Saturday, December 3, 2011

Or P.T.?

[click image to enlarge]

(If the title reference is too obscure for some readers, this might help.)


Anonymous said...

120 years of mild upward temperature variation proves what exactly? The time frame is too short to tell us anything about anthropogenic global warming. Your graphs lately have personified that old cliche about lies, damn lies, & statistics.

The IPCC studies of global temp were viewed as the gold standard of climate science, so lets at least consider a data set that has the chance of telling us something useful, shall we? Of course, we all know that data has been manipulated to show something that was not there thus emboldening "skeptics" like me to demand sound scientific data that theory of anthropogenic warming has at least a small chance of being real before I rush to the store to buy Dominos "CarbonFree" sugar.

Perhaps your readers would care to see how the climate data is manipulated to manipulate them & ultimately climate policy? The first line of the article links a .pdf that I recommend reading.

As an aside, you linked an article recently about Pacific islands being submerged. Here's a "Climate:Fail" that addresses your hysteria & recognizes the UN's shady antics by trying to hide their incorrect predictions.

Climate change & environmental science are interesting topics worthy of further investigation. Unfortunately, the politicians are coniving ways to make a buck off of it. Scientists are gambling their entire careers on the theory of anthropogenic global warming which has clearly led to conflicts of interest. The data is suspect in such an environment.


Sid Schwab said...

The important part of the chart is the dramatic change in slope in the last few decades.

"We all know data has been manipulated?" Really? Is that the Fox "news" version of the so-called scandal that was found not to be one? How about the Koch funded study recently?

There are islands slowly submerging. Hard to manipulate that, although I guess god can do what he wants.

You dismiss it as a political sham and claim that scientists staking reputations on it signifies wrong-doing. I'd say it proves the opposite, but I don't have the benefit of right-wing thinking. As to politicians, I'd say the scandal is that people like Newt and Mitt put their fingers into the wind and then up their asses.

As I've said dozens of times, I'm no climate scientist. I read some stuff. I know that time after time there are studies showing near unanimous consensus among qualified researchers. I find it hard to believe that billions of tons of carbon being put into the atmosphere from human sources in the past several decades has no effect. I mention ocean acidification repeatedly because it's undeniable (ignored, by the RWS™ because it's too hard to pass off in the way you do climate, above) in source and effect.

But, conspiracy theories go hand in hand with denialism: when there are facts you don't like, you ignore them, or announce they must be fake. Because god knows scientists are fakers, and use their slide rules to communicate with each other to coordinate a world-wide scam.

We can provide dueling reports forever, or at least until we're dead from the effects of climate change. But the fact remains: the near unanimity of researchers -- actual researchers -- is compelling, except to those inclined to denialism and conspiracy theories. Right-wingers, in other words.

As Herman Cain might say, for every paper claiming falsehood of climate change, there are thousands on the other side.

Anonymous said...

the temperatures gone up 0.8 degrees in the last 80 years!!!!!!!!!
and even as someone who believes the Earths 5,000 years old, thats a rather small sample size...
and thats Celsius, so lets see,
F=9/5 x C + 32...
So in 800 years it'll be 8 degrees warmer, Oh the Humanity...
and since I'll be like 130 years old, who cares? America's gonna be North Mexico by then anyway...
Well seeing as how its 42 in Atlanta right now, sounds pretty good...


Popular posts