The following is, in my opinion, a “must read” for climate change skeptics and non-skeptics alike. It is science, and is where the discussion should be focused:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

One can take numerous subsets of the data to predict global warming OR global cooling, so it seems reasonable to be suspicious of ANY computer model that shows only an anticipated overall rise or fall in global temperatures. Statistics gives insight into data trends, but statistics of subsets of data can be made easily to “justify” any agenda.

This doesn’t absolve the human race of the need to be responsible with natural resources and nature in general, but it does suggest that the hype over man-made climate change has less to do with real science, and more to do with politics, corruption, willfully neglectful greed, and agenda-based propaganda.

Jeff

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Psychosis,

I personally believe the manstream media will never report just the facts. Sensationalism sells, and journalism is considered one of the Liberal Arts (at least in the US.) Journalism is a brutal business, with scads of unreliable sources and relentless pressure to be the first to get a story out. Mainstream media has become an outlet for eager young liberals to make a name for themselves by propagating and sensationalizing inuendo faster than the other journalists. Two or more unreliable sources are better than facts, especially when the issue elicits a visceral response. Besides, fact-checking wastes valuable time. If something feels right, who cares if facts evenfually moot a point? There’s always another sensational story that the American public simply must be told.

I don’t believe for a moment that the media will admit to being irrelevant. It’s not part of their fabric to be self-analytical, much less self-critical and honest. If liberals lose control of Congress, I believe all we’re going to hear for the next two years is how the newly-elected members of Congress refuse Obama’s “sincere” calls for non-partisan politics. Most likely we’ll hear how the “tea-baggers” and. “neo-conservatives” conspired to block the Democratic Party’s social progress. Textbooks will blame these same groups for halting or even reversing the progress made by Obama, who will be proclaimed the best President the country could have had if only the radical right wingers hadn’t stood in his way.

I would LOVE to be wrong about all of this!

- sigh -

Like or Dislike: 0  0

i have greatly enjoyed reading the posts here and appreciate the links and very informative replies. as i am neither a scientist, or have a college degree in anything, i can not list myself as a formidable mind, but i have always felt college was unnecessary when it comes to intelligence. I have read as much as i can on the topic, from journals and submitted papers, to the insane data feeds………what a bore lol and quite lacking in any substantial effort and honesty. i came to the conclusion many moons ago that something was wrong. after many years wondering why, we now have to look at motive………..and boy is it a doosy .

how do we get the media to report honestly on anything anymore? will this change after 2010, when they become irrelevant, and their motives and left political bent is shown? or will the U.N and Obama and the other world leaders try to continue on their goals of world domination and wealth redistribution and global governance. what is your thoughts on copenhagen, and upcoming U.N. meetings in 2010 and 2011? where can i get more information on this? and though it doesnt have to be in layman’s terms it would be easier to wade through

Like or Dislike: 0  0

http://www.androidsystem.org/androids.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0

dang… and here I thought Lorrie was a flat bed truck….

well, Mike. That does it. The entire post is called into question! LOL

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Lorrie Goldstein concludes her piece by saying…”

Lorrie is a man.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

BENDOR would bet his next paycheck that PRAGMATIC hasn’t even…

…read the Copenhagen Treaty.

Am I right?

Finally, the Sun is parting the clouds on climate fraud. And not a moment too soon.

The science fraud lunatics will slowly start to die way like this: Denial. Anger. Bargaining. Depression. and finally, Acceptance.

I will be laughing quite joyfully the entire time.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Just for the record I thought I’d add this from Prof. Christy’s testimony before Congress:

“GISS” A, B, and C are model projections of global surface temperature from James Hansen in Senate testimony in 1988. “A” and “B” are two “business-asusual” model projections of temperature which assume emissions similar to what has happened (though in actuality these estimates were a bit less than occurred). “C” is a model projection in which drastic CO2 cuts are assumed. “UAH” and “RSS” are two independent global satellite atmospheric temperature measurements (1979-2008) from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems adjusted to mimic surface temperature variations for an apples to apples comparison with the model projections (factor of 1.2, CCSP SAP 1.1, note all datasets are based on the 1979-1983 reference period). All model projections show high sensitivity to CO2 while the actual atmosphere does not. It is noteworthy that the model projection for drastic CO2 cuts still overshot the observations. This would be considered a failed hypothesis test for the models from 1988.

Now we learn that Christopher Horner may have to sue to gain access to Hansen’s data as NASA has up to now not released the information which Horner made as a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Is there another shoe to drop in the climategate scandal? This one closer to home?

P.S. @MindJedi: I have read RR’s autobiography. Not one of the best autobios, even though I think he was one of our best Presidents.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hmmm, what have we here? People are calling on the Academy to take back Gore’s Oscar:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/academy-%e2%80%94-take-back-gores-oscar/

and that was because of the hacked e-mails, wait til they see this:

Dutch: Gore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro

The Netherlands is afire today over a Dutch study concluding Mount Kilimanjaro’s snow melt — used as a symbol of AGW by Al Gore — is entirely natural.

Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste — a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize — about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming.

Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) — a governmental body — shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.

More:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dutch-gore-wrong-on-snows-of-kilimanjaro/

And, for Patvann, the thirst for accurate knowledge about climate must be in the genes:

Nederlander ontkracht ‘klimaatbewijs’ van Al Gore
donderdag 3 december 2009 12:41

De nagenoeg sneeuwloze Afrikaanse berg Kilimanjaro is ten onrechte het symbool van de ‘door de mens veroorzaakte’ klimaatverandering. Niet de mens, maar de natuur is verantwoordelijk voor de smeltende sneeuw, zo blijkt uit Nederlands onderzoek. Daar gaat een paradepaard van klimaatgoeroe Al Gore.

Ex-vice-president van Amerika en Nobelprijs-winnaar Gore gebruikte de smeltende sneeuwmassa’s op de hoogste berg van Afrika (5.892 meter) jarenlang voor zijn klimaatpropaganda. De sneeuw verdwijnt er en dat komt door de mens en zijn uitstoot van broeikasgassen!

More:

http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Wetenschap/252385/Nederlander-ontkracht-klimaatbewijs-van-Al-Gore.htm

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Wasn’t the UN origionally created to deal with WARTIME ISSUES ONLY.???

Like or Dislike: 0  0