Ooops... Global Warming Data...

[Damocles]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

more at link...

 

[Onceler]

Oops...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27704012/

 

[Cancel3]

To post a link to a different ecological disastor doesn't change the fact that bogus data was used to proclaim October 2008 as the hottest on record.

Now don't get me wrong, there is certainly a need to cut back emissions and cut back the soot we put into the environment.

But the link you posted doesn't seem to answer what Damo posted.

 

[Onceler]

To post a link to a different ecological disastor doesn't change the fact that bogus data was used to proclaim October 2008 as the hottest on record.

Now don't get me wrong, there is certainly a need to cut back emissions and cut back the soot we put into the environment.

But the link you posted doesn't seem to answer what Damo posted.

True. I'm just tired of this crap. Fossil fuels suck, period - whether you're talking about national security or the economy or our environment.

 

[Damocles]

True. I'm just tired of this crap. Fossil fuels suck, period - whether you're talking about national security or the economy or our environment.

We agree.

Which doesn't change that they use false data, pretty consistently, to make you more alarmed. Shoot, just a day or two ago somebody was saying that the ice at the north pole would be gone, based on global warming models. Yet ice at the north pole is now at 1980 levels and increasing.

Fix the problem because we shouldn't be paying 700 Billion per year for foreign sources of energy. Especially energy that makes the nasty cloud over the Platte Valley (Where Denver is). Fix it because pumping crap into the air and water is bad. Fix it for myriad reasons. We can agree on that.

 

[uscitizen]

Someone was too lazy to do their job and repoked in the old data ?

Does sound like a govt operation.

 

[Cancel3]

True. I'm just tired of this crap. Fossil fuels suck, period - whether you're talking about national security or the economy or our environment.

You will get no argument from me on that. We need to be working harder and faster to completely replace fossil fuels as an energy source.

But that does not change the premise of Damo's post, that the people responsible for providing scientific data are using bogus or wildly inaccurate numbers to push their point.

There are plenty of reasons to ditch fossil fuels, as you pointed out. But lets be honest about the numbers at the same time.

 

[Annie]

You will get no argument from me on that. We need to be working harder and faster to completely replace fossil fuels as an energy source.

But that does not change the premise of Damo's post, that the people responsible for providing scientific data are using bogus or wildly inaccurate numbers to push their point.

There are plenty of reasons to ditch fossil fuels, as you pointed out. But lets be honest about the numbers at the same time.

And their using bogus and inaccurate numbers is difficult to believe accidental. Considering Al Gore's growing rich off of them. Seriously, why would anyone ever believe poop?

 

[midcan5]

Yep, why not pollute the earth, ruin streams, rivers and oceans, destroy wildlife, stuff life itself depends on, that makes sense as endtime is soon. You say, no! Heck, then take care of your mother, she's the only earth we have. Make sense? I think so.

 

[Annie]

Yep, why not pollute the earth, ruin streams, rivers and oceans, destroy wildlife, stuff life itself depends on, that makes sense as endtime is soon. You say, no! Heck, then take care of your mother, she's the only earth we have. Make sense? I think so.

Actually the mother is to protect the children, as is the father. There is little of science based data to say the children are killing either.

 

[Cancel3]

Yep, why not pollute the earth, ruin streams, rivers and oceans, destroy wildlife, stuff life itself depends on, that makes sense as endtime is soon. You say, no! Heck, then take care of your mother, she's the only earth we have. Make sense? I think so.

Midcan, is there some reason you went on this little rant?

No one has said anything about wanting to pollute the earth. You make it sound as though, by wanting them to use scientific data or accurate data, we are choosing to pour poisons into the world.

You are being an ass about it.

There are no posts that are doing anything except talking about the incompetence of the people gathering the data.

Should we just accept any data without question?

Should we accept that the data for one single month was used for 3 months?

Should we just accept sloppy work?

No one even suggested that it was intentional, and yet you go off like we are suggesting the oil companies be allowed to pump directly into the ocean.

 

[Cancel5]

Well, when I have tropical country up here and the rest of you are all dried up, please do come and visit me!

I will, with my son be running the polar bear preservation version of Disneyland!

 

[Good Luck]

True. I'm just tired of this crap. Fossil fuels suck, period - whether you're talking about national security or the economy or our environment.

Very few would disagree with the position we need to get off fossil fuels. But why not get off of fossil fuels using genuine reasons instead of a bunch of cooked "science" to support scare mongering and falsified reasons? There are more reasons than Carter's little pills for getting off fossil fuels that have nothing to do with global warming. The entire AGW has done little but stir up an unnecessary controversy and taken focus off valid reasons.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Anyone can "get off" fossil fuels right now. Just buy ethanol, hybrids, use electric heating, buy wind/solar, etc... Perfectly free to do so.

The reason most of us don't is that fossil fuels cost less and the cost to the environment is to neglible to be felt except in areas where smog is a major concern such as LA, Houston, etc... Some cities see people freely buying more greener options, but it's up to each individual to freely determine what is best for them.

We all have great ideas about how the world should live, but sadly that always seems to translate to how we want others made to live and not ourselves.

 

[Onceler]

Anyone can "get off" fossil fuels right now. Just buy ethanol, hybrids, use electric heating, buy wind/solar, etc... Perfectly free to do so.

The reason most of us don't is that fossil fuels cost less and the cost to the environment is to neglible to be felt except in areas where smog is a major concern such as LA, Houston, etc... Some cities see people freely buying more greener options, but it's up to each individual to freely determine what is best for them.

We all have great ideas about how the world should live, but sadly that always seems to translate to how we want others made to live and not ourselves.

You can't really think like this.

You'll call it alarmist, so I'll use the word "if." IF it was conclusive that fossil fuels disrupted our globe to such a point as to endanger our food supply, would you then believe that action to get the populace as a whole off of them and onto alternative sources would be necessary?

Or would you still leave it just up to the individual?

 

[uscitizen]

Anyone can "get off" fossil fuels right now. Just buy ethanol, hybrids, use electric heating, buy wind/solar, etc... Perfectly free to do so.

The reason most of us don't is that fossil fuels cost less and the cost to the environment is to neglible to be felt except in areas where smog is a major concern such as LA, Houston, etc... Some cities see people freely buying more greener options, but it's up to each individual to freely determine what is best for them.

We all have great ideas about how the world should live, but sadly that always seems to translate to how we want others made to live and not ourselves.

LOL, You dumbass.

Fossil fuels make at least 75% of our electricity. Coal, oil, natural gas are all fossil fuels.
"Ethanol" tha you can run in your car is still 85% fossil fuel, and Bio willie about 75% I think fossil fuel.

 

[Good Luck]

Anyone can "get off" fossil fuels right now. Just buy ethanol, hybrids, use electric heating, buy wind/solar, etc... Perfectly free to do so.

The reason most of us don't is that fossil fuels cost less and the cost to the environment is to neglible to be felt except in areas where smog is a major concern such as LA, Houston, etc... Some cities see people freely buying more greener options, but it's up to each individual to freely determine what is best for them.

We all have great ideas about how the world should live, but sadly that always seems to translate to how we want others made to live and not ourselves.

There is far more involved than what individuals purchase for their personal energy needs. Millions of tons of coal are being burned to make electricity. It will take more than individuals to shift the electrical production infrastructure to cleaner fuels. Millions of barrels of fuel oil are burned in heating large buildings and complexes - many of which are public. It will take more than the independent decisions of individuals to shift that infrastructure over to non-fossil sources.

Also, it will take more that the independent decisions of individuals to do the research necessary to make renewable energy sources more affordable and bring them online where individuals have access. There are many places that ethanol blend gasoline, or bio diesel are not available choices.

In short, it IS a decision that will need to be made as a society, not on the individual level.

 

[uscitizen]

Bio Diesel will not work in colder parts of the country. And it is still mostly a petro product.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You will get no argument from me on that. We need to be working harder and faster to completely replace fossil fuels as an energy source.

But that does not change the premise of Damo's post, that the people responsible for providing scientific data are using bogus or wildly inaccurate numbers to push their point.

There are plenty of reasons to ditch fossil fuels, as you pointed out. But lets be honest about the numbers at the same time.

Agreed that we need to do everything we can to eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

As for the alarmists... they do more harm than good when they exagerate or use false data.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Anyone can "get off" fossil fuels right now. Just buy ethanol, hybrids, use electric heating, buy wind/solar, etc... Perfectly free to do so.

The reason most of us don't is that fossil fuels cost less and the cost to the environment is to neglible to be felt except in areas where smog is a major concern such as LA, Houston, etc... Some cities see people freely buying more greener options, but it's up to each individual to freely determine what is best for them.

We all have great ideas about how the world should live, but sadly that always seems to translate to how we want others made to live and not ourselves.

the bolded portion is simply idiotic. The burning of fossil fuels is bad for our health and for the environment. There is no question on that point.