has already been made – “the invasion of Iraq because the WMD smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud” hoax reigns supreme.
Oh yes, because we know that skilled and competent statisticians, engineers and mathematicians are robots and never ever, ever make mistakes or rounding errors.
I mean its no surprise that that that “gang who cant shoot straight” NEVER, never ever get satellites up in orbit (I mean what are those stupid things good for anyway) or land probes on other planets, or that our weather is predicted to the accuracy that we can even complain when it is not a 100% accurate for our small patch of the planet.
Oh well.
Judge you are spoiled by these guys success, you cant imagine a world without out (so they affectively disappear to you, I mean that is only human nature, we never see things that work well for us, only when they dont), which leaves you free to criticize them like actually cant even tie their shoes.
Not to mention you seem to be a paranoid conspiracy nut . . .
“the perpetuation of the most monstrous hoax ever to be foisted upon the American people.”
ummm, thats not true because I thought that the most monstrous hoax was that it was the Mafia in league with space aliens, mind you, who really killed JFK? Right?
“At least as much credibility as the Gang Who Can’t Shoot Straight over at NASA whose very livelihoods depend on the perpetuation of the most monstrous hoax ever to be foisted upon the American people.”
Please tell me this isn’t in reference to the lunar landing in 69. :/
You’d all do well to keep in mind these words from Newsweek columnist Robert Samuelson written in response to the embarrassing cover story referenced by Triscula above:
“Self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week’s Newsweek cover story on global warning is a sobering reminder. . . .
“Newsweek’s “denial machine” is a peripheral and highly contrived story. Newsweek implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank (AEI) to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and Newsweek shouldn’t have lent it respectability. . . .
“Journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale—as Newsweek did—in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226462/site/newsweek/page/0/
J.S.
Yeah. I read that article. I didn’t find it very persuasive. His primary complaint is the tone of the article and the strawman argument that anyone who raises questions about global warming is tarred as an industry hack. The rationalization of ExxonMobil’s funding directed at the AEI was pretty weak (it was ‘only’ $240,000), and didn’t manage to discredit anything.
Also rather tiresome was Samuelson’s redirecting of the discussion into a “we’re all doomed so why bother?” angle. It was a pretty dishonest column, in my opinion. He claims that with current technology we can’t hope to reduce our levels of greenouse gas emissions. Obviously a big concern of people and organizations that are trying to focus attention on the matter of climate change is government support of research for new technology and new ways to generate clean(er) power. Samuelson isn’t aware of this? That seems hard to believe.
When I read the Samuelson article a couple of days ago I was expecting something that would cast serious doubt on the Newsweek article. Instead it was just another op/ed written (apparently) with the intent to change the subject and confuse the reader. In other words, nothing new.
Now…back to that “hoax” you mentioned earlier..you know, the one you attributed to NASA. Care to elaborate?