Was there any actual warming to begin with?

posted at 12:20 pm on February 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The Times of London delivers a separate blow to the AGW movement today in a report on scientific review of the data used to claim man-made warming of the planet over the last few decades.  Several researchers have found that the measurements of temperatures in the AGW record that showed temperature increases mainly came from land development and urbanization, not from actual temperature increases.  They have made their findings public through peer-reviewed studies that come at a very bad time for the IPCC and AGW advocates:

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

Watts’ study has not yet been peer reviewed, but it shows the questionable conditions of temperature measurements in many of the IPCC-cited weather stations.  One weather station is located next to an incinerator, while others have air-conditioning units in close proximity to the instruments.  Apparently more than one is adjacent to waste-treatment plants, which generate significant heat.

These revelations come on top of a series of embarrassing disclosures about the IPCC report.  Another research team at Loughborough University may expose even more.  Terry Wills will publish a paper in Climatic Change that will argue that the IPCC misread its data, and that the temperature fluctuations it saw are just as likely to be random weather than any systemic trend, whether caused by greenhouse gases or not.

The struts have begun to collapse under AGW hysteria.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

The rat is cornered. Watch out for it to freak out!

daesleeper on February 14, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Yeah, it’s called the end of the last ice age.

yubley on February 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM

We are going to have some American fireworks when Obama starts sending millions of dollars to other countries to help them with their supposed global warming, now climate change, issues.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 14, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!

Emperor Norton on February 14, 2010 at 12:25 PM

None of this is new. The data and peer reviewed papers have been out there for two or three years now.

What is really surprising is that a media outlet even mentions it!

Kermit on February 14, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Obama told me the science is settled so I’m a believer.

/

txag92 on February 14, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Whether there was warming in the past or not is irrelevant – the solution of wealth transfer never would have addressed it. Not only was it ineffective, but it would have generated intense opposition because of the increased tax burden. It quite simply never had a chance. The warmers clung to both flawed science and an impossible solution – either could have ruined them, but both together destroyed any hope they had. I will now hang up my tricornered hat and put my musket by the door and get back to my life, content that I did my part for my freedoms.

KillerKane on February 14, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Not sure it’s a Himalayan problem. Seems more like a ‘they’re a lyin’ problem.

chaswv on February 14, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Check out this one too: http://tinyurl.com/yc6uawu

Apparently empirical observations of the actual intensity of the greenhouse effect show that it is not correlated with CO2 concentration and, as far as the researcher can tell, is in fact constant.

pifactorial on February 14, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Kermit the Frog sings “It’s Not Easy Being Green” amidst Climategate headlines: http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/02/its-not-easy-being-green.html

Mervis Winter on February 14, 2010 at 12:31 PM

How will Al Gore retain his rotundity if this becomes known?

Mason on February 14, 2010 at 12:32 PM

My uncle has spent his career (now semi-retired) doing tree ring research for the northern hemisphere, studying the last 500 years. He’s mentioned in this Guardian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-graph-ipcc-report

He does say that we are in a warming trend over the last 150 years. But the reasons why are not clear. I can accept a warming trend as we are coming out of “The Little Ice Age.” But how much warming, the causes of the warming, and the implications of warming are all still not clear. Tree rings are objective, not subject to manipulation (as long as you have enough varied data), unlike putting thermometers in places favorable to your bias.

And if the tree rings show a halt to warming starting in 1960 (when CRU stopped using tree ring data) then we can feel secure in saying that warming has stopped.

rbj on February 14, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Does this mean I’ll soon be able to go back to my effective asthma inhaler?

myrenovations on February 14, 2010 at 12:35 PM

ICE CORE SAMPLES!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on February 14, 2010 at 12:35 PM

This is exactly about which the Russians complained – exclusion of measuring stations in non-urban areas, and inclusion of measuring stations in the cities.

When you cherry-pick your data, you cherry-pick your results.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Has anyone seen any of these reports in American media?

d1carter on February 14, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Watts’ study has not yet been peer reviewed, but it shows the questionable conditions of temperature measurements in many of the IPCC-cited weather stations

Yes, but the satellite data shows (or appears to show), from what I’ve read, that there has been warming.

It’s not just the ground station measurements which, as Watts in particular has shown to be unreliable, that appear to show warming.

Appear.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 12:39 PM

rbj on February 14, 2010 at 12:33 PM

So they cherry-picked all their tree ring data too? I’d heard they’d done that with one set of tree rings from a Russian forest (discarding trees not supporting hypothesis), but ALL the data?

Hmm.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Algore is a fraud and a charlatan.

Cicero43 on February 14, 2010 at 12:40 PM

WHERE IS THE US MEDIA ON THIS????????????????????????????/

Purple Fury on February 14, 2010 at 12:41 PM

None of this is new. The data and peer reviewed papers have been out there for two or three years now.

What is really surprising is that a media outlet even mentions it!

Kermit on February 14, 2010 at 12:25 PM

The media is nothing more than a weather vane, they just go with whatever is popular.

4shoes on February 14, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Where is Al Gore?

Seriously, the man hasn’t been seen since the leaked e-mails.

Knucklehead on February 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM

It’s not science…

… It is a religion based upon a political ideology.

Seven Percent Solution on February 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM

..cheap, shameless attempt to get more hits for my blog..

..but it’s a witty “cover” of the Who song, Teenage Wasteland and I *want* one of those Algore masks!

VoyskaPVO on February 14, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Funny, this info isn’t available on Obama’s new Climate Service website

entropent on February 14, 2010 at 12:44 PM

One weather station is located next to an incinerator, while others have air-conditioning units in close proximity to the instruments. Apparently more than one is adjacent to waste-treatment plants, which generate significant heat.

My personal favorite is the Hopkinsville, Kentucky station where the instruments are adjacent to an A/C unit and right next to a barbecue grill.

trubble on February 14, 2010 at 12:45 PM

d1carter on February 14, 2010 at 12:37 PM

No, GE owns NBC universal…GE stands to make trillions over the decades cashing in on green hysteria…NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, and the weather channel are components of NBC universal, they are the propaganda wing for GE…Of course, the AP and Reuters are the propaganda wing of the democratic party. They too are part of a worldwide conspiracy…

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 12:45 PM

This report is racist, plus it’s George Bush’s fault.
(Hey MSNBC/CNN. I was able to get this in two different threads.Is there a job opening available.I am willing to change my name to a minority if it would help.

BruceB on February 14, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Was there any actual warming to begin with?

March 31, 1948 (Al’s birth)

Rovin on February 14, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Where is Al Gore?

Seriously, the man hasn’t been seen since the leaked e-mails.

Knucklehead on February 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM

He’s hiding out in his igloo.

ladyingray on February 14, 2010 at 12:49 PM

The silence of our National leadership with regard to the IPCC data meltdown is deafening…I know why democrats support climate change legislation, $$$…I can only conclude that prominent Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham were in on the scam as well…Neither could be reached for comment…God bless George Bush for holding these lunatics at bay for eight years…

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 12:49 PM

The struts have begun to collapse under AGW hysteria.

Since AGW has become the very reason for existence for some of the warmers expect them to lash out in unexpected and vicious ways.

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 12:49 PM

There is no warming outside of normal variation.

This has all been a fraud.

drjohn on February 14, 2010 at 12:51 PM

This is for all those people who still say, “I don’t question global warming, I just question that man is the cause of it.”

Just buying into the false premise in the first place allowed the corruption to have a foothold, from which it then spread like a virus.

keep the change on February 14, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Send this article to Sarah Palin.

keep the change on February 14, 2010 at 12:53 PM

GE should get out of the Green stuff and go back to doing the stuff that made America great, power plants turbine and nuclear.

JimK on February 14, 2010 at 12:53 PM

So they cherry-picked all their tree ring data too? I’d heard they’d done that with one set of tree rings from a Russian forest (discarding trees not supporting hypothesis), but ALL the data?

Hmm.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2010 at 12:40 PM

My understanding is that early (1850 – 1960) tree ring data matched temperature rises, which, if we were coming out of a mini “ice age”, would be a good thing. Then the tree ring data showed no warming from 1960 onward, so the CRU people stopped using it as it conflicted with their temperature data. Seems to me that if you are using something that cannot possibly have a bias, such as trees, and something under human control that is subject to even unthinking bias and/or unintentional misuse (not putting thermometers in good spots), then you must suspect the latter rather than the former.

rbj on February 14, 2010 at 12:53 PM

These issues are important in killing the monster fraud that is AGW, but these can and will still be attributed to mistakes. I still think there is intentional fraud and we will find this when we get the computer codes and check to see current, much reduced stations data used — mostly urban data — while comparing it to historical and larger data stations used, ie, a much larger portion of rural stations unaffected by UHI effect. No one in their right mind would do it in this way, but it is the easiest to hide the fraud when the procedures are not fully open to study.

Dusty on February 14, 2010 at 12:53 PM

This is exactly about which the Russians complained – exclusion of measuring stations in non-urban areas, and inclusion of measuring stations in the cities.

When you cherry-pick your data, you cherry-pick your results.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2010 at 12:36 PM

As I recall, the Russians aren’t the only ones charging that measurement sites were cherry-picked and sometimes even moved from cooler to warmer locations. As I recall, the issue is alive and well in China and Australia also.

Probably this is just the beginning of site manipulation charges. As much as any of the other AGW data/analysis validity issues, this goes to the very core.

petefrt on February 14, 2010 at 12:54 PM

It’s not just the ground station measurements which, as Watts in particular has shown to be unreliable, that appear to show warming.

Appear.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 12:39 PM

But to show that the current alleged warming was from modern industrial activity, rather than from solar cycles, we’d need satellite data from other warming periods, such as the Medieval Warming Period with which to compare it. But we can never have satellite data from hundreds of years ago.

Correlation (warming occurring at same time as industrial activity) does not necessarily equal causation (warming caused by industrial activity).

The satellite data for a few decades is anecdotal when you consider the tens of thousands of years of cyclical climate change on earth.

Wethal on February 14, 2010 at 12:55 PM

[unclesmrgol on February 14, 2010 at 12:46 PM]

Yeah, that, too. Just about everything about evidence proving Global Warming is riddled with duplicitous procedures.

Dusty on February 14, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Sad to see that NASA is still covering for James Hansen…Hansen, an al gore acolyte and collaborator with the IPCC has been one of America’s most vocal, “scientists”, in support of global warming theory…NASA has allowed their storied image to be tarnished by Hansen…Pathetic!

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 12:57 PM

This isn’t fair to Al Gore, how is he supposed to make a living now?

Bishop on February 14, 2010 at 12:58 PM

I would like to see Jim Demint call for an investigation into NASA and NOAA roles in formulating climate data…

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 12:59 PM

There is no rational reason to include any urban stations for determining climate change.

Buddahpundit on February 14, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Yes, but the satellite data shows (or appears to show), from what I’ve read, that there has been warming.

Maybe. But the real issue has never been IF there is warming (or cooling), but rather WHY.

Furthermore, if some of these lead scientists knew there was no warming – or no significant human-caused warming – we need to find out why they have been lying about it. If it was for personal profit, they should be arrested for committing fraud. If it was for political reasons, they should be arrested for treason.

Knott Buyinit on February 14, 2010 at 1:00 PM

People need to start going to jail, soon. This is the greatest fraud that has ever been attempted and was pulled ont he whole world. The pseudo-scientists who pushed this need to be charged with conspiracy, while Gore and the IPCC and all of those who pushed the political angle should be charged with some crime that is very close to treason (as they tried to destroy our nation, and others) and they need to suffer consequences that make most people wince when just thinking about their fates.

If no appropriate and needed punishments are meted out, this will just morph from global warming into something else, with all the same tricks run once again. Trillions of dollars have been wasted and economies have been retarded because of nothing but this insane pseudo-science, not to mention children having been brainwashed into being scientific morons who would accept such drivel.

There must be commensurate punishment for these criminals.

neurosculptor on February 14, 2010 at 1:00 PM

The struts have begun to collapse under AGW hysteria.
by Ed Morrissey

Yeah! Now watch them scream even louder, curse,and viciously attack the “evil skeptics” they believe are responsible for destroying the “solid science” behind AGW/Climate change.

RMR on February 14, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Apparently empirical observations of the actual intensity of the greenhouse effect show that it is not correlated with CO2 concentration and, as far as the researcher can tell, is in fact constant.

pifactorial on February 14, 2010 at 12:29 PM

And I’m betting none of this evidence will stop Obama, or the EPA from asserting taxes, fines, etc… on all of us, in the name of climate change, and doing what must be done to save the world. They’re sitting in meetings reading this, and putting their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes, and singing la la la la la la la la la over, and over again.

capejasmine on February 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM

This isn’t fair to Al Gore, how is he supposed to make a living now?

Not sure he’s worried about that after raking in a 100 million from the cult classic “An inconveniant truth.”

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Is LGF banning “deniers”…?

d1carter on February 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM

RICO Charges, when do they come down?

jukin on February 14, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Obama and his crew will not slow down because of any of this. “Climate change,” man caused or not, is one of their key vehicles for wealth distribution and destruction of our economy. Facts are not relevant.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 14, 2010 at 1:03 PM

It is not a valid temperature location unless there is a large brick wall, large parking lot and BBQ within 20 feet.
Because those have been there for the whole history of that sensor and have no affect on it in the short and long term.

How not to measure temperature

tjexcite on February 14, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Was there any actual warming to begin with?

I get hot under the collar anytime I think about this issue. Does that count?

Tommy_G on February 14, 2010 at 1:03 PM

And I’m betting none of this evidence will stop Obama, or the EPA from asserting taxes, fines, etc…

But of course, Obama is at heart a communist revolutionary…He is at war with us and he intends to win by any means necessary…

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Yes, but the satellite data shows (or appears to show), from what I’ve read, that there has been warming.

It’s not just the ground station measurements which, as Watts in particular has shown to be unreliable, that appear to show warming.

Appear.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Of course there is warming. We are just a mere ten thousand years out of the last major continental glaciation. It should be warming.

Most people fail to realize how long these trends into and out of glacial periods really last. I would bet that most people don’t even realize that the crust is still rebounding in the upper Midwest and Canadian Shield from being depressed into the mantle by an ice sheet eight to ten thousand feet thick. Numerous small earthquakes in those areas is the result of this rebound.

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Is LGF banning “deniers”…?

d1carter on February 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Is the Pope a Catholic?

Knucklehead on February 14, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Of course, you conveniently do not quote the end of the article, which notes that satellite data, ice measurements and sea measurements all indicate warming independent of the temperature records…

But I guess now that’s just more people who are of the conspiracy.

Hal_10000 on February 14, 2010 at 1:06 PM

I want everyone of these cheats to be held accountable for their part in this scam of epic proportions. I want our tax dollars returned to the rightful owners; we the working class. I want Al Gore in a court room in front of a Judge just like I would be if I were in his shoes.

The law is for thee but not for me.. Bullsh*t… Lock every one of these tards up, and let them have their day in court.

Keemo on February 14, 2010 at 1:06 PM

U.S. mainstream media:
.
-Missed the John Edwards scandal (which gave us Obama instead of Hillary as pres.)
.
-Missed tea party power (which gave Repubs a 41-59 majority and killed health care)
.
-Missed the ACORN story
.
-Missed the Van Johnson story
.
-Missed the fall of the Leaning Tower of Gore
.
But one thing for sure, they sure did give us 14 fact-checkers for Sarah Palin’s memoirs who, incidentally, found nothing.
.
It’s interesting to watch dinosaurs thrash around in the last stages of evolutionary extinction.

MaxMBJ on February 14, 2010 at 1:06 PM

It is not a valid temperature location unless there is a large brick wall, large parking lot and BBQ within 20 feet.
Because those have been there for the whole history of that sensor and have no affect on it in the short and long term.

How not to measure temperature

tjexcite on February 14, 2010 at 1:03 PM

The warmers will claim that the cavemen from the Geico ads were having T-Rex steak BBQ’s and skewed the data.

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 1:08 PM

MaxMBJ on February 14, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Except they deliberately buried all these stories, they didn’t just miss them. The only story they really miss, in the sense that they simply can’t see it, is the reason for their rapidly declining influence on the national debate.

entropent on February 14, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Back when I was a kid, we were a nation of litterers and polluters. There were public service ads on tv all the time telling us to “give a hoot, don’t pollute”, and we were told “only we could prevent forest fires.” As a general rule, we grew up more environmentally conscious. We try to drive less and use public transportation more, we recycle, etc. etc. What else are we supposed to do? Sheesh.

scalleywag on February 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Anthony Watts has done some really great work, and his website is a treasure trove of information. Go to his website and show a little love by hitting the tip jar (right side of the page, scroll down a bit and look for “shameless plug.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

iurockhead on February 14, 2010 at 1:12 PM

I always loved Watts blog. My favorite picture he had showed (IIRC) a MIG-21 parked in front of a weather station. Not sure what the jetwash from one of those would do for your daily highs LOL.

clement on February 14, 2010 at 1:12 PM

I’m betting the physics behind “global warming” refutes this theory easily…If you consider that the quadrillions of tons of the earth’s mass being at a state of equillibrium with the atmosphere…There is absolutely no way that the hundreths of one percent of the atmosphere which is CO2 can affect the equilibrium…Newton said that a body in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by another force…Again, CO2 will never ever ever affect the earths equillibrium, it is an inert gas…Only, the Sun has enough energy to affect the earth, period…So easy a caveman could figure this out…

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Scientists: 2010 Already The Warmest Year on Record

“The fact is we have weather stations, and these weather stations are reporting to our computers that this is the warmest year on record,” continued the scientist. “Only an idiot would bother to disagree with a computer.”

LibTired on February 14, 2010 at 1:13 PM

How can anyone deny global warming? I mean look at all the earthquakes and tsunamis.

vcferlita on February 14, 2010 at 1:15 PM

For the lawyers out there–the real ones: Would AGW advocates, if bringing a lawsuit in an American court before a jury under our Rules of Evidence, have enough to sustain a verdict in their favor? Or can the defense provide enough reasonable doubt?

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 1:17 PM

For the lawyers out there–the real ones: Would AGW advocates, if bringing a lawsuit in an American court before a jury under our Rules of Evidence, have enough to sustain a verdict in their favor? Or can the defense provide enough reasonable doubt?

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Well a lawsuit would imply non-criminal and such the ruling would be based on a preponderance of evidence not beyond reasonable doubt.

clement on February 14, 2010 at 1:20 PM

There was actual warming, after the Little Ice Age ended. That warming lasted until either 1945 or is still taking place. There was warming until 1945, then cooling until 1975. The question is whether the warming after 1975 is due to humans or merely natural warming.

If it is now as warm as it was in 1945, the warming since 1975 can be 100% due to humans only if the natural warming which happened before 1945 has not happened again.

HotWeaver on February 14, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Of course there is warming

Well, Ed appears to disagree. As do many other posters here.

The point of my post is that even if one dismisses the surface measurements (which really do seem to be quite unreliable) that others methods show that there has been warming.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 1:21 PM

There were public service ads on tv all the time telling us to “give a hoot, don’t pollute”, and we were told “only we could prevent forest fires.”
scalleywag on February 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Ah, a trip down memory lane.
Remember the crying Indian?

That was back in the day when the new ice age was coming. Times do change.

entropent on February 14, 2010 at 1:23 PM

) that others methods show that there has been warming.

Which need to be put in context are are meaningless without some sort of baseline to judge that variation on. I’ll bet dollars to donuts the satellite data correlates more soundly with solar output then CO2 increases.

Sharr on February 14, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Is LGF banning “deniers”…?

d1carter on February 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Does Charlie Daniels play a mean fiddle???

doriangrey on February 14, 2010 at 1:27 PM

NOAA has manipulated the surface temperature record to portray warming.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Liam at 1:17
Under our legal system a jury verdict can be sustained if there is any evidence to support it. Not being aware of all of the evidence, I cannot say that there is no evidence to support a AGW claim.
However, a fundamental rule of our jury system is that a witness shown to be false in part of his testimony is entitled to have all of his testimony disregarded by the jury. With the number of false statements by AGW supporters steadily increasing, it is proper to disregard all of their evidence.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 14, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Is LGF banning “deniers”…?

d1carter on February 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Them or RedState no doubt.

conservnut on February 14, 2010 at 1:34 PM

More anecdotal evidence I know, but as a fan of the nineteenth century English Mountaineer, Edward Whimper I read one of his books…He makes note of Alpen glaciers receding in the mid-1800s…Decades before the evil Henry Ford started mass producting the automobile…Decades before the world switched to an oil economy…Decades before the evil people in the United States began consuming 25% of world energy resources…And, so on and so forth ad nauseum…

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 1:35 PM

More anecdotal evidence I know, but as a fan of the nineteenth century English Mountaineer, Edward Whimper I read one of his books…He makes note of Alpen glaciers receding in the mid-1800s…

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Impossible! I have no doubt that “Big Oil” has a time machine and went back in time. They paid him handsomely to write that.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Of course there is warming

Well, Ed appears to disagree. As do many other posters here.

The point of my post is that even if one dismisses the surface measurements (which really do seem to be quite unreliable) that others methods show that there has been warming.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 1:21 PM

I guess I should have been more precise in my statement, because I agree with Ed. There has been a cooling trend in the last decade. I was speaking, overall, that there is long term warming since the last continental glaciation. There will be warming and cooling cycles within that period.

The climate of the earth will return to a long term cooling trend at some time and move toward another period of glaciation. It always has, many times, since the early Proterozoic.

Yoop on February 14, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 1:35 PM

I actually would not doubt that glaciers have been receding for some time since before the Industrial Revolution, probably beginning with the end of the Last Ice Age.

Holger on February 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM

There has been a cooling trend in the last decade. I was speaking, overall, that there is long term warming since the last continental glaciation.

Okay, got it. But the cooling has come after a period of warming.

Whether this long term warming is a natural cyclical one or caused, in part, by human activity is the question.

I think human activity has contributed to it. It’s not all natural.

But it sure looks like a lot of the science has been so corrupted that right now I don’t know what to think.

Shorter me: Hell if I know.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 1:44 PM

I actually would not doubt that glaciers have been receding for some time since before the Industrial Revolution, probably beginning with the end of the Last Ice Age.

Holger on February 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Glaciers recede and grow all the time. There are recent archeological finds where receding glaciers have revealed a treasure of artifacts. At the time the artifacts were laid, the glacier had receded, then grew back to recover until recent recession.

darwin on February 14, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Where’s Algore?

Soon the Goreacle and his bunch will resort to the “Dan Rather” defense, that it’s all “fake but accurate”.

wildcat84 on February 14, 2010 at 1:46 PM

GaltBlvnAtty on February 14, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Thanks! I’m not a lawyer, so I had questions.

I was thinking in terms of questionable presentation (only in the sense that the testimony given raises more questions) during a proceeding. Are the ‘facts’ anecdotal, or are they opinion like from an ‘expert’ witness?

I mean, for an example, if I accuse a neighbor of coming into my house while I was sleeping to steal my TV, will that stand? Of itself, no. But if the ‘evidence’ all adds up that it MIGHT have been my neighbor, but so many other factors are sketchy, could a decision be made in my favor?

Not the best of examples for comparison here, since I’m not a lawyer. Best I can do is aim at ‘drift’, for consideration by those who know better than me.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 1:47 PM

ICE CORE SAMPLES!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on February 14, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Someone contact canpfor as it appears Oakland or harry has hijacked his moniker. /

CWforFreedom on February 14, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 1:17 PM

You’ll probably want to read Doc Zero’s recent article, Resolving the Global Warming Fraud, in which he discusses the importance of activist litigation to winning the battle over AGW.

In a comment in that thread, I suggest that we should turn the AGW suits to our advantage by showcasing the defense’s argument that the plaintiff has not (is unable to) establish the requisite causation; i. e., 1) that plaintiff’s damages were caused not only by global warming, but also 2) that the global warming was caused, at least in part, by defendant’s (carbon emitting) activity.

To quote part of that comment:

Also, a little Alinsky against the Alinsky-ites is usually a good idea. Instead of resisting the global warming suits against ‘polluters’, we should turn them to our favor by highlighting the issue of causation, subjecting to public scrutiny the science of AGW.

In the ‘Katrina case‘ (Comer v. Murphy Oil USA), the Fifth Circuit recently ruled that hurricane Katrina victims have standing to sue for damages from global warming.

For years, leading plaintiffs’ lawyers have promised a legal assault on industrial America for contributing to global warming.

So far, the trial bar has had limited success. The hurdles to such suits are pretty obvious: How do you apportion fault and link particular plaintiffs’ injuries to the pollution emitted by a particular group of defendants?

The suit was brought by landowners in Mississippi, who claim that oil and coal companies emitted greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming that, in turn, caused a rise in sea levels, adding to Hurricane Katrina’s ferocity.

While the court weighed in on the sufficiency of proximate cause for purposes of standing, the more difficult issue of causation remains: Does man cause global warming?

While I haven’t read a lot on it yet, all I’ve read suggests broad agreement among attorneys that proving causation is a difficult hurdle, at best.

petefrt on February 14, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Let’s not forget that Hillary pledged 100 billion dollars per year in wealth transfer payments to poor nations suffering from global warming effects…She is part of the vast left wing global warming conspiracy…You getting this AnninCA? I know you are a big fan of Hillary…

Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 1:51 PM

It’s not science…

… It is a religion based upon a political ideology.

Seven Percent Solution on February 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Yup.

A malignant self-serving religion based upon a destructive human-hating political ideology.

Maquis on February 14, 2010 at 1:51 PM

This is exactly what the Russians were complaining about before they hacked the emails. They said that the AGW people refused to use any of their readings in Russia because the readings went down.

Good. Pile on, more the merrier.

archer52 on February 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM

A malignant self-serving religion based upon a destructive human-hating political ideology.

Maquis on February 14, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Sort of like islam, except with pseudo science thrown in, and Algore as the prophet instead of muhammed, isn’t it?

wildcat84 on February 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Not be too snarky but excuse me if I don’t trust the concerns from Moscow about this.

If we were to somehow switch from a petroleum based economy to a green one, Russia would literally collapse overnight.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t right about AGW. It just means I question their motives.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Not be too snarky but excuse me if I don’t trust the concerns from Moscow about this.

If we were to somehow switch from a petroleum based economy to a green one, Russia would literally collapse overnight.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t right about AGW. It just means I question their motives.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 1:56 PM

This would represent the first time the left ever doubted anything Moscow said…

wildcat84 on February 14, 2010 at 1:57 PM

petefrt on February 14, 2010 at 1:50 PM

That was great read; thanks!

So we need to sue Europe, since those nations were around a lot longer than the USA. Just by being, centuries back, they started this. THEY colonized the Americas. It’s not our fault. We’re all victims of what the Euros started.

You know–like the way the Left lets serial killers off the hook because their parents gave them spankings when they were three years old.

Liam on February 14, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5