Academia, Environment, International, Politics

2010 To Be Hottest Year On Record

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

470 thoughts on “2010 To Be Hottest Year On Record”

  1. For being so smart how can people be so stupid is beyond me.

    In this thread

    I’ve shown you that people and animals are dying all over the world do to cold. It’s been happening for the last two years.

    I’ve shown you more people die do to cold than heat.

    I’ve shown you where other NASA scientist along with a growing number of others who say we are heading for the next ice age.

    We are experiencing record cold temperatures in the very place where they decide to hold climate talks. Last year Nopenhagen followed by Snowmegeddon and this year Can-Con followed by a 100 year blizzard. This after they told us that snowfalls are just a thing of the past.

    I’ve shown you where the Urban Heat Island Effect has increased the temperature readings giving a false reading of how hot it really is.

    I’ve shown you where the recording stations that record those temperatures are on roof tops, next to brick buildings or in asphalt or concrete parking lots which in turn hold the heat for longer periods of time past sunset. This works in winter as well.

    I’ve shown you where the United States Navy has been to the North Pole in 1958 and it was basically ice free.

    I’ve shown you many examples of where reports and studies where either falsified or not peer reviewed be it from Al Gore or the IPCC or this one with the claim of 2010 Hottest on Record.

    I have shown you where political will and pressure has been exerted through wikileaks much in the fashion of pressuring Spain not to prosecute a war criminal.

    I have shown you through Climategate the lies and deception.

    You guys might be some very intelligent people but your blind as a fucking bats.

    Thats ok though because you guys are the ones who never knew what hit ya.

    One of my favorite lines from the movie Point Break

    See ya in hell Johnny

  2. Bdaman,

    You don’t fight propaganda by lending it stature…

    Buddha,

    ‘…scientific intelligence of a marmoset..’ Nice.

  3. They don’t let people with the scientific intelligence of a marmoset and a history of making shit up testify in front of Congress.

    Why not all the world to see he would only embarrass himself.
    Instead it’s don’t let him speak. Thats sounds like a fair and open system to me.

  5. Gyges,

    Right – when you start passing DNA laterally (so to speak) the definition of ‘line of descent’ needs to be clarified – my guess is that this will result in these bacteria either being classified as not having distinct lines of descent or being a type of chimera (although not in the sense that would falsify evolution).

  7. Slart,

    I was more interested in why those weren’t Chimeras, but I guess line of descent gets sort of tangled at that level

  8. Slarti,

    I would just like to say that “unwilling” and “unable” are not mutually exclusive states.

  9. Gyges,

    I would say that sort of thing is happening in addition to evolution via descent as opposed to in place of it. It is a new understanding of the mechanics of evolution, not a falsification of the theory of evolution.

    Buddha,

    *Sigh* You’re probably right…

    Chan said:

    “Case closed.”

    Yep, we’ve proven that you are unwilling or unable to participate in a substantive debate.

  10. Slart,

    “The theory of evolution can be falsified by the discovery of a chimera – a species that shows traits from two distinct lines of descent. ”

    What about the DNA exchanges that go on with certain bacteria?

  11. Yep.

    Case closed alright.

    Just not in the way you think, dancing monkey.
    _____

    Slarti,

    Well spoken as always, but you cannot shame those who are shameless. A sense of shame requires empathy and empathy requires a conscience. These two are barely conscious, let alone in possession of a conscience.

  12. Slartibarfast:

    Look up in the sky tomorrow at noon, if it isn’t cloudy do you see that great orange yellow orb? Please wear sun glasses with a good UV filter lens.

    Case closed.

  13. Chan,

    The Viscount is attacked because his arguments fail on their merits (he seems to be kind of an ass, too…). What Bdaman posts is not taken seriously by the people here because he has a history of posting easily or previously debunked arguments (such as Lord Monckton’s ravings) or evidence that actually supports the theory he’s trying to attack [Bdaman, record temperatures (high and low – and while you never report record highs, they have been occurring, too) are evidence of climate destabilization, not the evidence against ‘global warming’ that you seem to think.]. In general, he’s been an apologist for a point of view that is unquestionably being advanced by well-funded astroturf campaigns – I’m guessing that most people here see his posts as ‘guilty until proven innocent’ as far as their validity goes (I know I do). Also, Bdaman mentioning it being cold outside is a far cry from a scientific study of any sort.

    As for grant money, in the long term a bogus scientific theory cannot survive as it will be contradicted by the data. In the short term, if there are so many good scientists with good research projects on how humanity doesn’t impact the climate that can’t get funding from the corrupt government agencies, why can’t they get funding from the people who are spending millions (billions?) of dollars on anti-climate change propaganda. Surely studies that could withstand scientific criticism would be valuable to these interests…

    Chan posted:

    Buddha is Laughing:

    Even your nemesis Bdaman sticks it to you with logic and factual knowledge.

    Do you really think anyone here is going to believe that Bdaman is exhibiting ‘logic and factual knowledge’ – more like ‘propaganda and lack of understanding’.

    The Koch brothers own 82% of Koch Industries (the second largest privately held company in the US) and are responsible for many astroturf campaigns including the Tea Party. They spend enormous amounts of money to create these fake grassroots organizations to propagandize on issues (like climate change) in which acting in the best interests of humanity could potentially cost them money.

    bammbamm posted:

    This works just like the theory of evolution, the origin of the universe, life on earth, life on other planets, etc. They’re unfalsifiable.

    Stop using words you don’t understand. The theory of evolution can be falsified by the discovery of a chimera – a species that shows traits from two distinct lines of descent. If the Large Hadron Collider fails to find evidence for dark matter, I believe that this will falsify the Big Bang theory. ‘Life on Earth’ is not falsifiable because it is a fact – there is life on Earth – and while there are viable hypotheses regarding abiogensis (the origin of life from non-life) which are supported by experimental evidence (such as the Miller-Urey experiment), I wouldn’t say that it rises to the level of a theory yet. As for life on other planets – that is neither a ‘theory’ (in the scientific sense) or falsifiable – rather, it is a fact (either there is or isn’t other life in the universe) which can be confirmed when and if data becomes available.

    Since the processes are allegedly occurring over millions of years, or happened billions of years ago, or haven’t yet been seen, no one can positively assert the truth of the theory.

    You don’t think we have records that cover millions or billions of years? Wrong – we have many different records of climate change – glaciers, trees, sedimentary strata, etc. and you can never ‘positively assert the truth’ of ANY scientific theory – you can only provide evidence to support (or falsify) it. In the case of the theory that humanity has a significant impact on the climate, I’d say the preponderance of the evidence suggests that it is correct and certainly it has yet to be falsified.

    So, when it’s hot, the global warming people say, “I told you so.” When it’s cold, they say that one winter means nothing. Vice versa granted)

    No – when the temperatures become more extreme, this is evidence of climate destabilization, should temperatures become more moderate in their variation (or remain more or less the same) then I will say that it is evidence of the stability of the climate…

    So it’s down to a shouting match, political contributions, research grants provided to scientists who they know will arrive at the conclusions they’re being paid to prove, etc.

    Inaccurate theories in the hard sciences tend to be self-correcting – if a theory is bad it will fail at making accurate predictions and it will eventually be contradicted by new data. Scientists make their names for themselves (names like ‘Nobel laureate’) by taking contrary positions and showing solid evidence that they are right. Eventually the epicycles catch up with you. And as someone who lives in the ‘publish or perish’ world funded by research grants, let me say that you clearly don’t understand anything about how the grant process works – you don’t get paid to prove a certain conclusion (although that’s how private sector research works – like the research being funded by the purveyors of anti-global warming propaganda) you get paid to conduct a study and publish the results and you get get more grants by publishing good quality, repeatable work in prestigious journals – fake results cannot be independently confirmed (not to mention they have a tough time passing peer review) and would typically result in a significant reduction (like to zero) of grant money for the offending lab.

    I would take the arguments against climate change more seriously if they were not being supported by propaganda produced by organizations with large vested interests in the status quo, propaganda with the clear intent of preventing rational international discussion regarding energy and pollution policy. So to all of you people fighting so hard for the Koch brothers (whether you’re dupes or shills), I just want you to know that you’re on the side that is using despicable tactics in an effort to prevent substantive discussion regarding an issue of vital importance to humanity. I hope it was worth it.

  16. “Al Gore is a charlatan.”

    Arguing is reason giving.

    Reasons are justifications or support for claims.

    Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving.

    The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or command.

    Claiming that “Al Gore is a charlatan” without providing reasons for said claim is not an argument.

  18. Answered by la folie de la l’ignorance et rationalisation de soi.

    Did you take the life line and call a friend?

  20. Answered by la folie de la l’ignorance et rationalisation de soi.

    At least you’re consistent.

Comments are closed.