Instant Global Cooling

Global warming fanatics got both good and bad news in the past week. The bad news is that NASA's Goddard Institute has quietly, ahem, "adjusted" some its temperatures which now show Al Gore’s claim that nine of ten hottest years on record has occurred in the last ten years is crap. In the last hundred years, the hottest years are now 1934, 1998, and 1921 respectively. Global warmers were quick to poo poo the new numbers even though they sure made a big deal out of them when they thought the numbers backed them up. Can’t blame Al too much for this one though, he may have invented the internet but he’s no temperature reading rocket scientist.

The good news for warming worshipers is that they can now blame earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides and tsunamis on man’s conspiracy to kill the planet. Melting ice caps and rising seas, too much and too little rain, hurricanes (even though we have seen fewer), and even snow has been blamed on global warming. I thought at least they could not blame earthquakes on global warming, but I was wrong. I just wonder how long it will be before erectile dysfunction, teenage acne, and obesity will be blamed on global warming. On second thought, maybe I shouldn’t give them any ideas.

Comments

[Senthil]

"Can’t blame Al too much for this one though, he may have invented the internet but he’s no temperature reading rocket scientist."
And you are... well, thanks for the information Dr. Sheffield.

Also, a while back on this site (I think posted by yourself) was a piece on a scientist who explained how there are multiple effects upon climate change that haven't been considered by scientists, and how this scientist considers man-made global warming as nonsense. One of the factors he mentioned was that Solar output could be causing climate change. Yet, when the BBC reported that a recent study has confirmed no warming link to solar output, I expected to see such a report by yourself on this site, in the interests of fostering the further education of your readers, and yet there was no report.
For reference here's the BBC link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

I don't claim to have all of the facts and in matters of science and I won't be offerring a loaded opinion on climate change because I'm not a scientist... unlike your fine self, Sir.
I love the way in the US climate change has now become a partisan pináta, when none of you really have an informed opinion.

How about this, instead of sitting there beating each other up on whether it's man made or a 'liberal conspiracy', why not do this instead:
Gather the finest scientific minds (which should mostly be American), not just on either side of the global warming debate, but across a range of opinions, shove them in a room and force them to come out with a scientifically informed concensus.

Then after that you can write whatever you want about climate change. Until then, I'm yawning at the Al Gore bashing. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, find a more challenging target.

[Scott Sheffield]

One can claim that the suns output has no affect on our temperature, but it does not take a scientist to question that conclusion? I mean seriously, do you believe that the sun’s output has no affect on our temperature??? While my “fine self” does not happen to be a scientist (although I do have an AA, a BS, and an MBA), I have been listening to them for years. They have predicted that we would run out of food by 1990, peak oil in 1980, Y2K disaster in 2000, global cooling, etc. The past two years they predicted record-breaking hurricane seasons that never materialized. We also find out that their temperature data was wrong. If their computer models (based on faulty temperature data by the way) cannot predict what will happen in 24 months is it fair to question their predictions 50 years from now?
Like you, the big problem I have will the global warming folks is that it’s not scientists that are having reasoned discussions, it’s politicians trying to leverage it to their advantage. You can thank Al Gore and the left for that, thank you very much. Their solutions always seem to revolve around raising taxes and having the unwashed masses make sacrifices, while they spend the money and live anyway they want through the miracle of carbon offsets. They could require only compact florescent bulbs be sold which would save a ton of energy. They could pull the speed limit back to 55 mph, which would save more gas than all the Hybrid cars on the road. They could do things like that, but it won’t put money in their pocket or increase their power. All these yahoos could also set the example and show the rest of us how to live the life that they say we should live if it was really that important, but they won’t.
I agree that we don’t have all the facts but others have already decided we have enough information to force everyone to drastically change our lifestyle and confiscate more of our earnings. The difference between others and me in this debate is that I don’t claim to have all the answers. I simply question those that want to control our lives because they say it is for our own good.

[Senthil]

I said that a study stated that solar output was not linked global warming, and
I put the link to the scientific study for clarification, for you to read. Since you haven't I'll be more precise. The study said that while global temperatures are rising, scietific research has shown a reduction in solar output across the years measured. I did not state that the sun does not affect the temperature on earth, that would be like saying that the universe revolves around the earth... I may have a lot of intoxicants running around my system, but I'm not that messed up.

The point that I was making, is that it's all very good and well to jump on every article that debunks man-made global warming as a theory, but you're not being objective in the slightest if you don't even pay attention to articles such as the one I posted.

Like all human beings we can be (over)reactionary, so when scientists claim man-made climate change, some groups of people jump on the bandwagon and try to create a political agenda out of it.
Making this an argument of left vs. right in no way will benefit scientific progress and understanding, and the determination of what action should be taken. And as far as I can see, there was a time when there was both a Republican Congress and White House. Why did the right wing not try to conclusively answer the theory then? Probably because they were too busy playing partisan politics, just like the Dems, with the issue. And when this happens, rather than making progress and taking action, they just end up bouncing a ball back and forth like useless idiots.
This isn't a political argument, this is one for the scientific community.
And last time I checked I didn't really see people changing their lifestyles 'drastically' to meet Al Gore's demands.
Free market economics still allows the consumers to determine the path of industry. If more hybrids are being sold in the US, then it's because people want to drive more than 55mph and because oil prices have increased massively. By the way, while we're discussing cars and hybrids, the latest information is that European hatchbacks are far more economic than the Prius, especially modern diesels. Just a case of old technology evolving to meet current standards.

[cmdrzoo]

Struck by the remark, "scientifically informed con[s]ensus." Science does not require consensus, politics does. Real science deals with refutable implication. That is the principle problem with the weather change models. Presently, the system of implication is so poorly worked out that the weather predictors cannot predict weather even a few weeks into the future.

The weather and climate problem is complicated. The people working on the problem deserve admiration, not worship. Politicians will only complicate the problem further and consensus will lead only to more confusion of genuine science.

The segment of the public which insist on modifying human behavior now, before the climate science is understood, are premature at best. They are more likely motivated by prospect of personal gain than interest in science.

[Scott Sheffield]

I believe the planet is warming a small amount but it can’t be proven that man is the cause. We do need politics out of science so we can make prudent decisions. Unfortunately, many politicians will use any means to take and hold as much power as they can. The U.N. and others in the world would like nothing more than to use global warming as an excuse for greater control over U.S. citizens.

[Senthil]

"The U.N. and others in the world would like nothing more than to use global warming as an excuse for greater control over U.S. citizens"
Based upon what evidence do you claim that the UN would like greater control over US citizens, and who are the others in the world you speak of?

[Scott Sheffield]

The reason that so many countries want Koyoto yet even the most liberal senators would not approve the treaty is that it put U.S. business at a huge disadvantage while giving a pass to “poor” countries like Russia and China. Now they wish to extort money from the U.S. through the use of carbon credits. I don’t know what you think it means to have the U.S. pay carbon credits but it sure sounds like regular folks will have to pony up some cash if they do not choose to drive an electric car. They write the rules, they have control.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/43af1a4a-c817-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html