CLIMATE scientists yesterday stunned Britons suffering the coldest winter for 30 years by claiming last month was the hottest January the world has ever seen. The remarkable claim, based on global satellite data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.
At the height of the big freeze, the entire country was blanketed in snow. But Australian weather expert Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, said yesterday: “January, according to satellite data, was the hottest January we’ve ever seen.
“Last November was the hottest November we’ve ever seen. November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen.” Veteran climatologist Professor Nicholls was speaking at an online climate change briefing, added: “It’s not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite challenging to find places that haven’t warmed in the past 50 years.”
His extraordinary claims came after the World Meteorological Organisation revealed 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850. But UK forecaster Jonathan Powell, of Positive Weather Solutions, said: “If it is the case and it is borne out that January was the hottest on record, it is still no marker towards climate change.
“It’s all part of a cyclical issue and nothing should be read too deeply into that.
“It’s been the coldest for 30 years in Britain but we predicted that and climate change always tends t o throw up anomalies. It’s all in line with predictions and I won’t be sold on climate change at all. The data is either faulty or manufactured to make it look like it shouldn’t.”
Cripes! My head hurts.
I’m amazed at how many people believe that science is a purely altruistic endeavor that is incapable of being compromised by corruption. C’mon people, just look at the folks who are itching to get this cap and trade exchange in place. There some who stand to gain a great deal at our expense. Are we really that naive?
#97, Somebody,
It doesn’t matter what you call Sara Palin, a pig is a pig. McIntyre is NOT a scientist. He is a geologist with a BA that works for large mining companies that emit a lot of CO2. His blog is not SCIENTIFIC.
When you have those who would profit the most from continuing high CO2 emissions supporting these pseudo legitimate sites, you do your side no good.
The simple fact is the denier crowd has resorted to lying about what the facts are. They have NOT provided any evidence to refute climate change.
#102 Ah, conFusion and his inane rants. The only denier here that I can see is you who is still at odds with reality.
Steve McIntyre pointed out how Tiljander proxy was used upside down. His blog ran someone else’s pointing out another error about improper calibration in the Kaufman Arctic warming paper.
But of course there is no science going on there.
Ok, Global Warming is name of the phenomenon, Global Climate De-stabilization is what we’re starting to see as a result. The geologic record seems to show is that atmospheric CO2 levels and average global temperature goes up to a certain point, and then you get a turnover point that precipitates an ice age. Should coincide nicely with the last of the fossil fuel reserves. Cheers.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/ee-editor-submission-to-uk-parliment/
Submission by an editor of Energy and the Environment.
Didn’t they have problems getting enough snow for the Olympics?
#107 Yet it snowed enough at least 2 weeks before to have no problems in that regard.
In a similar fashion, 4 years ago there was a 20 degrees centigrade drop (in the middle of the summer) for a whole week before the world cup in Germany. I thought that between the cold & rain there would be no world cup. Yet the weather got back to where it was supposed to be and there were no problems with the cup.
LOOK AT THIS TALK WITH PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE if you believe Global Warming is a Hoax.
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html
If you are still going to claim such absurdities you must be a left over flat Earther. Yes we are going threw a very harsh winter that doesn’t mean that the claims do not have to be taken very seriously.
Just because it snowed a lot where you live, doesn’t disprove global warming.
I swear, the conservatives’ obsession to de-fund public education was a conspiracy to create low information voters.
And it worked.
#10 No, reality has never been a good thing to skew a good story, like global warming.
Geez people, why don’t you shoot yourselves on the head before dying from global warming. You’ll makes us a double favor: We won’t hear from you again & you’ll be doing the earth a favor by disposing your carbon footprint.
“My head hurts.”
Put down the glue…
The climate change deniers are starting to sound a lot like the Bible literalists when they try to debunk Carbon-14 dating. There’s a lot of hand-waving and floundering.
#113 Uncle Patso
Think you got it twisted.. more like the alarmist’s trying to make the sceptic believe in their religion at all cost. It is the burden of the salesman to make the sale, especially when the sale that they are trying to make comes at a cost for all and influences public policy
(i try to post again – has taken too many days to be approved)
[b]#78 Mr. Fusion[/b]
[blockquote]No, I’m not going to read some opinion piece that assembled a bunch of exaggerated instances.
1) The whole “Climategate” is a bunch of crap. Nothing in those tens of thousands of emails counter the science. Well, except in the deniers imagination.[/blockquote]
FALLACY 1: Appeal to Emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning
FALLACY 2: Ad hominem: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument.
FALLACY 3: Ignoratio elenchi: An irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis
Right back at you: Your whole “comment” is a bunch of crap. Nothing in all your comments counter the real factual events. Well, except in your imagination. (completely pointless and waste of comment space)
[blockquote]2) Glaciers around the world are melting. Not just the Himalayan glaciers, but glaciers around the world are retreating. Those in the highest elevations will continue to exist regardless. Increased precipitation at higher altitudes will increase glacier activity, but their bases will retreat. Some will disappear.[/blockquote]
FALLACY: Ignoratio elenchi: An irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis
Right back at you: Glaciers around the world are growing. Not just the Himalayan glaciers, but glaciers around the world are expanding. Some bases will grow. Some glaciers will appear. Happens every winter.. it is cyclical. What is your point?
[blockquote]3) It was discovered that tree ring data started becoming distorted around 1960. That has been adequately explained by Mann et al.[/blockquote]
FALLACY: Appeal to Authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it
McIntyre and McKitrick has adequately explained that both methodology and data collection of Mann et al was filled with errors (note this is brand new, so not “widely” disputed yet). To show that i am not appealing to another authority; check the scientific methodology: http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/06/well-well-look-what-the-cat-dragged-in/ similar methodology with program (not McIntyre): http://landshape.org/enm/random-numbers-predict-future-temperatures/ and a bit of a simplified explanation of previous link (not McIntyre): http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/predict-your-climate.html and McIntyre’s submission to the government: http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-scitech.pdf – if you want to dispute his methodology and arguments please do that to him directly, not to me
FALLACY: Omission – data in his graph was missing.
Michael Mann’s tree ring data case has been proven to be filled with errors – his code as well; and was obscured in the 2007 IPCC report. In the 2007 report, Mann added the instrumental data (previously omitted as he had only used proxy data) giving the impression of a hockey stick; although it was more of a deep valley – essentially supporting McIntyre’s conclusion with a spin at the end. What is your point? That Mann explained it? What relevance has that go to do with the argument at hand?
[blockquote] 4) Errors and corrections is the normal principle of science. Correcting a method or its data does not automatically dismiss all data and studies. Nor does it automatically disqualify the general conclusions of [/blockquote]
1. Complete your sentence (regardless i will respond, rather than ridicule)
2. FALLACY: Straw man argument: based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position
It decreases the credibility of the conclusion of anthropological global warming. It sets to question, if not destroy the foundation of the conclusion – as the premises that the conclusion is drawn upon are false. Are all the premises false? No. Are the leading arguments by the pro-AGW false? many, yes – is this proven and admitted by the pro-AGW, yes. Do the premises that ‘may’ still be ‘valid’ show a statistical significant causality of AGW – no.
In the words of UK Information Comissioner Richard Thomas: [i]“Where public policy is based on science, the public expect the science to be the best science available and that the scientists imparting that science act impartially. Scientists must adopt high standards of ethics and scientific integrity, and allow their work to be peer reviewed, subject to appropriate safeguards of intellectual property rights.
This is especially the case in new areas of science such as climate change research, where it is clear the results are directly influencing the development of public policy. ” [/i]
This is why Climategate and all the other ‘gate’s are important as we clearly see science being distorted by a political agenda that directly effect public policy. Trying to belittle this or hiding it should be criminal and treated as corruption!
[blockquote] 5) Of all the studies, reports, thesis, essays, and major reports, none refutes the general principle of global warming. The “denier” crowd has yet to do any original research. When they point out errors, great. We all learn. When they read more into these errors than exists, they cross the line into fabrication. [/blockquote]
FALLACY 1 (1st sentence): Straw man argument: based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position
Who is talking about global warming? We are talking about ANTHROPOLOGICAL global warming. Stop distorting the argument. The argument made by pro-AGW is that humans – based upon ‘proven’ scientific evidence – has a direct causality to global warming. That there is a CAUSALITY between the man-made and produced CO2 and the earth warming up, creating dire consequences for humanity. The solution by the pro-AGW to this problem is a cap and trade program. As far as i know no one is disputing global warming or global cooling.. because it has taken place multiple times for thousands of years; it is an irrelevant argument.
FALLACY 2 (2nd sentence): Blatant lie – “The denier crowd” has done lots of original research, just look above and you have a few examples. Original: Not a copy or imitation / not dependent upon other people’s ideas. Research: the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions. Seriously? No original research by “deniers”?
PROPS! (3rd/4th sentence) – Small correction, we ‘hopefully’ learn from errors when they are discovered, but good job!
FALLACY 3 (5th Sentence): Irrelevant – same can be said by anyone reading too much into data as well and fabricating slippery slope conclusions of apocalyptic proportions. What is your point? other than stating something obvious that is true to any individual.
[blockquote] As much as the denier crowd claim the data is unusable because some is questionable, what they fail to realize that their own position is even more compromised as they fabricate their own conclusions. [/blockquote]
FALLACY: Straw man? No idea what your trying to say here. “denier crowd” has the right to claim that the data that is found to be questionable is unusable; if the results cannot be replicated, it is not scientific, it is fabricated. The only fabricated conclusions would be anyone basing conclusions off of questionable data that is non-scientific. The only conclusion that should be made by the “denier crowd” is that the conclusions made by the ‘AGW crowd” is false and unsound in the case where there is questionable data gathering and results cannot be replicated using proper sound scientific methods. It is easy to go bash each side for a lot of things – even I can admit to that.
[blockquote]This is akin to the well used fireplace telling the silverware it’s tarnished.[/blockquote]
BAD ANALOGY/FALLACY: Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.
Right back at you: Same could be said for AGW supporters.
[blockquote]6) Continually the denier crowd claim the science data is unsupported. Yet they use false, discredited, and unsupported claims to do that.[/blockquote]
FALLACY: (shoot yourself in the foot): IPCC has admitted to this themselves, so did university of East Anglia, so did Russia, so did China etc.. the list goes on that is what the *gates* are about. This is admitted by the individuals themselves that are behind the IPCC report and national scientific organizations; how on earth can you make this claim?
[blockquote] An example would be the garbage incinerator next to a meteorological cabinet. There was no information on whether the cabinet even had instruments in it, was in use, was surplus, whether the incinerator was even used, or where this was located. Yet, the denier crowd jumps up and down flapping their lips saying “looky here, this is typical false data”. [/blockquote]
FALLACY: (straw man) easy target to shoot down, try shooting down all the gates where even Rajendra admitted to his ‘mistakes’ or Russia/China/India/South America/Netherlands have gone out and said that data had been falsified, avoided or manipulated. I assume the person who posted that probably did so as a humorous input ; but certainly if it is the case then these temperature stations need to be investigated and scrutinized. Again this is irrelevant when some cases have showed 50% of temperature readings in a country to be ignored.
[i]Just to tickle the grays:[/i]
Thus far it [u]seems[/u] as if the pro-AGW argument is a fallacy in itself – that is is an Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy’s Law is based. There is no proven causality of AGW and there being a very weak correlation at best without having looked in depth at the other contributing factors. Which opens a whole new can of worms:
1. Informal falacy of Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc): a phrase used in the sciences and the statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other
2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.
The burden of proof is on the believer; it is no difference for science.
[b]#80, Mr.Fusion[/b]
[blockquote]Can you provide some evidence that all the data is false? Not some right wing nut blog, some honest evidence.[/blockquote]
I admit i generalized, since we’ve seen over 19 severe “mistakes” thus far in their data. I will ask you to go look up the evidence yourself – I gave you multiple sources above for only one of the cases. The IPCC has admitted that some reports and data have not been peer reviewed (pretty darn major), example: taken from a mountaineering magazine and from a student’s report. Some of these “mistakes” have been so scandalous some of them are facing criminal charges. Rajendra’s cover-up of the Glacier-Gate has resulted in him being repeatedly asked to step down and India establishing its own independent climate research unit. Check everything from the washington post, to NYT to herald tribune etc..
[blockquote]BTW, Phil Jones had nothing to do with the “hockey stick”. It was Michael Mann and associates that published the data.[/blockquote]
Yes indeed it was Michael Mann who did the hockey stick – hiding the temperature decrease. My bad, mixed the two up when writing quickly, similarly to how you forgot to finish you sentence above. It was Phil Jones who admitted that there had been no statistically significant warming in the last 10 years (this was the correct part and the most important part of what i said), but avoiding that argument was probably necessary for you – both of these guys are major contributors to the IPCC report.. Mann referenced over 60 times.
[blockquote]The term “hockey stick” was coined by a BBC reporter. [/blockquote]
The term hockey stick was coined by the head of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern, envisaging the a graph that is relatively flat to 1900 as forming the hockey stick’s “shaft”, followed by a sharp increase, corresponding to the “blade”.
[blockquote]So if you can’t get that part correct, what faith can we have in the rest of your blather?[/blockquote]
Doesn’t seem like you got that part correct – so i guess we can’t have any faith in the rest of your blather either?
[b]#82 Bobbo[/b]
[blockquote] #79–Serious==the defects and short comings of one theory do not “prove” the correctness of any other theory.[/blockquote]
FALLACY (putting words in my mouth?): Never said that or assumed it. The burden of proof is on the individual that develops a theory and claims it to be scientific, not for the sceptic to prove otherwise. It is similar as me saying: “prove to me that God does not exist”. I don’t have a theory, I am a sceptic of your theory. If you tell people that the earth revolves around the sun, you have to prove it to the people – this is as your statements have effect on public policy. This is important.
[blockquote]Axiomatic.[/blockquote]
I don’t disagree with you it is self evident. That is why I am wondering as to where i had stated that a theory being wrong proved the correctness of another theory.. this is taking something waaay out of context – or should i say, putting words in my mouth that I have not said.
[blockquote]If I take everything you have posted as “the truth” you have not provided any scientific data in support of any other theory.[/blockquote]
Because i don’t have any other theory, i am a sceptic. It means that I think the equation of global warming and cooling is far more complex than what we humans have simplified it as and given credit to (aka AGW). I don’t need to provide scientific data for that. You only need to look at the amount of variables that play a part in “heat” to grasp that concept. As I said, pro-AGW are issuing a theory that effect public policy, it is their burden to show proof and thus far the “gates” have shown us that the “science” is far from conclusive.
[blockquote]Fail.[/blockquote]
Not quite.
The corruption of science is an existential threat to civilization.
A greater threat than climate change by far.
It will probably be true of this century as it was of the last. More people will die as a result of government action than the weather.