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”

  2. G. Howard
    1, December 17, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    Is this a site about global warming?

    =============================================================

    This used to be a Biker Bar but then the birdwatchers took over …

  3. Chan posted:

    Bdaman:

    Facts dont matter to lefties, its all about making the real world conform to their belief about what is right and wrong.

    No, it’s about applying our ideals to the circumstances of the real world in order to make things better for everyone (except possibly those who have become disproportionately wealthy or powerful by gaming the current system). I’m a scientist and facts are very important to me indeed – present me with any fact and I will stipulate to it or call it to question.

    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.

    Can you give an example of any of us committing that fallacy? Remember that just because you don’t understand a theory doesn’t make it incorrect.

    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.

    Yes, Bdaman has repeatedly presented facts about the weather in a conversation about the climate. Furthermore, his facts tend to support the conclusion that he opposes – that humanity has a significant impact upon the climate.

    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.

    First off, socialism and central planning are two vastly different things. I think most of the ‘lefties’ here would agree that a mixture of socialism and capitalism is desirable – ‘fact after fact and situation after situation’ has shown that the free market provides the costliest, most inefficient, and lowest quality health care available and that most industries will commit egregious abuses if they are not regulated. Our problem isn’t that the right people haven’t gotten the reigns, it’s that the last guys who had the reigns cut them off and threw them away and you think that turned out so swell that we should do it again.

    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.

    You’re not describing me, nor do I think you are describing any of the ‘lefties’ here, so what’s your point?

    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.

    If you see yourself as part of a larger group (a family, a country, humanity, all living things…) then these values are things that can be cherished, achieved, and venerated by the success of the group (they are also traits which are evolutionarily favorable to the survival of the group). People that have such a narrow, selfish point of view that they can’t see themselves as part of anything greater are pretty sad, in my view.

    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.”

    Whatever.

    Buddha is Laughing is definitely a proponent of the Malevolent Universe.

    Buddha can speak for himself, but I find this diagnosis amusing…

    Slartibartfast is fighting against it but his epistemology is screwed up

    Exactly how is my epistemology 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.

    Okay, now you’ve pissed me off. Not by your feeble attacks on ‘evil libruls’ (those barely even amused me), but by putting me and Bob on the same side! (as the regulars here know, Bob and I have been somewhat antagonistic towards each other in the past…) Since Bob has answered your comment himself, I would just note that the best description of your attempt at argument here would be ‘screwed the pooch’, in my opinion.

    You cannot fight invincible ignorance. But good luck.

    I admit that you and Bdaman have formidable shields of ignorance at your disposal, but I’ll keep fighting the good fight in the hopes of convincing others that you are full of crap (actually, I think they already know… ;-))

    Bdaman,

    Doing more of something that you’ve been told is unpersuasive doesn’t make it more persuasive…

    Gyges,

    Ask him to prove that the teapot isn’t in the Earth’s orbit directly opposite us. (It’s not really a teapot, it’s a camel with rollerskates – long story…)

  4. Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain

    # Millions begin the big Christmas and New Year getaway early as the AA urged motorists to beware of the ‘worst driving conditions imaginable’
    # Quarter of train services disrupted, travel warning in Kent
    # Experts warn of a backlog of up to 4 million of parcels which could remain undelivered this Christmas
    # The NHS issues an urgent appeal for blood donors as concerns grow over shortages
    # Councils reveal plans to share grit amid fears the cold snap could last until January 14
    # Odds shortened even further on a ‘White Christmas’ in some parts of the country next Saturday

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339149/Big-freeze-Coldest-December-100-years-brings-travel-chaos-holiday-rush-begins.html#ixzz18PZ29PWT

  6. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1970, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

    The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun” By Lowell Ponte – Excerpt: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”

    1970: Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling: “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”

    1974 Time Magazine: “Another Ice Age,” June 24, 1974 – Excerpt: However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing.

    1974 New York Times: “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output,”, August 8, 1974 – Harold M. Schmeck – p. 35. Excerpt: A recent meeting of climate experts in Bonn, West Germany, produced the unanimous conclusion that the change in global weather patterns pose a severe threat to agriculture that could lead to major crop failures and mass starvation. […] The drop [in global temps] since the 1940s has only been half a degree, but some scientists believe this is enough to trigger changes that could have important effects on the world’s weather and agriculture.

    Professor Stephen Schneider converted from warning of a coming ice age in the 1970s to promoting of man-made global warming fears today. In the 1970s Professor Stephen Schneider was one of the leading voices warning the Earth was going to experience a catastrophic man made ice-age. However he is now a member of the UN IPCC and is a leading advocate warning that the Earth is facing catastrophic global warming. In 1971, Schneider co-authored a paper warning of a man-made “ice age.”

    1977 book “The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age” – CIA Feared Global Cooling – Excerpt: In the early 1970s, top CIA thinkers concluded that changing weather was “perhaps the greatest single challenge that America will face in coming years”. As a result they ordered several studies of the world’s climate, the likely changes to come and their probably effect on America and the rest of the world. The studies conclude that the world is entering a difficult period during which major climate change (further cooling) is likely to occur. That is the consensus of the Central intelligence Agency, which highlights the fact that we are overdue for a new ice age. Many climatologists believe that since the 1960s, the world has been slipping towards a new ice age. ….the evidence suggests that change will be a return to a climate that was dominant from the seventeenth century to about 1850. Soviet weatherman Mikhail Budyko believes that 1 2.8F drop in the average global temperature would start glaciers on the march. If the temperature should fall by another 0.7F, it could usher in a ninety-thousand year tyranny if ice and snow.

  8. BBBB,

    No hat, so no.

    But my kid loved the video. So thanks.

    Chan,

    You’re going to keep waiting. The responsibility is on you to to support your claim. I was just pointing out what a piss poor job you did.

    Unless of course you want to prove to me that there isn’t a tea pot orbiting the sun somewhere between Mars and the Earth.

  9. Long Wait May Be Over For Science Guidelines

    by Scott Horsley

    The guidelines were supposed to be finished in four months. Instead, it’s been 21. As in other areas, where the administration has had trouble delivering on its lofty early promises, ardent supporters have been disappointed. Some government scientists have complained they are still being muzzled by midlevel managers.

    “In recent weeks and months, there have been complaints and allegations that some of the same practices that people complained about in the Bush administration have not changed in the federal agencies,” said Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado who writes about the intersection of science and public policy. “So I think every day they’re not out there, people are looking for them, and want to see that things are different.”

    Georgia Rep. Paul Broun, the ranking Republican on the science oversight subcommittee, said he’s eager to see the recommendations, but “I’m not holding my breath.”

    “If these are examples of the Obama administration practicing science-based decision-making, they have a long, long way to go,” Ruch said.

    His group sued to find out why it has taken so long for the integrity guidelines to be made public.

    “Apparently, they’ve had draft rules that they’ve been sharing with the Office of Management and Budget and others,” Ruch said. “And we’re at a loss as to why a policy on transparency has to be developed in secret.”

    Pielke added that given the wide range of agencies covered by the guidelines, many of the details will probably have to be filled in later. He said he expects that when the guidelines are finally released, many people will be asking, “We waited a year and a half for this?”

    http://www.npr.org/2010/12/17/132123816/long-wait-may-be-over-for-science-guidelines

    Roger Pielke Jr and Sr are both Skeptics

  10. A sociopath is someone whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

    That perfectly describes not just Ayn Rand the person, but her works. Also you bunch of juvenile mirror neuron deficient clowns who follow her like she was the Second Coming.

    Many people go through a “Rand phase”. They just usually outgrow it by the time they are sixteen.

    It’s odd how the NIMH data shows that 1% of the population is afflicted with anti-social personality disorder and that it is 1% of the population fucking up the world for everyone else.

    What is ASPD? “[D]efined by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) as ‘…a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.’ People with antisocial personality disorder may disregard social norms and laws, repeatedly lie, place others at risk for their own benefit, and demonstrate a profound lack of remorse. It is sometimes referred to as sociopathic personality disorder, or sociopathy.”

    http://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/1Antisocial.shtml

    Sounds like a perfect description of not only Rand and her followers, but her philosophy as well. Also the underlying premise of Libertarianism.

    “This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature [or form]? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?” – The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius – VIII, 11.

    Your own actions and choices damn you as sociopaths.

    Nothing else is required.

  11. Gyges,

    Is this you with those chicks? 🙂

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3_-q55hqMI&fs=1&hl=en_US]

  12. Chan L.: “Isn’t there a logical fallacy in there somewhere? Aren’t you guilty of one?”

    Lemme guess; tu quque?

    Chan L.: “I am not going to argue the merits or demerits of Rand as a human being in her personal life since I have never met her and have read both positive and negative anecdotal stories.”

    From diseased minds come diseased thoughts?

    Chan L.: “From what I know about Kant, he wasn’t exactly a bed of roses to be around either.”

    Actually, he was quite charming and, what’s that word, altruistic?

    Chan L.: “Attack her ideas.”

    The way you attacked Kant’s ideas by simply associating him with villains in history?

    Chan L.: “I am always amazed that the first thing a leftist does is bring in sociopathy, etc when they don’t agree with someone or some idea.”

    I’m a leftist? LOL.

    You’re funny; and clueless.

  13. Gyges:

    If I am wrong then tell me why? I am waiting with anticipation for your refutation of my linkage.

    I imagine the answer will be something to the effect “I don’t need to refute because I am not the one who postulated”.

    Translation – I don’t know dick and I cant answer it so I will make up some crap to deflect my lack of ability to refute.

  14. Bob Esq:

    Interesting article, I didn’t know her personally so I cannot comment on its accuracy.

    Isn’t there a logical fallacy in there somewhere? Aren’t you guilty of one?

    I am not going to argue the merits or demerits of Rand as a human being in her personal life since I have never met her and have read both positive and negative anecdotal stories.

    From what I know about Kant, he wasn’t exactly a bed of roses to be around either.

    Attack her ideas.

    I am always amazed that the first thing a leftist does is bring in sociopathy, etc when they don’t agree with someone or some idea. It is funny at this point. I was shocked the first time I saw it used, but the shock has worn off and now I know that when the S word is brought up it really means “I have shit for brains and don’t have anything to say on this subject so I will just call you a sociopath in the hope that you will not continue and make me look really stupid”.

  15. Gyges,

    lol

    You’re right; I can tell from the arrow that people aren’t wearing enough hats.

  16. Bob,

    I guess you got told, I mean he drew an ARROW in between them.
    You don’t get a much better argument than an ARROW do you?

    Let’s try

    Gyges =====================> Brilliant guy who the chicks dig

    That settles it: chicks dig me.

    It’s my rugged good looks, boyish charm, and the hat.
    O.k. so it’s really just the hat.

  19. Bob Esq:

    Bought the farm, augered in, etc are aviation terms for crashing and burning.

    Plato, Kant, Hegel, Marx ==============> Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot.

    Good luck with that.

Comments are closed.