December 8, 2009 7:59 AM PST

Global warming isn't slowing, report says

The first decade of this century is very likely the warmest one in modern record, a global meteorological agency says.
(From The New York Times)

The story "Global warming isn't slowing, report says" published December 8, 2009 at 7:59 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

90 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
What a load of garbage. Email leaks show that data was tweaked to show warming, leaked documents today show it is a ploy to give control to World Bank for carbon credits, wake up.... it is a farce and you are following the rabbit trail
Posted by EGMike (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
cite for today's "leaked documents"?
Posted by Random_Walk (8429 comments )
Link Flag
Ah - found one: http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/12/draft-agreement-climate-kyoto
Posted by Random_Walk (8429 comments )
Link Flag
Indeed. A PSU prof is steeping (or did step) down for his part in this BS.
Thanks algore - instead of a measured approach with facts and a solid plan to get people on board, we now have loons taking private jets to the GW summit.
Needed to import limos from Germany and France to meet demand from the GW gods.
LMAO - fraud to the extreme.
Too bad too.
Posted by sciontcya (643 comments )
Link Flag
The question is which data has been tweaked. A closer review of the leaked documents show that much of the 'tweaking' has been to either account for local variations in the monitoring equipment (think of two thermometers a couple feet apart, one in the shade and one in the sun. Which one is the 'real' temperature?) or two account for less reliable historical tree ring data.

I've always felt that skepticism is an important trait but you've seem to have forgotten that skepticism also requires a willingness to be swayed by convincing data. So, I'm going to go out on a limb, and assume that my assessment of you might be wrong. What sort of data would you find convincing enough for you to change your mind?
Posted by rapier1 (2722 comments )
Link Flag
"Comments in the code include "These will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures," referring to an effort to suppress data showing that the Middle Ages were warmer than today. Comments inside the code also described an "adjustment" as follows: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!" Another notation indicated when a "fudge factor" had been added.

There are three other data sets on historic temperatures, but blogging scientists have pointed out that they aren't completely independent of the now-dubious East Anglia assertions. Atmospheric data from satellites, for example, rely on the East Anglia surface data to calibrate their measurements."

ref: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574578012533089846.html

So, is that "tweaking" still merely accounting for "local variations"?
Posted by Random_Walk (8429 comments )
Link Flag
Dear EG MIKE, there is no correlation between your opinion and reality.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
@random_walk, I think you are reading too much into those comments. I assume those few comments have been culled from the vast amount of emails and source code that was leaked. If so, there is really not much there. Science is a messy business internally although it appears clinical to the outside. That's part of the problem, most people really don't know how science really works. Comments about tweaks/hacks will be present in all kinds of scientific code, heck I'm sure if you looked at some code I wrote for astrophysical simulations you would find similar comments there. It's not necessarily malicious unless you are coming to it with a mindset predisposed to interepret things to fit your preconceptions. You really need to understand the background and the field itself, which requires several years of immersion to gain a requisite level of understanding.

So you'll forgive me as taking comments such as those made by the wsj, a business paper with a very strong pre-existing bias in this area, with an extremely large grain of salt.
Posted by martin1212 (156 comments )
Link Flag
@Random Walk,

They were trying to account for the Medieval Warm Period which lasted roughly from 800 to 1300 AD where average temperatures in some areas of the world were around .75C warmer than today. No one is entirely sure why this happened but it seems that the temperature bump may have been localized to Western and Northern Europe. As such, when you get tree ring data from these period of time you need to adjust the data to reflect global conditions rather than local conditions. This causes the insertion of a 'fudge factor' or, more accurately put, a constant. These are commonly used in science to help the formula match observed and/or theoretical data. You are probably familiar with one of them known as the gravitational constant (k = - 8*pi*G/c**2). The use of these sort of constants isn't necessarily controversial but they do need to be defended properly.

I'm sure they also have constants in place to account for the Little Ice Age which extended from around 1315 to 1820.

The main point is that for historical temperature records they're using some fuzzy data which, while internally consistent, requires a certain amount of analysis to actually draw meaningful values from (correlating carbon isotopes to mean temperature for example). It's not like we had a huge network of thermometers back in the 1200s. However, we do have thermometer readings for around past 150 years which do demonstrate a remarkable increase in mean global temperature. So let's discount the tree ring and borehole data where most of the proxy data work was performed. Would the dramatic spike in recorded temperature over the past 150 years be worth considering to you?
Posted by rapier1 (2722 comments )
Link Flag
The quotes were taken out of code commentary.

And seriously? There is nothing at all ambiguous about those comments. It was enough to force the CRU to do two things:

1) destroy their old data
2) publicly claim to re-evaluate their data.

Here's even more bits, this time not from the WSJ: http://www.infowars.com/cru-commented-source-code-tells-story/
Posted by Random_Walk (8429 comments )
Link Flag
Even if Global Warming is not occuring, doesn't it make some sense to find ways to produce power or build cars so they will use fewer resources, create less pollution, and save everyone some money in terms of fuel and health care? Not to mention create jobs in the U.S. and remove dependence on oil from nations that are unfriendly.
Posted by solitare_pax (10685 comments )
Link Flag
CLIMATEGATE
CLIMATEGATE
CLIMATEGATE
CLIMATEGATE
CLIMATEGATE
CLIMATEGATE
CLIMATEGATE
CLIMATEGATE
Posted by sqwilliam (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
What a clear concise and cogent rebuttal! Bravo sir!
Posted by rapier1 (2722 comments )
Link Flag
Twit Twit Twit Twit Twit!...oh...the level of debate is so inspiring!
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
"What a clear concise and cogent rebuttal!" ...

... as if the Global Warmers have been clear and concise. And accurate.

"Twit Twit Twit Twit Twit!...oh...the level of debate is so inspiring!" ...

... as if the Global Warmers have even allowed honest debate on this subject and never denigrated scientists with a different interpretation of the data.
Posted by nashville2 (53 comments )
Link Flag
Yes indeed Nashvile2 - of course you post no evidence to support your opinion that science os never challenged (?) Meantime, feel free to posit your opinion here, and see how you do. I'm standing by to answer your points...
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Yeah, right. ...and whose data were they using again? If any of it came from CRU, New Zealand, or Mr. Mann's infamous 'hockey stick' doings, it's pure bunkum.

Meanwhile, has anyone really bothered to sit down and debate whether or not any of the recent events (the email scandal, et al) may shed new light on the alleged 'consensus', or is this conference just an excuse for one giant ecogasm?
Posted by Random_Walk (8429 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The results have been verified by independent analysis based on independent observations conducted by NCDC and NASA.
Posted by rapier1 (2722 comments )
Link Flag
You yourself have evidently not done ANY research, otherwise you would be talking sense by now.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
You yourself have evidently not done ANY research, otherwise you would be talking sense by now. I mean really Mr (or Mrs) Random Walk, what can you say to justify your position? It seems to me there is little to recommend you as an advisor.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
ahhh - ecogasm - just found the definition! ' a cheap insult supposedly a critique of those disagreed with aimed to pass without notice, and without justification, generally posted by an eejit who knows bugger all about anything"
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Rondom_Walk,
Are you willing toput your point of view to the test? Yes? Well...will you take me on in a TV special on the environment one to one in the UK? You seem perfect for the series "American *****" I am proposing.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
@rapier1: proof, please. Even PSU is looking back into Mann's doings (again), and the CRU is going back on their original stance and promising to "re-evaluate" the data. New Zealand just recently sacked their head climate honcho (though the reason they gave was far too convenient, even for the most hardened skeptic).

At Speiler9: I apologize if I inadvertently spoke blasphemy against your chosen religion.
Posted by Random_Walk (8429 comments )
Link Flag
hello pal,
Nah - not a religion -... so you are not willing to go before the cameras? seriously..I'll pay you!
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
err....pretty funny avoidance of the point...you are so not a good spend of time, but hey, feel flattered for a moment that I am even replying!

Meanwhile, has anyone really bothered to sit down and debate whether or not any of the recent events (the email scandal, et al) may shed new light on the alleged 'consensus',

err, yes they have - and there is a consensus (I bet you hate that word!) that the evidence stands. so..over to you professor1
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
I'm interested in your motivation - you question, I admire that. But you also are ignorant. How do you square these and decide you know what you are talking about?
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Wow dude... you troll rather well, but you seem to have a problem with assembling your thoughts into one post. :/

Here's the deal: I have no kick against environmental responsibility. I have zero problems with a scientific conclusion/consensus reached by open and transparent methods, with open and transparent data. Instead, all we've seen so far is a pack of alarms being raised and pushed by a combination of three groups:

* climate scientists who are hell-bent on hiding datasets and sources, with dubious-to-fraudulent methods (that is, the methods that they haven't actively tried to hide), and on jury-rigging the peer-review process to further their ideological goals. The reasons why are not relevant - fact is, they got caught in the act of subverting science.

* the eco-religious, whose motivations may be diverse, but whose goal is the same: impose their oft-divergent yet totalitarian views on how the world should be run.

* the outright ignorant but strident, who have invested so much of their self-esteem and egos into being proven right, that they refuse to see that their idol may indeed have clay feet.

Now mind you, the opposite end of the spectrum is no better (albeit far smaller).

In between are those of us who tend to view any sort of alarmist diatribe - especially when raised without conclusive proof - as something to be ignored - unless it begins to negatively affect how we are governed, in which case it must be fought.

So - unless these gents at the IPCC are prepared to publish their entire datasets, and their entire algorithms, and are prepared to defend them (as all actual scientists ostensibly are)... then why should they be taken at their word? Because they said so? Apparently their hypothesis is too fragile to withstand scrutiny, even by peers who may disagree with them.

You know? Albert Einstein was once told about how the Nazi regime had published a paper in which 100 German scientists had "proven" the theory of General Relativity to be wrong (as Einstein was born a Jew). Einstein's response frames true science perfectly: "Why did they need one hundred? If my theory was truly wrong, it only require one".
Posted by Random_Walk (8429 comments )
Link Flag
See more comment replies
For a moment, let's set aside whether the global average temperature is rising or falling, and whether human activity is responsible for it.

Climate changes on a global scale -- even drastic ones -- are normal. About 15000 years ago much of North America was covered in ice, sometimes miles thick. At other times, the North American continent resembled African savannahs.

Should we try to reduce or eliminate the release of greenhouse gases and other substances that can affect our environment? Absolutely. But anyone who thinks that things will (or should) stay exactly as they are today is out of his mind.

The only constant in the universe is change.
Posted by T_Hoff (450 comments )
Reply Link Flag
"Should we try to reduce or eliminate the release of greenhouse gases and other substances that can affect our environment? Absolutely."

I agree. However, the question lies in _how_ we go about accomplishing that. Should we bork every western economy and impose crushing new legislation to accomplish it? No, because there's no need to do so, and the proposed methods thus far are either a shell game (e.g. "carbon credits") , rather impossible (spewing cloud cover over the oceans and scrubbing the atmosphere of CO2), or can have some rather ugly consequences (biofuels, which pollute more, and re-purpose arable land that could be used for food production). In all cases, most 'solutions' proposed will impose an undue fiscal burden on a somewhat fragile global economy.

Come up with practical and doable solutions, and maybe you'll get a hearing. Use it as an excuse for fascism (or worse), and things are likely to go haywire.
Posted by Random_Walk (8429 comments )
Link Flag
Climate change in some form at some time is inevitable. This is undeniable. However, people are using this idea as a way to avoid any sort of action whatsoever. "Climate change is natural so why should we do anything?" Floods, fires, and disease are also natural but what sort of fool wouldn't do what they can to mitigate the risk of them?

I do want to aslo point out that while climate change is a normal part of the process this change is usually measured in thousands of years of gradual shifts. Not always, but often. The problem we are facing now is a rapid shift in climate which will cause social instability that we aren't in a great position to cope with.
Posted by rapier1 (2722 comments )
Link Flag
T_Hoff,
Yes the Universe changes - did anyone dispute that? No. are you helping anyone by your commentary??.......I doubt it. The reason? We have a very beautifull world at our disposal, and we very well might be ruining it when we need not do so. This is something WE have control over right now. So grow up.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
By your logic, the world is eventually going to end so why not nuke it tomorrow anyways.
Posted by flickrz (239 comments )
Link Flag
Big bloody deal,

I am living the American Dream, I shall continue to have all of my lights on and drive one of my three 8V gas guzzlers to the store for one Apple if I want to!

People live for right now, I do not see why people are so worried about the future when they will not be remembered or through about 1000 years from now.

Log it, Burn it, Pave It & keep my oil coming !
Posted by EarthToApple (162 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Because no one that comes after you is worth thinking about right? Your kids, your nephews and nieces, your cousin's children aren't worth thinking about. They, and no one else, matters to you. You got your's so everyone else can go rot. Is that about right? Fortunately, selfish people such as yourself have a tendency to remove themselves from the gene pool.
Posted by rapier1 (2722 comments )
Link Flag
I guess you feel that it is just fine to kill the "American Dream" for everyone else. Too bad doing harm to others is something people seem fine with.
Posted by ddesy (4336 comments )
Link Flag
You are not a futurist, then. More of a past-it-ist. I'm sure your children will love you for your attitude!
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
One of the worst published pieces of trash I have ever browsed to; shame on your Cnet for publishing this tripe !
In reply to: "Report: Apple accused of NAND price manipulation"



yes, an eejit, well - need I say more!
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Spoken like a true Republican. Someday you will be forced to answer for your point of view on this delicate subject. How selfish you are. Pathetic!
Posted by earthagent (1 comment )
Link Flag
"Someday you will be forced to answer for your point of view on this delicate subject."

I'm assuming that the legions of witch-burners and inquisitors are currently being dragged out of their graves and forced to answer for their respective points of view?

No?

Here's a clue: if (yes, "if") the whole "A" in AGW is true, then it is very likely that you, I, and our respective children will be comfortably dead of old age by the time it affects the globe enough to cause anger and/or resentment by our descendants.
Posted by Random_Walk (8429 comments )
Link Flag
Global Warming is affecting human populations right now. So where do you stand on that?
let me put it this way - do you accept we have an effect on the environment? While i am all in favour of debate there seems to be a disconnection in your arguments - you seem to say that there is no consensus that climate change is happening and that humans influence it.
I quote...


I'm assuming that the legions of witch-burners and inquisitors are currently being dragged out of their graves and forced to answer for their respective points of view?

No?

Here's a clue: if (yes, "if") the whole "A" in AGW is true, then it is very likely that you, I, and our respective children will be comfortably dead of old age by the time it affects the globe enough to cause anger and/or resentment by our descendants.

Forgive me but this makes no sense to me - what legions of witch burners are you referring to? I s this all in your imagination? Please can you explain in detail what this means? That we will all be dead before anything happens (does that make it OK to ruin things?) Have you not been made aware of the already stark results indicating severe damage to the environment?
really - I've read your post several times and it appears to make no sense
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
I am living the American Dream, I shall continue to have all of my lights on and drive one of my three 8V gas guzzlers to the store for one Apple if I want to!

I'm sure you don't really mean that, you just hate fuzzy minded liberals. Well...lets just compare, if the world continued in your model we'd be facing a situation where a world-wide consensus needs to be reached to limit exploitation of resources. So here we are. that's the enevitable result of that kind of attitude. It's not fun, sexy, convenient or of your liking, but your lifestyle leaves no alternative!
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
That is probably one of the most ignorant, self-serving, uneducated, and insulting comments I've ever heard. That is an insult to the American Dream most of us aspire towards.
Posted by JollyGreenGiant_ (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Keep Hoax Alive!
Posted by fafafooey (171 comments )
Reply Link Flag
what is your point? Are you yet another one of these denialist types who are jumping up and down about statistics you think were manipulated (they weren't actually, if you care to look) and yet are totally ignorant or choose to ignore the warping at every opportunity conducted by the oiligarchy?
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Wow... all the people who want to believe nothing is happening seem to have come out to comment! What a surprise!

These people need to stop being gluttons in denial and start paying attention.
Posted by ddesy (4336 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Well said - unfortunately these denialist types (some of whom think they are debating, but at the same time love to feel alienated - hey, it's easier that actually proving your point!) have much time on their hands to post misinformed and rash opinions between their sparse meetings with friends and colleagues in the real world. These are exactly the types that the climate scientists were trying to avoid dealing with in their inept beardy way - those that cannot understand statistics and presume themselves knowledgeable without qualification. If we stake our future with the likes of Palin and other oportunistic shallow brains then we are doomed to a dimmer future, no matter what random acts mother nature has in store.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
I rather be a denialist than an egomaniac. To believe that humans are responsible for global warming is exactly that - egomania. CO2 which account for less than 1% of the atmosphere and humans attributing to less than 1% of that 1% is going to bring the end of mother nature is pure garbage and illogical. And now we're going to make incredibly economic changes regarding a factor that doesn't even matter?

Now, let me state that I consider myself an environmentalist. I'd rather save a tree than a starving kid in africa. I've dedicated my property to wildlife instead of a manicured lawn. But this climate debate is nothing more than a farce to make a small amount of people rich. And you dumbocrats who rant about republican greed are the biggest hypocrits for supporting it. You all rally against the oil companies but are quick to buy anything with a 'green' label slapped on.

You want facts? Correlate global temperatures to solar activity and you'll have your answer. Surprise- they match PERFECTLY- Unlike CO2 and your other greenhouse demons. But no, you'll just point to liberal news stories like "1200 UK scientists believe in global warming." And exactly how many of those scientists are climatologists?
Posted by celticbrewer (867 comments )
Link Flag
All this is just smoke and mirrors.
This global cooling.. oh wait that was 20 years ago.. i mean global warming.. oh wait.. that was soooo 2008.. now its climate change... isnt that awesome.. hot, cold, rainy, snowy, foggy hell...its all covered.
Core samples dont lie.. "as the earth warms..CO2 levels rise" not the other way around...but hey.. who would take data from core samples that show the climate levels thousands of years ago.. when you could just use bogus climate models using data from the last 100 years. It makes sense doesn't it.
"The debate is over"
The only thing that is "happening" is.. the earth is regulating itself.. like it has done for millions of years...little ice age.. medieval warming period.. all occurred before factories or coal fire plants... very strange i know... but maybe.. George Bush used his time machine to go back and build factories and make cars for customers that didn't fricken exist.. all so he could ruin the planet.. yeah that's it...
im going outside to burn some styrofoam and aerosol cans.
BAM!
Posted by cptnjarhead (194 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Be careful with those flammables - someone with your very limited grasp of physics needs to be.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Are you serous?... If you are referring to my knowledge of dimensional travel through time and space.. well that happens all the time (no pun intended)? as for my sarcastic analogy for the cause of two separate climatic events caused by George Bush using a time machine for cross dimensional travel.. well.. maybe you should pick up a copy of " Dr. Quantum Presents: Do-It-Yourself Time Travel" and expand your mind a little.. however.. ?reality cannot exist without the mind being present? so...basically... you can believe what you wish.
Its to early.. need more coffee.. thanks for playing :)
Posted by cptnjarhead (194 comments )
Link Flag
What we should be doing is learning how to deal with climate change, because one way or another it will happen from local sources like man or a super volcano or extraterrestrial sources like the sun.

Adapting is the way humans learn, not by trying to keep the current climate like it is by simply stopping mans green house gas emissions.

Wake up and realize all that is going on here is a way for the government to further tax us and for Goldman Sachs to further rob us by letting us trade carbon credits on their system, the government will not fix anything and Goldman Sachs will get rich.
Posted by xray206 (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
errr - you are a 'give up' guy
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Speiler9 oh yes I'm a give up guy.

I'm for the progression of human intelligence not luddites like yourself I'm guessing.
Posted by xray206 (9 comments )
Link Flag
Rondom_Walk,
Are you willing toput your point of view to the test? Yes? Well...will you take me on in a TV special on the environment one to one in the UK? You seem perfect for the series "American Tzats" I am proposing.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Come on xray206! I'm counting on you to fill out my episode on 'Dumbclucks who will say anything they like 'cos it's the internernet, innit". You'd be perfect!
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
quoting you....."realize all that is going on here is a way for the government to further tax us" - you are really that simple? you really think that the only parties competing for whatever in the global climate debate are Goldman Sachs? The only company????? get real...
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
seriously xray206 - can you see yourself standing in the ruins of a burned out rainforest....saying adapt? this has to be? would you really feel strong in justifying the destruction of such a forest for paper pulp and illegal exports? ....I have been to the forests and seen the logging teams...they care not for your air, or mine, or anyone's, they are just hacking away for a profit, to export where they can, as is understandable if you are skint. What to me is understandable, but worthy of challenge, is an atittude like yours - 'deal with it' with out any idea what is being dealt with, this is a dangerous an obnoxious opinion to hold, but you need not hold it.. There is a big wide world out there that you know apparently know nothing about (if your comments are anything to go by) and as kind as i feel toward you as a fellow human, I am angered by your flippancy, your lack of discipline in debating such a fundamentally important subject as climate. In my work i have travelled (and burned many tons of aviation and road fuel no doubt - if you wish to debate that, please do, you'll be on my wavelength...) to Russia, France, Spain, Italy, South Africa, Holland, Switzerland, Slovakia, Malaysia, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Slovenia, Germany, Cuba, Indonesia, New Zealand...and I find the USA is very insular in comparison to all these...there is an essay to be written there..but anyway, that's not my point. My point it , chill out, learn something, but be ready to get yer nose toasted off is you come out with any more of that mis-informed turdracket you think you can get away with. Love....Niall
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
by the way CNET -
like yer Christmas decor!
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Reply Link Flag
If you are for "the progression of human intelligence" you would be intelligent enough to realise the phrase "simply stopping greenhouse gas emmisions" is not applicable to any reasonable standpoint. Not really espoused by anyone , is it? No. Well anyway, you call me a 'luddite' - can you tell me how I am totally dependant on modern on modern society and technology and yet a luddite? Here's a wee hint - you are barking up the wrong tree!
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Reply Link Flag
We need to put every reporter in jail with a life sentence who publish this garbage. Death sentences for those who originate it.
Posted by drtyrell (26 comments )
Reply Link Flag
brilliant! yes - Lets kill all journalists! Lets kill everyone who looks like they might be thinking in a free society and have the temerity to publish ! Fab! What a lovely, simple minded world it will be! Are you going to be President? I am totally with you - can I be your environment secretary? I know these types....in favour of peace harmony and a future for the planet not purely based on short term profit...ahh...scum they are! I know where to find them...at farmers markets, growing their own food, educating their children without predudice...horrible! Kill em all and let chaos begin!
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
The more I read about and experience the citizens of the USA, the more fascinating the polarisation between the educated and the willfully ignorant becomes. Unfortunately the current terrifying rate of extinction of species is not waiting for the outcome of any debate.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I just saw a statement by the chief meteorologist at AccuWeather who says there has been no warming in the past decade.

It's interesting that facts don't seem to be facts. When that happens, I immediately think there is politics involved. Because politics is the art of changing facts into fiction.

There also seems to be evidence of global cooling, according to a book I read recently.

No one knows who is right. My guess is that it's probably both, depending on when and where you look. So perhaps it's nothing to worry about.

How do we know that controlling carbon dioxide will not lead to an ice age? Apparently it's happened before.
Posted by roncleaver (36 comments )
Reply Link Flag
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Speiler9,

May I inquire as to why you feel it necessary to post four or five responses to rebuke one poster?

Have you ever taken into account the money that is being made by those whom in in mid 1970s, and today have made from first screaming ice age, and now screaming global warming? It seems to me that Chicken little would be right at home with this lot.

May I also ask, why the "skeptics" in your eyes "must" be wrong? That is the joy of science. I assume from your many ridicule filled posts that you are one of those highly educated, and well taught science majors... If not then I would suggest that you go back to school and re-learn basic science.

Science is a really interesting, and fun subject. You come up with a theory, then you attempt to DISPROVE that theory. That is the best way to turn your "theory" into a factual product.

I am sure one of your come backs if you have not stated it already is that a handful of the skeptics have been paid from industry looking to make lots of money based on disproving man-made climate change. However, what you will over look is the trillions of dollars that governments and their friends will make from pushing the man-made climate change models. This does not include of course the power hungry elites at the top who are bound and determined to keep a tight grip on their political power. I digress...

THE leading cause of warming on this planet is solar radiation, followed by the greenhouse effect caused by the seas. Now if CO2 was a major contributor to "global warming" why is it a requirement for ALL plant life on this planet? Are you suggesting that we as human beings magically discontinue the production of CO2 by never exhaling?

I personally live in a liberal bastion, and am ready to ignore your many inane and immature comments which are to follow. I've had many of you die hard GW religious zealots try to convince me of the truth to your religion. I really suggest you try harder than your attempts with the others. I've heard, seen, and read way too many opinions, reports, and legitimate reports of the falsehoods posed by those on the side of GW to trust any of their word for truth.

Side note: I am for clean air, water, and am an avid lover of nature, and our mother earth.
Posted by dsltnega (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
Hi - read your own quote...

THE leading cause of warming on this planet is solar radiation, followed by the greenhouse effect caused by the seas. Now if CO2 was a major contributor to "global warming" why is it a requirement for ALL plant life on this planet? Are you suggesting that we as human beings magically discontinue the production of CO2 by never exhaling?

This statement by your good self shows a confused and immature interpretation of global climate science.
Personally, I don't fit the model of your suppositions.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Speiler9, I really think it humorous that you post a link to an article that matches your basic viewpoint instead of using your own thoughts to convey a legitimate response...

You may want to take not that much of the temp data that NASA has collected is available via a Freedom of Information Act request. The data has been requested by a few GW Skeptics. That data one year later has still to be produced. Now, I would ask if the data matches the POV of the NASA lead scientist who was also the lead scientist screaming global cooling in the 70s had proof of the overall "warming" trend they would have released it by now yes?

I await your thought provoking response...
Posted by dsltnega (6 comments )
Link Flag
furthermore...quoting from your long-winded and ultimately dilute posting...

May I also ask, why the "skeptics" in your eyes "must" be wrong?

Don't use quotes when you are not actually quoting me. Basic stuff.

Can you please put you point more concisely?
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
quoting your good self...

You may want to take not that much of the temp data that NASA has collected is available via a Freedom of Information Act request. The data has been requested by a few GW Skeptics. That data one year later has still to be produced. Now, I would ask if the data matches the POV of the NASA lead scientist who was also the lead scientist screaming global cooling in the 70s had proof of the overall "warming" trend they would have released it by now yes?

Can you please post a literate sentence?
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Ok, so your little article there doesn't point out the number one warming effect on the planet. Solar Radiation... May I ask how you counter the fact that all of the "data" collected seems to ignore the effects of Solar radiation on the planet?

I eagerly await your thought provoking and intellectual response.
Posted by dsltnega (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
One last thing before I completely ignore your day long trolling and flame baiting...

My "long-winded and ultimately dilute posting..." was done to convey a point.

Why post thirty inane responses when you can post one thought provoking response that a global warming religious zealot as yourself will ultimately disregard, while others reading your flame bait will recognize as being logic based instead of being based on a set of ideals based on flawed science.

Have a good evening.
Posted by dsltnega (6 comments )
Link Flag
This wasn't 'my little article', i do appreciate that you favour petulant condescension over debate, rest assured that has been noted.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_04.php

Ok, so your little article there doesn't point out the number one warming effect on the planet. Solar Radiation... May I ask how you counter the fact that all of the "data" collected seems to ignore the effects of Solar radiation on the planet?

So you like to quote science, in part, when it suits you. I'm not really into that kind of thing - I posted that link without comment , as you may or may not have noted. However, PERSONALLY I think global warming is happening, it does seem to me that the evidence is clear.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Your point was not really conveyed by your post - my day long whatever..not as long as your pooooooo...st. by the way - the fact you misquoted me, and i pointed it out to you, and that you offered no apology...well...I'm educated now as to your parameters of debate.

i'm stillready to debate with you, although you seem to be a little shy. But no imaginary quotes please.

If you can't stand the heat - get out of the kitchen.

AccuWeather.com Position Statement
Global climate change is a matter of intense concern and public importance. There can be little doubt that human beings influence the world's climate. At the same time, our knowledge of the extent, progress, mechanisms and results of global climate change is still incomplete. New data are becoming available every day - from tree rings to deep sea samples, ice cores, glacial changes and climatological models - while the greatest minds all over the world are working to better understand climate change and its impact on life on earth.
Scientific understanding emerges through full consideration of relevant data, appropriate debate and the application of the scientific method. Thus, we urge all scientists and members of the public to engage in the global warming discussion, including AccuWeather.com's experts. We encourage our scientists to express their personal views without the constraint of a corporate position they must follow. We are pleased to offer a major forum on AccuWeather.com for the wide-ranging consideration of this topic.
In the AccuWeather.com Global Warming Center, you will find links to the latest research, commentary by experts with various points of view on all aspects of climate change, and a forum for you to share your own thoughts, ask questions, and interact with the best scientific minds and knowledge in this area. From time to time, we may post questions about climate change for general consideration and to further stimulate debate. We welcome your contributions to the discussion.
We encourage you to visit global-warming.accuweather.com often to keep abreast of the discussion.

I thought this was interesting - you?
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
this is what you said....

"Why post thirty inane responses when you can post one thought provoking response that a global warming religious zealot as yourself will ultimately disregard, while others reading your flame bait will recognize as being logic based instead of being based on a set of ideals based on flawed science."

You might read this and it might make sense to you, but this doesn't make sense." I should post one thought provoking response that I will disregard?" I hope this is not the way you intended this to read. It is a non - sentence.
Well,whatever you say, I'll stick to conventional sentences. If you think me responses 'inane' then please at least respond and let me know what your point is. If you are simply giving in, as it seems, then i thank you for your efforts, and wish you better luck the next time.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Actually - you went from "eagerly awaiting your thought provoking and intellectual response" to being not bothered and I'm off kind of thing. Where's yer balls? i have tons to say about climate, I, ve travelled widely and questioned hundreds of people, and you don't want to hear their input...shame!
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
So, Speiler9... I see you use a very typical tactic, divert attention from the questions posed.

Are you a politician? If not you'd probably do well, duck, dodge, dive...
Posted by dsltnega (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Come ahead - I'll answer you. what was the question? Please illustrate which question I ducked, which I dived, and which I dodged? I mean really - What is the question ? Did you even ask me a question? Go ahead if you so wish. But please try and make a coherent sentence, requires less energy than throwing insults.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Sorry to go but there are heaps more debates to be had with people who can actually stick to the point, make coherent sentences, and don't think putting other people in imaginary quotes of their choosing is acceptable. You know who you are "dsltnega"....
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
I am quoting you here so you can see just how condescending, presumptuous and insulting you were from the very first post you made. What a bad taste you leave in the mouth...

Have you ever taken into account the money that is being made by those whom in in mid 1970s, and today have made from first screaming ice age, and now screaming global warming? It seems to me that Chicken little would be right at home with this lot.

May I also ask, why the "skeptics" in your eyes "must" be wrong? That is the joy of science. I assume from your many ridicule filled posts that you are one of those highly educated, and well taught science majors... If not then I would suggest that you go back to school and re-learn basic science.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Herewith the definition of presumptuous...

"I personally live in a liberal bastion, and am ready to ignore your many inane and immature comments which are to follow."

As this is the way you address a comment or debate then good luck in getting a response. that is not in itself inappropriate. I did not presume your inane comments in advance but you turned out to be a very efficient producer of inanity all on your own without provocation.

So - you are the perfect subject for my TV production as an objectionable and unreasoning type of person resident in the USA. But I could be wrong. Perhaps you are just objectionable, still that's a bonus.. Would you consider it?
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I have a suggestion for the skeptics. You need to convince the climate scientists to test their hypothesis that carbon dioxide is a problem. The best way would be for all the industrialized countries to drastically increase carbon dioxide through a massive coordinate release for scientific purposes. Throw a few more trilla-tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, get not just a 10-20ppm increase, but something like 200-300ppm in a short timeframe.

Then if something bad happens, we can sink the carbon back to normal. Hopefully, humpty dumpty can be restored, but if not, at least we get everyone on the same page to address a potential extension event.
Posted by WandereringPhilistine (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What a joke - these reports are all based on the same "homogenized" data that's been cooked to show a warming spike.

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/climategate_was_data_faked.php

"Climategate: Was the Data Faked" by Megan McArdle shows just how raw temperature data from an Australian station was homogenized to produce an artificial warming spike that didn't exist.

This error then gets passed along to centers like the CRU, which then compounds it. It's no wonder NASA and the CRU don't want to explain how and why they homogenized the temperature data.

It's time journalists stopped parroting the agenda of a few obsessed political scientists and start asking real questions.

Investigate!!
Posted by lavalight (16 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I would like to pose a few questions to those of you who apparently KNOW that the theory of AGW is true.

Why is it that for the bulk of the history of this planet CO2 levels in the atmosphere trailed temp?

While there is a correlation between CO2 levels and temp, what properties have been proven to show a causal relationship that can be verified? Statistical correlation does not constitute a causal relationship.

With CO2 being less than 5% of greenhouse gases, why is it that it disproportionately affects warming?

What accounts for the fact that in the last 450,000 years the earths temp and CO2 levels exceeded current levels in accordance to what appears to be a regular cycle, and during this regular cycle each of the prior warm periods were longer than the current period? Man is responsible for warming right?

How come, while our recorded history takes place over a long term warming trend, we have only been producing CO2 in any quantity for 70 years?

Why is it that 10,000 years ago the earth was almost 10 degrees colder than it is today, and it just suddenly warmed, almost 6000 years before recorded history.?

Why is it that we can choose a 150 year warming trend, with a VERY gradual rise on a historical basis, and choose that tiny sample to decide what is and is not warm, and determine that man is the result?

The fact is, the earth warmed dramatically 10,000 years ago, the temp dropped below current levels about 8000 years ago, and has been an a gradual climb ever since. You do have a small spike in the medieval period where earth was warmer than now, but it is not inconceivable that we will reach those levels again at some point. The question is, why do we attribute to man that potential, when it is obvious that man did not create or influence any prior warming? We have a prolonged cycle of warming and cooling, and we really can't blame carbon emissions for that. So, since even if we SOLVE the carbon emissions problem, we have no indication at all that it will affect warming. We should be spending our energy on practical solutions to the EFFECTS of warming, not vainly attempting to cure something that has a very low probability of actually being the root cause. I would be more worried about sulfur emissions and other outright poisonous gasses than CO2 which is actually beneficial.
Posted by loregothe (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
I believe in the global warming idea but am sick that there is no such thing as science anymore as all these foundations lust so greedily for money that they will do pretty much anything including (READ the emails, don't believe anyone on either side) conspiring to destroy data that was requested under the freedom of information act. The data would not disprove the global warming theory, but the deliberate destruction did prove that the scientists cannot be believed and would swear it was happening even if they knew it wasn't.
Posted by cerebral_but_dull (95 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Climategate and the Sellout of America
If you haven?t read or heard about the ?Climategate? scandal, you should have. The Climate
Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia, England had their email server hacked and several hundred
of their emails have been released publicly. None of these bode well for the CRU and their
?manipulation? of the data used to prove ?Climate Change? is being caused by ?man-made
sources?. They also reveal a very unscientific manner in refusing Freedom of Information
requests, deleting data, forging and ?tricking? data, and overtaking peer review journals that
have dissenting editors reviewing their work. No one in the CRU is denying their authenticity.
To take raw data, ?trick? it into making it support your hypothesis isn?t science. Refusing peer
review of your data sets (raw), analysis of your computer programs that generate the models,
and refusing FOI requests is simply very bad science and obtuse at best. To expect any
government body, specifically the IPCC arm of the United Nations, to rely on your ?research?
in developing legislation or policy is absurd in light of these emails.
Here are the facts regarding the CRU:
American taxpayers have been funding the CRU in England for years through various grants
directly and through the NOAA.
The U.N.?s IPCC has been relying heavily on their ?research? to develop the Kyoto and
Copenhagen Climate Change treaties.
The House and Senate version of the Cap and Trade bills are heavily relying on the CRU?s
?science? in assuming man-made global warming exists.
Under the Kyoto and the Copenhagen accords, highly industrial nations are going to be
required to literally TAX energy. Our scheme in Congress requires the purchase of carbon
credits to offset excessive emissions of CO2 over and above the ?Cap? you are allotted.
These ?credits? are going to be a new form of ?security? that will be sold like stocks and
bonds and will be available to the highest bidder if a companies initial allotment of these
carbon credits exceeds their needs. Alternative and renewable energy sources are
exempt, but any carbon based fuels used to generate electricity, fuels to run our vehicles,
or industries that use carbon based fuels to manufacture products (ie. Steel) will be forced
to buy credits over and above their ?cap? of CO2. Because these ?credits? are traded on
the open market, the Goldman-Sachs, the G.E.?s, and others engaged in the trading of
Carbon Credits will generate unbelievable profits. YOUR energy costs will rise as well.
Electricity and gasoline prices will skyrocket. Prices for ALL goods transported by any
means will rise as well due to increase in transportation costs. It is estimated that 1.9
million jobs will be shed as well as many factories and industries will simply shut down
due to these increased energy costs. The Copenhagen Treaty will assure that our nation,
with our existing industries, will pay into the IMF (through initial carbon-credit allocation
purchases) and will finance the growth of third world economies by assuring them they
can have industries and factories that will allow them to ?catch up? to the rest of the world.
These low to no interest ?loans? will come from the IMF as well as from investments by the
Investment Bankers (Goldman-Sachs to name one), the G.E.?s, and any OTHER companies
who are now located in the United States and need a good ?excuse? to move even more
American jobs to developing nations.
ALL of this is being done with YOUR tax dollars. Consider that these utilities, manufacturers,
and oil companies that will pay for these ?carbon credits?, will pass their costs directly to YOU
in the form of higher prices. As more and more of our energy consuming industries move
to these ?developing nations?, our economic growth base declines. Energy needs WILL be
reduced in America and production of energy sources in developing nations explodes-
economically and in quantity. Since they are NOT subject to ?cap and trade? schemes, the
cost of doing business in these countries is so much less, it means OUR industries are moved
overseas and we are left with virtually none. Simply look at the number of factories moved to
China, Mexico, and Indonesia since the NAFTA treaty and you get the idea of what America
is going to look like in a few short years.
Why, you ask is this information not being seen on our tv?s every evening so we Americans can
be informed about what is the best avenue for our government to take? Oh, I guess you don't
know yet? CNN, NBS, CBS, ABC, and MSNBC apparently have decided that they know
what is better for America than the people do. So they will feed you the news that is best for
you.
As the walls of Rome are smoking, the circus presents more subjects to the crowd.
Posted by youcancallmeroy (55 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.