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. “Bob Esq has bought the farm through his belief in the writings of an 18th century religious mystic who wanted to save religion from reason.”

    The idea that such a claim would come from an alleged ‘objectivist’ is comical.

  3. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQW9I02nz74&fs=1&hl=en_US]

    Awwwww. What a bunch of bitchy little children.

    The only ignorance on display here is your own. Same with the mistakes. Feel free to keep digging that hole.

    By the way, I’m not a proponent of anything that Rand said. She was an idiot. I’m a proponent of an Indifferent Universe. Just to be clear.

  4. “Whatever one may say, the happiest moment of the happy man is the moment of his falling asleep

    You left out after your 15 seconds of fame 🙂

  5. Bdaman:

    Facts dont matter to lefties, its all about making the real world conform to their belief about what is right and wrong. If an idea or a fact/theory does not coincide with their view of what they think to be true, then reality must be wrong.

    You see it on this thread over and over, you have presented fact after fact, it is 32 degrees in Miami Florida and 22 degree in Jacksonville.

    It is exactly the same thing with economics, fact after fact and situation after situation has shown that socialism/central planning does not work and yet they still cling to the notion that the right people havent gotten hold of the reigns.

    Maybe this will explain why:

    “If you hold the wrong ideas on any fundamental philosophic issue, that will undercut or destroy the benevolent universe premise . . . . For example, any departure in metaphysics from the view that this world in which we live is reality, the full, final, absolute reality—any such departure will necessarily undercut a man’s confidence in his ability to deal with the world, and thus will inject the malevolent-universe element. The same applies in epistemology: if you conclude in any form that reason is not valid, then man has no tool of achieving values; so defeat and tragedy are unavoidable.

    This is true also of ethics. If men hold values incompatible with life—such as self-sacrifice and altruism—obviously they can’t achieve such values; they will soon come to feel that evil is potent, whereas they are doomed to misery, suffering, failure. It is irrational codes of ethics above all else that feed the malevolent-universe attitude in people and lead to the syndrome eloquently expressed by the philosopher Schopenhauer: “Whatever one may say, the happiest moment of the happy man is the moment of his falling asleep, and the unhappiest moment of the unhappy that of his waking. Human life must be some kind of mistake.”

    Now there is certainly “some kind of mistake” here. But it’s not life. It’s the kind of philosophies used to wreck man—to make him incapable of living—philosophies, I may say, which are perfectly exemplified by the ideas of Schopenhauer.”

    Buddha is Laughing is definitely a proponent of the Malevolent Universe. Slartibartfast is fighting against it but his epeistomology is screwed up and Bob Esq has bought the farm through his belief in the writings of an 18th century religious mystic who wanted to save religion from reason.

    You cannot fight invincible ignorance. But good luck.

  6. Climate Scientists Plan Campaign Against Global Warming Skeptics
    November 8th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    “The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.”

    OK, so, let me see if I understand this.

    After 20 years, billions of dollars in scientific research and advertising campaigns, cooperation from the public schools, TV specials and concerts by a gaggle of entertainers, end-of-the-world movies, our ‘best’ politicians, heads of state, presidents, the United Nations, and complicity by most of the news media, it has been decided that the American public is not getting the message on global warming!?

    Are they serious!?

    Americans — hell, most of humanity — have already heard the 20 different ways we will all die miserable deaths from our emissions of that life giving — er, I mean poisonous –gas, carbon dioxide, that we are adding to the atmosphere every day.

    So, NOW it no more mister nice guy? Give me a break.

    A complaint many of us skeptics have had for years is that those who constitute the “scientific consensus” (whatever that means) will not engage in public debates on global warming. Al Gore won’t even answer questions from the press.

    This is why you will mostly hear only politicians and U.N. bureaucrats give pronouncements on the science. They are already adept at weaving a good story with carefully selected facts and figures.

    Why has the global warming message been presented mostly by politicians and bureaucrats up until now? Probably because it is too dangerous to put their scientists out there.

    Scientists might admit to something counterproductive — like uncertainty — which would jeopardize what the politicians have been trying to accomplish for decades — control over energy, which is necessary for everything that humans do.

    I have repeatedly pointed out how virtually all global warming research funds either (1) build the case for humanity as the primary cause of recent warming, or (2) simply assume humans are the cause.

    Virtually NO funding has supported research into the possibility that warming might be mostly part of a natural climate cycle. And if you give scientists enough money to find something, they will do their best to find it.

    Politicians have orchestrated and guided this effort from the outset, and scientists like to believe they are helping to Save the Earth when they participate in global warming research.

    Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Hypothesis, Nothing More

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/11/climate-scientists-plan-campaign-against-global-warming-skeptics/

  10. Dec 13th 2010

    Piers Corbyn’s new advances in his forecasting technique now make more detailed forecasts possible for the USA and his WeatherAction USA forecast for key developments & snow / cold blasts 15-31 Dec spells out some very grim weather on the way.

    Piers said (Dec 13th): “The midwest has already had tremendous snow deluges around 10-12 December but ‘You ain’t seen nothing yet’ compared with what is going to hit NE USA including New York State in the period 25-31st December. This is likely to be one of the most significant snowfall/blizzard periods in NE & East USA for decades”.

    For the FULL forecast in 4 weather periods covering 15-31st Dec including full details of likely affects of this impending super-blizzard period please go to:-

    http://www.weatheraction.com/member.asp and click on option ‘Extreme Events World

  11. By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 14th February 2005

    It is now mid-February, and already I have sown eleven species of vegetable. I know, though the seed packets tell me otherwise, that they will flourish. Everything in this country – daffodils, primroses, almond trees, bumblebees, nesting birds – is a month ahead of schedule. And it feels wonderful. Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur.

    Tomorrow, after 13 years of negotiation, the Kyoto protocol on climate change comes into force. No one believes that this treaty alone – which commits 30 developed nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 4.8% – will solve the problem. It expires in 2012 and, thanks to US sabotage, so far there has been no progress towards a replacement.(2) It paroles the worst offenders – the United States and Australia – and imposes no limits on the gases produced by developing countries. The cuts it enforces are at least an order of magnitude too small to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at anything approaching a safe level.(3) But even this feeble agreement is threatened by our complacency about the closing of the climatic corridor down which we walk.

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/02/15/mocking-our-dreams/

  12. But forecasters said the blizzards will be worse than last week’s snow, with conditions more serious than an infamous blizzard in the cold 1962-63 winter and the worst to hit Britain since 1927. Then, a 12-hour blizzard on Christmas Day left 20ft snowdrifts across south-east England, with villages cut off for a week.

    The Met Office has issued nationwide extreme weather warnings for snow and icy roads today and tomorrow, with Scotland on “amber alert” – the second most serious status.

    It predicted up to 20cm of snow as well as gales or near-gale force winds, with wind speeds peaking at 62mph in Aberdeenshire.

    Temperatures are expected to remain sub-zero everywhere in Scotland bar the west coast during Friday , peaking at -7C in central parts.

    Nights will drop to -15C but feel as cold as -20C due to the Arctic winds.Netweather forecaster Ian Michaelwhite said: “There is no respite for Scotland – it will get all the weather it had last week and then some.

    “Through Thursday and into Friday, there will be up to a foot of snow , with strong winds causing very severe drifting up to 6ft in height. “The most recent weather event comparable to what we are about to see is the famous Christmas Day blizzard of 1927.”

    Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/217729/Forecasters-warn-Scotland-You-ain-t-seen-nothing-yet/Forecasters-warn-Scotland-You-ain-t-seen-nothing-yet#ixzz18NJbwVpV

  14. Why should I? so you can see

    So how did that birther thing work out for you again, badtroll?

    Same way prosecuting Bush did for you.

    Same way sunspots have nothing to do with climate did for you.

  19. you might consider the fact that posting a link to a study or an argument doesn’t mean that everyone has accepted that study or argument as true – in fact most of your links are either easily debunked or you are misrepresenting their meaning.

    go back through every thing in this thread I posted and show me then.

    By the way, ‘…do to cold’ SB ‘…DUE to cold’ and ‘…your blind…’ SB ‘…you‘RE blind…’.

    I blame the cold medicine

    no pun intended

  20. Bdaman,

    Sorry, but it’s not worth my time to respond to your points individually (you never respond to most of my points anyway…), so I’ll just say you’re full of crap. People can decide for themselves which one of us has more credibility, but you might consider the fact that posting a link to a study or an argument doesn’t mean that everyone has accepted that study or argument as true – in fact most of your links are either easily debunked or you are misrepresenting their meaning. I saw a study that said that people with more knowledge about a topic tend to underestimate their level of expertise and overestimate others level of expertise while people with less knowledge about a topic tend to do the reverse. Do you understand how this would apply to you in the context of climate change?

    By the way, ‘…do to cold’ SB ‘…DUE to cold’ and ‘…your blind…’ SB ‘…you‘RE blind…’.

    Just sayin’

    One of my favorite lines from the Mythbusters episode on Point Break myths…

    “BUSTED!”

    Pretty much describes your argument.

Comments are closed.