- every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992
- the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15
- every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976
- the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25
- every year since 1964 has been warmer than 1956
- every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
Going back a few pages just because we need some new material and I've been away for a bit:
And already making up your mind is the biggest problem with this "science". You can prove whatever you want with facts and statistics. I, like Brad, have read both sides of AGW frequently. But when you go into something with your mind already made up, or any bias, it's not science.
This is NASA, guys. You really think they are being blinded by a liberal pinko bias? How does that happen, exactly? We just went through eight years of politically motivated attempts to control what these people were saying, and it didn't work. You really trying to say Obama is succeeding here where Bush failed?
What about the Science Council of Japan? You think they give two figs either way about small government or the erosion of conservative American values? They are doing simple science, and they don't care about my biases, or yours, for that matter. I'm sure they have their own, uniquely Japanese biases which no doubt involve tentacles. My point is that when you look at the scientific 'consensus' on a global level it's nigh on impossible to reduce it to political ideology. The work speaks for itself, and it's too widely distributed to chalk up to worldview alone, or even to self-interest (climate scientists made a living before AGW, you know?)
Both sides have vested interests in their positions. Calling one side "satan's spin doctors" really just says a lot about the ideology of one side - the liberal demonizing of those who don't agree.
The comment was tongue-in-cheek and certainly not about 'those who don't agree.' I'm quite happy with the idea that you have critically examined the evidence and found it wanting - you are free to draw your own conclusions, even if I can't understand how you reach them.
It's pretty clear what the vested interests are on the skeptic side, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why most every reputable climate scientist in the world, and those who believe them, have vested interests in declaring low-grade, long-term apocalypse.
Satan's Spin Doctors refers specifically to the spin strategists for Big Tobacco, who, again I'm not comparing you or anyone else in this thread to. That said,
here is a strongly-worded report (crafted by liberal spin doctors, go team!) which conclusively demonstrates that Exxon Mobil is paying former members of the Tobacco Lobby to work their magic on climate change (see table 3). Guess whose side they are on?
My point in the earlier comment was that these people are effective, and quite willing to earn their living by confusing the populace their clients are killing. I wish the Green Illuminati had used its vast resources and control over all Scientific Associations and Governments to recruit them first, because while I might find them morally repugnant I can't argue with their results.
In the mid-70s they were saying that if the trend continued we would be going into another ice age. Now they are saying that, based on the current trend, we will be burning and flooding!
Moosetek13 - Mumble already shot this one down, several times, but you bring it up every time you come through this thread. Hopefully to put the nail in the coffin -
'they' in the 1970s were a book, a few articles in magazines like Newsweek, and a small amount of speculation in scientific journals based on recently discovered glacial cycles. This guy has collected everything your chosen pundit recycled his meme from in one place, for your convenience:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/'they' in 2009 is everybody who has an education in Climate Science which goes beyond local weatherman, who isn't also being paid by Exxon or the API. Mumble gave you a comprehensive list way upthread. If both Academia Brasiliera de Ciências and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences had said we were looking at an Ice Age in the 70's maybe you would have a point. As it is, I guess we should be happy you are using a talking point which was debunked more recently than Psychoak's
Satellites of Truth/
Ground Stations of Betrayal Theory. Maybe you could stop using it, now, so we can move on?
As Brad said, only one side is looking to coerce money out of your pocket, by way of both taxes & higher energy bills. I don't care what the 'consensus' of politicians is, the science is not settled.
It's interesting that there's no linebreak between those sentences, Daiwa. If a casual reader wandered by he could take the second sentence as a continuation of the first.
"I want to keep my money so the science isn't settled."
You didn't really mean it that way, did you? Because that would be as interesting in its own way as Psychoak's assertion that Florida and Italy are small loss to humanity.
Please understand, I'm not trying to demonize those who don't agree with my liberal biases (you are doing fine without me ^^), but aren't we confusing what motivates us (i.e. greed, apathy) with what the world tells us? It's called An Inconvenient Truth for a reason....
Yeah just like Copernicus was alone with his silly "The Earth turns around the sun" idea..
See, here's what's funny about that analogy. Copernicus, or Galileo, or whatever persecuted/vindicated genius you'd like to assess, was pitting *repeatable observations* against an established faith-based ideology. Back in the day established ideology won, short-term, because repeatable observations weren't yet en vogue.
Which is why the all little puppies are laughing at you - the present conversation deals with an entire disciplined community of people who are making repeatable observations over several decades vs....what, exactly? I see the skepticism, more importantly, I see motivations for it which seem psychological, political, or financial, but nowhere do I see repeatable observations which show countering information.
In the case of what we have here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/This is pretty serious. If the raw temperature data is being monkeyed with like this, then it casts doubt on the whole movement.
I like that post a bunch, reminds me of this:
http://xkcd.com/The data is adjusted for a good reason, and the methodology is laid out in detail. If Eschenbach used
easily available resources to get his results and they were different from what NOAA was claiming then he might actually have something. As it is the best response to this I could find in 5 minutes or less is the Economist's
here, and Eschenbach apparently agrees, since he puts up a rebuttal linked at the bottom, which is responded to in turn. I'd say it's a fairly hard pwning, but I'm sure the OP did its job of mocking up another point for 'debate' to prevent actual policy shift.
Meanwhile, I like the Economist's perspective on items like this: "my response to any and all further "smoking gun" claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story"
Not once, in all the sound and fury of 15 pages of comments in this thread alone have we seen a link to that peer-reviewed journal article. A few thoroughly debunked criticisms of the data, or the way it's interpreted, by bought former weathermen just isn't the same thing, and I can't help but admire the dissonance loops some folks must jump through to maintain a worldview where it is.
I'd love to see the skeptic's narrative on the theory of gravity next, assuming its existence affects your wallets, of course.
