While every snow flurry or cool snap is often cited as evidence of the folly of “global warming” by critics, scientists at the NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies have released data showing that 2010 now ranks as the hottest climate year on record.
The combined land-ocean temperature readings from NASA’s Goddard Institute indicate that 2010 has surpassed what it identified as the previous warmest climate year, 2005.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data shows that 1998 was the warmest year on record with 2005 close behind. The findings have been released after another failure to reach a significant reductions in emissions in the Cancun summit.
Nations again refused to make the cuts necessary to prevent global temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
This report comes with the disclosure that a top FOX executive ordered correspondents not to cite global warming statistics and to question the basis for climate change claims.
Source: Washington Post
Wow, this arguement is still progressing, 220 comments and growing. Luckily for us, we now have a quote from pajamasmedia.com which should put an end to the arguement. Is that one of those new science journals I’ve heard about?
Since the peer reviewed science supports climate change and that people are a primary cause of climate change. So based on real science we can change to the following:
“…the determined knucklehead does not budge from his ideological sanctum and will invent every conceivable, or rather inconceivable, excuse to validate the soundness of his principles despite the complete lack of scientific evidence.”
Mike, Rafflaw, and budda make some good points. I have yet to see anything useful from bdaman despite all the posts (i mean spam)
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/where-do-leftists-come-from/
an excerpt:
“…the determined leftist does not budge from his ideological sanctum and will invent every conceivable, or rather inconceivable, excuse to validate the soundness of his principles and justify every subsequent social and political miscarriage these principles bring about.”
Buddha is Laughing call your office. Price check needed on aisle 9
Whore or Slut? both, at least I’m getting laid.
As a scientist read this entire post. It should enlighten you.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/15/arctic-oscillation-spoiling-nasa-giss-party/#more-29481
Excerpts
In a recent post to counter the snow and cold in the news that was spoiling the announcement by Dr. Hansen that it was the warmest year on record, NASA GISS authors note for November:
“Northern Europe had negative anomalies of more than 4C, while the Hudson Bay region of Canada had monthly mean anomalies greater than +10C. The extreme warmth in Northeast Canada is undoubtedly related to the fact that Hudson Bay was practically ice free. It is for this reason that some of the largest positive temperature anomalies on the planet occur in the Arctic Ocean as sea ice area has decreased in recent years.
The cold anomaly in Northern Europe in November has continued and strengthened in the first half of December. Combined with the unusual cold winter of 2009-2010 in Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, this regional cold spell has caused widespread commentary that global warming has ended. That is hardly the case.”
Even Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, admitted here: “We have seen rapid warming recently, but it is an example of natural variation that is associated with changes in the Pacific rather than climate change.”
We have shown how NASA and the other data centers have mined the data for warmth and manipulated the data – new and old – to enhance the apparent warming. This includes a cooling (up to a quarter degree or more celsius) of the pesky warm period from the 1920s to 1950s right up to 1980. This includes the NASA GISS base period for anomalies of 1951 to 1980. Numerous data issues post 1980 have exaggerated the warmth.
Even Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado it is an example of natural variation that is associated with changes in the Pacific rather than climate change.”
Let me repeat that
Even Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado it is an example of natural variation that is associated with changes in the Pacific rather than climate change.”
Now research Kevin Trenberth to see why his admission is worth repeating.
Our resident weather expert has found a home…
BBB
Y: “I took opposition to you accepting it as a matter of faith. By acknowledging that you don’t understand the science, you had to accept the word of others. That’s faith.”
—
M: Your twisting my reply or understand what I said. I said “I’m not a climate scientist but I read about the science…”
So? Only experts and narrowly focused specialist’s in the sciences get to have opinions on scientific debates? Are you sufficiently credentialed that you should be taken seriously? Carry that implication far enough and opinions become rights conferred by authorizing bodies. That’s an elitist attitude I don’t subscribe to.
++++++
M: “Your kids will be paying off the cost… and on and on and on. It’s about priorities.”
Y: Irrelevant to the discussion. Please stay on point.
—
M: Seeing this as a matter of (political) prioritization isn’t on point? Pointing out hat there are massive and nation changing costs that will be multigenerational and, by inference, making sure they’re costs based on the right priorities is off point? Tangental in execution perhaps but not off point since you objected to ones kids and grandkids having to pay of the cost of limiting global warming. And that’s actually a very selective objection. How long did it take to pay off WWII and the Marshall plan or the cold war or Vietnam? Kids are always picking up the check, that’s a given. That’s why I’m big on priorities.
+++++++
M: “I am not a climate scientist and don’t pretend to be one.”
Y: You seem happy to put your understanding of the issue up against others.
—
M: This is a blawg hosted by a guy that loves and defends the First Amendment, there are no posting police here, we don’t have to take a test before we’re allowed to post on a particular subject, and I, like most here can’t be accused of being a shrinking violet. You know the old saying abut opinions. It applies to us equally and your observation that one who is without credentials in a particular discipline would post in a ‘happy’ or confident manner is in itself odd. Such postings are par for the course here. If on the other hand that was a rebuke for my happy and unapologetic posting without credentials one of the few rules on this blawg prevents me from answering more directly.
What are your specific credentials? Should I really care weather you have them or not?
+++++++
Y: “Do you always follow the majority opinion?”
—
M: No.
+++++++
Y: “Now I understand. You’re playing the lottery with other people’s money. Maybe that’s why you didn’t include any financial effects in your analogy.”
—
M: I subsidize through taxes a multitude of things that won’t benefit me directly and do so gladly as a matter of enlightened self-interest, though the self-interest part was more relevant some years ago. I still do it gladly and try to elect politicians that will advance those programs I will gladly service with my taxes as a gift to future generations even though I will not benefit at all nor leave any progeny that will benefit. It’s a civic duty.
I say this to come back to the concept of priorities. I don’t know the cost of making the changes necessary to reduce humanities footprint to a point that does not harmfully exacerbate any natural level of global warming. If doing so allows breathing room for the world to make a more deliberate transition to a globally altered climate then it is worth the cost in my opinion. The alternative is an alteration of global weather patterns that will affect everyone and everything on Earth and to be caught flat-footed, or to exacerbate the predicted effects and timeline verges on the suicidal.
+++++++
Y: “I’m in favor of going green. … I have plans to go completely solar next year. I’ve already brought my house up to a pretty good level of efficiency.”
—
M: That is a good thing and I’m happy to hear it. It benefits you and the others on your electricity grid. I applaud your effort at self reliance and the good it does the planet. I had similar plans but time/health/money didn’t intersect. The thing about it though, is that you (and I and even millions of others with similar plans, should they all come to fruition) will not save the planet from global warming. The players that need to be reigned in and transformed are large and global. Not joking though, I do applaud your efforts and wish you nothing but success with your self-help.
Gyges,
Actually, after Mike Judge started making cartoons, I heard they did change their name from that old and noble Texan family bloodline (closely related to the Bush clan), “Butthead”.
It would also be hard to sell a “Buttheadian tax”. It is perhaps more accurate and less reminiscent of Vogon poetry though. But it still makes me think of Rove.
Gyges,
It wasn’t about blaming you in any way – names are very important in public policy debates – there is a much bigger chance of enacting a ‘pollution tax’ than there is of passing a ‘Pigovian tax’.
Slart, BIL,
Don’t blame me. Blame Mr. and Mrs. Pigou for not changing their name.
James M,
Thanks for the info. Just goes to show where faith in something other than science on scientific issues leads…
BBB,
You’re comparing apples and oranges. The definition of autism has changed in the intervening years, and we are now diagnosing a whole autism spectrum; whereas in the past only severe cases were diagnosed. There has also been a large increase in the amount of publicity that autism has received, so people are more likely to notice the symptoms and have their children diagnosed.
That’s not to say that there may not have been an actual increase in the rate of incidence as well, but the numbers you’re quoting are useless.
Buddha,
Thank you for proving my point – a most unsavory combination…
I’ll have to say, the word “Pigovian” makes me think of one of two things:
1) Karl Rove
2) Vogon poetry
Gyges,
Thanks for the link, but ‘Pigovian tax’ is a HORRIBLE name – ‘pollution tax’ is much better…
Gyges,
6% unwilling puts everyone unable at risk (in addition to themselves).
FFLEO,
Howdy. 😉
Slart,
Wouldn’t that be 6% unwilling or unable? I think it’s important to remind people, when you don’t get vaccinated, you’re also endangering infants, transplant patients, and other people whose condition won’t allow them to make the choice to be vaccinated themselves.
Also, the term you’re looking for is “Pigovian tax”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
Hey Doc Slarti…
Thank you fer clearin’ that up fer me. When Gyges sayed “nice to see your fractals”, I wuz gettin’ a bit uncomfortable.
Understand, I aint not cipherin’ methmetishin’ and I still thank that a differenshall is the rarin’ of a car and kalkulus is ‘dat yeller junk whut gits on yer teef if ya don’t brash ’em with pepsadent…
Bdaman,
You chased me down across the internet to get me to come back here, why wont you answer my posts?
are figures showing the heterodyning of oscillatory frequencies in coupled nephrons, not fractals and I believe this one doesn’t work.
and this
This