Fox Climate Lies
Atrios mentioned this article today, as a must read. It is about the lying that Fox News and other conservative sources engage in as part of their denial of global warming, and it is really great. It documents the fabrication of views and quotes from climate scientists to make them appear to believe the exact opposite of what they actually do.
Standard conservative behavior, of course, but this is a particularly well documented account.
Funny, the whole right wing world will run around in a panic for ten years about the virtually nonexistent terrorists that are supposedly threatening our every move, but they are willing to ignore something that could destroy us all.
Standard conservative behavior, of course, but this is a particularly well documented account.
Funny, the whole right wing world will run around in a panic for ten years about the virtually nonexistent terrorists that are supposedly threatening our every move, but they are willing to ignore something that could destroy us all.
Comments
Even so, the current temperature data coming post climate-gate shows a slight, if any, increase in temperatures.
I know you don't believe me but I'll show you the facts anyway:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero4.png?w=510&h=395
That's the average for all 222 stations of the GISS over the past century. A bit different from the adjusted graphs you normally see huh?
Liberals will say anything that benefits their policies. Is that it?
"Derek have chosen to live in is very much against their benefit"
I've grown accustomed to you ignoring the information I present that destroys your entire viewpoint. Even if AGW were true the solution remains the same. It'd simply be a symptom of a larger problem.
You don't provide information. You provide misleading claims engineered by professional Republican liars.
I am not here to spend half my life refuting the falsehoods that pour from you like water over Niagara. The other people who read my blog (a least those who comment on it) know the truth, and we are not about to be mislead by a college freshman spouting propaganda.
. . . I gave you a graph from the GISS. Apparently you think science is simply an agent of the Republican party.
"mislead by a college freshman spouting propaganda"
I'm a Junior, I'll have you know. Apparently none of you do seeing as how you all go "pshaa" to the graph I provided. none of you are willing to explain it.
The graph shows the average of temperature anomalies across 222 stations. It appears to show nothing alarming. And if that were the only presentation of the data we could probably all relax.
However, at GISS (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies) - the source of Derek's graph (though indirectly via the Watts site) - you will find the bigger picture: several graphs that show the global mean temperature has risen since 1880.
It also clearly states on a table that while 1934 was the hottest year in 48 of the United States of America, 2005 was the hottest year globally.
But Derek insists someone lied and 1934 is the hottest year in the world.
Apparently NASA tells the truth except when it's not what skeptics want to hear - then NASA magically turns into a bunch of lying toads. This does not however stop said skeptics using their data selectively to paint whatever picture they like.
The NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Earth System Research Laboratory - surely another hotbed of Commie sympathizers who secretly fear and want to hurt Sarah Plain - comments on this GISS data:
"This dataset shows the anomaly, or departure from normal, for temperature from 1884 through 2008. In this case, normal is the 1951 - 1980 mean temperature. Five year averages are used for the yearly temperatures to account for year to year variability. The warmest year in this record is 2005. 2007 tied 1998 for the second warmest year in a century. Over the past 30 years, there has been a rapid warming trend. In fact, eight of the warmest years have been recorded since 1998. The greatest warming has been observed in the arctic. Areas that are dark red indicate the greatest warming, while dark blue areas indicate the greatest cooling. The temperature varies from 2°C (3.6°F) below normal to 2°C (3.6°F) above normal. In 2007 the global mean anomaly was 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951 - 1980 mean."
Let me just repeat a bit of that: "Over the past 30 years, there has been a rapid warming trend".
As an aside, the wikipedia article on climate change mentions, with references:
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change".
Those are the adjusted models made by the CRU and IPCC. NASA uses a similar adjustment model.
""Over the past 30 years, there has been a rapid warming trend"."
Yet 1880 through 1910 shows a rapid cooling trend. We are looking at deviation here. If we follow the curve and compare it to CO2 concentration, we see little correlation. Should we compare any warming over the past 50 years to solar variance, then we see a very close correlation.
"by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, "
I'd love to see a source because that's not true.
Might I remind everyone that 35 million years ago there wasn't a snowflake on this planet.
And Derek, you're no longer arguing with me. You're arguing with the NOAA.
Good luck, junior.
Exactly. No human effect on anything. Not anthropogenic, simply natural.
"
And Derek, you're no longer arguing with me. You're arguing with the NOAA."
Gladly.
I'm not talking consequences of temperature change, rather, the causes. Please tell me you aren't so thick you didn't realize that.
The causes are already established by the scientific community - which does not include you.
And the consequences matter, sport, otherwise we wouldn't even be talking causes.
Then why didn't you address it? I was the one that brought up how there was no ice on Earth 35 million years ago, which is why I was confused when your rebuttal had nothing to do with the causes of GW.
"The causes are already established by the scientific community"
Pray tell how the Earth was hot enough for there to be zero ice, yet now when there is 1 degree celcius change everyone craps a brick.
"And the consequences matter, sport"
We aren't arguing consequences, we are arguing causes.
The fact... is there is more expert opinion on the side of the proposition that human activity can, and is, causing climate change than there is against it. And whatever you write, I already know that your motivation for 'believing' as you do is ultimately just ideological, which is kind of sad.
As it happens I'm leaving the country tomorrow for a place where I won't be near an internet connection. Hopefully... I'll be back in a couple of weeks. Meantime you can have the last word here, sport! I won't be reading it.
Enjoy your teabaggers gig. All half dozen of you anyway.
Of course, but we haven't increased in temperature by 10 degrees celcius either.
"is there is more expert opinion on the side of the proposition that human activity can, and is, causing climate change than there is against it."
I could care less who is in the majority. At one point, majority opinion was that the universe was eternal. Just because you have more people doesn't mean your side is correct.
"for 'believing' as you do is ultimately just ideological,"
How is it ideological? I've presented nothing but scientific information and said nothing about politics. Regardless, the solution to this proposed problem is the same.
"All half dozen of you anyway."
We had 7000-8000 come out last April.