When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scrapiron
15 years ago
It must sting to be so educated and so stupid you can’t admit you made a mistake. If they could only find a conservative to blame it on they would dance in the streets screaming ‘global warming is a farce’.
This reminds me of a job I had with a company contracted to provide control systems for a couple of nuclear power plants. Any time our reports on earthquake simulation tests revealed that some of the components might not work as desired, we lowly test engineers were told that we must have made mistakes, and we we then instructed by our supervisors to “Make the numbers fit the graphs.” Truth be told, any exceptions were always minor, but that was not our company’s call to make (nuclear regulatory engineers were supposed to be notified of any data exceptions.)
Nonetheless, we knew what we were doing, and even jokingly referred to ourselves as “Data Creation Engineers.” Luckily (?), the power plants involved have outlived their usefulness and are now shut down.
Your American tax dollars hard at work!
JV
bill-tb
15 years ago
Just an honest mistake …
Pay more in taxes to the government, so government scientists can fake the data and pretend to control the weather. The perfect tax scam. Someone explain to me how magic tax beans effect the climate?
The Arctic story reminds me of a temperature chart from Dr. Willie Soon that I saw last week. It graphed the temperature in the Arctic, first against the carbon dioxide levels, and then against solar output. Out of the three spikes since the 1850s, only the last one shows any possible link between carbon dioxide and temperature, while all three match up almost exactly with the variations in solar output.
Of course, since that is a truly inconvenient truth, the Gorebal “Warming” acolytes will duly ignore it.
mynameis
15 years ago
just so I know, you have studied meteorology where and for how long?
@mynameis: “just so I know, you have studied meteorology where and for how long?”
Is that relevant? Would you like a list of meterologists who have debunked the alarmist view of manmade global warming? Would that satisfy you?
For the record, I worked for a number of years at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Perhaps you would like to share YOUR environmental credentials with us…..
Neo
15 years ago
… how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped.
If, for a moment, we assume this report to be completely factual, we are left with 2 possible courses of action ..
1) spend the wealth of nations to roll it back the tiniest fraction
2) put the proverbial gun to our collective heads and “party like is 1999.”
… any possible 3rd way (& the 1st) is futile and wasteful
Effectively, the people of Earth are relegated to “hospice care”.
“You matter because of who you are. You matter to the last moment of your life, and we will do all we can , not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die“. –Dame Cicely Saunders
… it’s option #2
Neo
15 years ago
Oh, apparently the Antarctica has been warming for the last 5 decades, but cooling for the last 2 decades.
Depending on how you pick the window for an analysis, you can find virtually anything.
Any statistician, who worked or aspired to work for the Tobacco Institute, can tell you that.
And the Antarctica study completely ignored volcanic activity that has been discovered near the peninsula. Last I checked volcanoes were warm.
Eric Steig says ..
Volcanoes under the ice can’t affect climate on the surface, 2 miles above!
.. but ..
For Antarctica, “This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet,” Dr. Vaughan said.
eaglewingz08
15 years ago
Liberalism is a mental disease and global warming is its insane love child. Liberalism is irrational (contrary to what liberals falsely claim about conservatives) hence any show of logic disproving liberal’s irrational belief system is met with DIVA emotional outbursts worthy of a two year old’s tantrum.
Even after correction of the mistake, October was still among the hottest Octobers on record. I think, as in 2nd warmest, if memory serves. Those guys are collecting thousands of pieces of information every day and feeding it into computers and doing data analyses. Of course, they’ll make mistakes! I make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes.
If you want the real story about the Antarctic warming data, go to:
There you will find a very robust discussion, which includes the authors of the Jan 22, 2009 study published in Nature, as well as 50 follow up comments, from expert climate scientists from around the globe.
A disbelieving Ross Hayes, an atmospheric scientist who has often visited the Antarctic for Nasa, sent Professor Steig a caustic email ending: “with statistics you can make numbers go to any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage.”
The authors reply to the “disbelieving Ross Hayes.”
The truth of this matter is clear if you look at the response of the authors of the Nature article:
‘The paper shows that Antarctica has been warming for the last 50 years, and that it has been warming especially in West Antarctica (see the figure). The results are based on a statistical blending of satellite data and temperature data from weather stations. The results don’t depend on the statistics alone. They are backed up by independent data from automatic weather stations, as shown in our paper as well as in updated work by Bromwich, Monaghan and others (see their AGU abstract, here), whose earlier work in JGR was taken as contradicting ours. There is also a paper in press in Climate Dynamics (Goosse et al.) that uses a GCM with data assimilation (and without the satellite data we use) and gets the same result. Furthermore, speculation that our results somehow simply reflect changes in the near-surface inversion is ruled out by completely independent results showing that significant warming in West Antarctica extends well into the troposphere. And finally, our results have already been validated by borehole thermometery — a completely independent method — at at least one site in West Antarctica (Barrett et al. report the same rate of warming as we do, but going back to 1930 rather than 1957; see the paper in press in GRL).’
Scroll down to Jan 22 for the paper on Antarctic warming. There are now more than 124 follow up comments, from scientists around the world. It is obvious that the work and conclusions are strongly supported by both scientists and science. For example, the reason for the temperature difference in the East Antarctic (where there are many temperature gathering stations) and West Antarctica (where there are few such stations) relates both to the Antarctic ozone hole (which allows for cooling) and resulting wind flow patterns (warmer air being drawn down to the West Antarctic) with there being an overall warming effect.
The problem with both Mike and Mike’s “Global Warming Swindle” video is that each has are highly selective in who they allow to present their opinions and data. It’s as if I want to prove that “Slumdog Millionaire” is a lousy movie; so I go to the Rotten Tomatoes movie review website, which collects scores of reviews from around the world, and I just cherry pick the reviews which don’t like the movie, without the broad preponderance of people who like the movie a chance to respond.
is open to all scientists from around the world, and all the major climate scientists typically engage in vigorous discussion of all important stories and studies, as they appear, either in peer review journals (such as Nature) or news media (including blogs). It’s the single best source of climate related information on the web.
It must sting to be so educated and so stupid you can’t admit you made a mistake. If they could only find a conservative to blame it on they would dance in the streets screaming ‘global warming is a farce’.
This reminds me of a job I had with a company contracted to provide control systems for a couple of nuclear power plants. Any time our reports on earthquake simulation tests revealed that some of the components might not work as desired, we lowly test engineers were told that we must have made mistakes, and we we then instructed by our supervisors to “Make the numbers fit the graphs.” Truth be told, any exceptions were always minor, but that was not our company’s call to make (nuclear regulatory engineers were supposed to be notified of any data exceptions.)
Nonetheless, we knew what we were doing, and even jokingly referred to ourselves as “Data Creation Engineers.” Luckily (?), the power plants involved have outlived their usefulness and are now shut down.
Your American tax dollars hard at work!
JV
Just an honest mistake …
Pay more in taxes to the government, so government scientists can fake the data and pretend to control the weather. The perfect tax scam. Someone explain to me how magic tax beans effect the climate?
Just and honest mistake, I assure you …
The Arctic story reminds me of a temperature chart from Dr. Willie Soon that I saw last week. It graphed the temperature in the Arctic, first against the carbon dioxide levels, and then against solar output. Out of the three spikes since the 1850s, only the last one shows any possible link between carbon dioxide and temperature, while all three match up almost exactly with the variations in solar output.
Of course, since that is a truly inconvenient truth, the Gorebal “Warming” acolytes will duly ignore it.
just so I know, you have studied meteorology where and for how long?
@mynameis: “just so I know, you have studied meteorology where and for how long?”
Is that relevant? Would you like a list of meterologists who have debunked the alarmist view of manmade global warming? Would that satisfy you?
For the record, I worked for a number of years at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Perhaps you would like to share YOUR environmental credentials with us…..
If, for a moment, we assume this report to be completely factual, we are left with 2 possible courses of action ..
1) spend the wealth of nations to roll it back the tiniest fraction
2) put the proverbial gun to our collective heads and “party like is 1999.”
… any possible 3rd way (& the 1st) is futile and wasteful
Effectively, the people of Earth are relegated to “hospice care”.
… it’s option #2
Oh, apparently the Antarctica has been warming for the last 5 decades, but cooling for the last 2 decades.
Depending on how you pick the window for an analysis, you can find virtually anything.
Any statistician, who worked or aspired to work for the Tobacco Institute, can tell you that.
And the Antarctica study completely ignored volcanic activity that has been discovered near the peninsula. Last I checked volcanoes were warm.
Eric Steig says ..
.. but ..
Liberalism is a mental disease and global warming is its insane love child. Liberalism is irrational (contrary to what liberals falsely claim about conservatives) hence any show of logic disproving liberal’s irrational belief system is met with DIVA emotional outbursts worthy of a two year old’s tantrum.
Even after correction of the mistake, October was still among the hottest Octobers on record. I think, as in 2nd warmest, if memory serves. Those guys are collecting thousands of pieces of information every day and feeding it into computers and doing data analyses. Of course, they’ll make mistakes! I make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes.
If you want the real story about the Antarctic warming data, go to:
Scroll down to Jan. 22, 2009.
There you will find a very robust discussion, which includes the authors of the Jan 22, 2009 study published in Nature, as well as 50 follow up comments, from expert climate scientists from around the globe.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
The authors reply to the “disbelieving Ross Hayes.”
As I’ve urged before, rather that getting information from pundits, get information from the source.
Scroll down to Jan 22 for the paper on Antarctic warming. There are now more than 124 follow up comments, from scientists around the world. It is obvious that the work and conclusions are strongly supported by both scientists and science. For example, the reason for the temperature difference in the East Antarctic (where there are many temperature gathering stations) and West Antarctica (where there are few such stations) relates both to the Antarctic ozone hole (which allows for cooling) and resulting wind flow patterns (warmer air being drawn down to the West Antarctic) with there being an overall warming effect.
The problem with both Mike and Mike’s “Global Warming Swindle” video is that each has are highly selective in who they allow to present their opinions and data. It’s as if I want to prove that “Slumdog Millionaire” is a lousy movie; so I go to the Rotten Tomatoes movie review website, which collects scores of reviews from around the world, and I just cherry pick the reviews which don’t like the movie, without the broad preponderance of people who like the movie a chance to respond.
is open to all scientists from around the world, and all the major climate scientists typically engage in vigorous discussion of all important stories and studies, as they appear, either in peer review journals (such as Nature) or news media (including blogs). It’s the single best source of climate related information on the web.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: “If you want the real story about the Antarctic warming data, go to….”
Yeah, go to a site dedicated to perpetuating the lies, distortions and propaganda that is fast becoming an embarrasment to scientists everywhere.
Did you really watch the Great Global Warming Swindle Larry or just read the cliff notes at Real Climate?
The facts remain that no one has shown a direct link to man’s activity and any climate change.
PERIOD!
Not to mention the fact that increases in CO2 follow temperature and not the other way around.
You didn’t watch the film did you Larry…..