Global Warming.... due to human activity or not?....

[FungalFractoids]

In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that's right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.

 

Um, no. See Menne et. al. (2010)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

Watts inadvertently found a cooling bias in the US temp data, ie. global warming in North Amewrica is slightly worse than originlly thought. A spectacular own goal for the denier-tards!

[FungalFractoids]

Are people REALLY so stupid to believe what they read in the Daily Mail... FFS gullible idiots are gullible

 

 

[ref1ect1ons]

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=9940 this is too good, timesonline has an article about the IPCC's bias, from the former IPCC chair. Seems only desolete morons are still believers.

You're the idiot, here, calculate climate change for yourself

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23616&view=&hl=calculate&fromsearch=1

You still havent bothered to visit lindzen or joanne novas site, are you adhd or maybe 14, can u read?. Probably not.

Learn to read and think critically, maybe you can provide an alternate calculation or answer me about the short-comings in the positive feedback theory as well as the problem that no hot spots have been discovered, are you aware of what this observation means for many of the theories you rely on. The positive fedback theory is the cornerstone of the revised global warming theories, as the initial ideas did not perform too well in regards to real data, rather then computer models.

The other article was not from daily mail (there was only one daily mail article, and the source is irrelevant if you were able to read and evaluate information for what it's worth rather than listening to people who tell you what to think);

all you are is alot of loud noise about nothing, you are too lazy to actually research it for yourself and so you just deride others while repeating the BS you hear on TV and from al gore.

I will not answer anymore of your drivel until you can construct something of substance, until you are able object to these points I have brought forth ad rem.

The person in your video neglects to tell us that the reason there may have be a non-significant result is because of a confounding factor, this means that something other than C02 may be responsible for the small effect, ie, the small temperature rise that was observed during the previous decade. So what could be responsible for this slight increase in temperature on our planet during this period if it was not likely to be C02, well I suggest you research the activity of the sun and see how the sun effects global temperature. As it has always done, the sun has a great effect on our climate, moreso than c02 ever could have. Which is a trace gas that has a neglible effect.

I understand the narrator of your video has had alot of time to prepare a very impressive speech and talk in an impressive way, but he also does not answer the news article to the point, and prefers to use abstract metaphors to try and explain statistics, rather than explaining why the theory of Global warming is correct. It is similar to a strawman argument, in that he has not countered any of the sceptics actual points but has rather trailed off and talked about something he does understand very well in order to make it seem that he knows what he is talking about when he is on the shaky ground.

Simply he has done nothing and there are far more videos, if that is your preference, that have more substance to them that explain global warming much better. The point that should have been discussed is HAS THERE BEEN ANY WARMING FOR TEN YEARS, there are many sources for an answer to this, including Lindzen. And lindzen does not waste anytime with statistics 101.

The problem with the sun is that no-one can claim to control it, no-one can blame it on humanity. And then it follows that we cannot claim taxes and makeup other problems for which we supposedly have the solution and install new laws. etc etc etc. Everyone loves to believe in fearful and sentimental stories, no-one wants to believe we (could be) are all well and healthy.

Edited February 22, 2010 by ref1ect1ons