Is this that evidence of global warming is a sham?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091203/ap_on_re_us/us_weird_weather

Somehow I don't think that during climate events...Ice Ages don't happen in a span of a few decades but over the course of many millennium. If abnormal weather conditions are breaking records constantly, not temperature, does that show something? If it started snowing in LA or San Diego, or the midwest of the US turned into a desert due to deforesting, erosion, wind damage, pollution, over farming, urban sprawl, would temperature data still be the only thing to be looked at?

Answer 1

You're joking right? You might want to try reading the third and fourth words in the headline.



"Rain, winds, record heat hit Northeast on same day"



They don't prove anything about global warming because they're just local weather events, but I'm pretty sure record heat is not "evidence of global warming is a sham," as you so eloquently put it.

Answer 2

Climate change is real -- nobody is questioning that assertion. It can be measured, observed and tested in a scientific capacity. When the climate changes, it alters the weather.



Using local changes in the weather as anecdotal evidence to support AGW isn't scientific. It may be convincing for some folks but these weather patterns can be directly attributed to natural climate change and the few consistent cycles we do understand -- like El Nino (this year) and La Nina (next year).



The claims being made for AGW aren't backed by sound science. The evidence you're looking for doesn't require you to accept that the climate is static to refute the speculative science that is AGW. You have to assess AGW upon its own merits.



The e-mail exchanges b/n the lead scientists for AGW talking about manipulating and suppressing data change the 'climate' of the discussion.



Plenty to read here



www.eastangliaemails.com



Mike, Ray and Malcolm,

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated ! Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere

rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don't realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series ! Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn't bother with that. Also ignored Francis' comment about all the other series looking similar

to MBH. The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.

Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !

Cheers

Phil

PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!

Answer 3

If you look at good validated scientific data not liberal fantasy you can clearly see that minor ice ages like the Dalton of 1790 to 1820 can happen fairly quickly. The more severe Maunder occurred between 1640 and 1720 and was much more severe than the more recent Dalton. The little ice age from about 1300 through 1820 was caused by 4 solar minimums of which the Maunder was the most serious. Our sun is a variable output star that can vary its output up to 20% and possibly more from its lowest activity point to its highest activity. One of the longest lasting and most serious discussions in science is what causes this extreme variation in solar output. There are many ideas that have been floated over the centuries on this and the what to me seems the most sensible was expressed by Isaac Asimov back in the 50s in this novel.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Currents_of_Space



The base points he uses about stars performance levels being affected by thin streams of matter that he terms currents of space to me and many others seems to be a good explanation of why stars can and do have extreme variability cycles in their output. I have also read and evaluated the comments on climate written by many liberals over the years and found them to not even come close to exceptionally well documented facts on the subject. And then I find them altering materials that I have observed in my lifetime and claiming they either did not happen or were opposite to what I had observed. Altogether I fully agree that very few liberal minds know very much at all about any kind of science because they first of all do not have the mental capacity for science.





Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:0Master_Past_20000yrs_temperatures_icecore_Vostok_150dpi.png

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Where the heat came from and why it was abnormally cold previously

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

Answer 4

This is not evidence that the whole thing is a sham. first of all. the people that are claiming that it is a sham want you to believe that a global socialist plot is taking place. That it involves thousands of reports by hundreds of well respected climatologists over 20+ years. What I want to know is; if the skeptics are willing to believe that a multi-generational, mulit-national, multi-billion dollar theory is actually a plot by socialists then why aren't they willing to believe that maybe, just maybe, their interests are at play taking data completely out of context, magnifying and emphasizing those things which support their beliefs, and that one body of e-mails doesn't disprove a massive library of reports contrary to their beliefs. Who were the hackers? did they doctor the e-mails? if it is true that data was altered, in what way was it altered? is the data that was altered the only data stream out there? think about how absurd it is not only to conclude that one body of e-mails disproves 20 years of scientific research but also that it proves that said research is being skewed by some covert body bent on socializing the world. Bottom line is we need to slow down, stop jumping to conclusions and ask questions. This potential consequences of climate change are too great to allow a group of hackers, a blogosphere and some very heavily incentivized groups to assert their will without contest.

Answer 5

The data was a lie. Why have those who support the theory of Global warming at Vasser University not provide information requests IFOA for their data to support the theory.

Answer 6

Just look up the weather records from 203 bc, 15 ad, 231 ad and 1102 ad. Ooops, we don't have those records!



Think about it!

Answer 7

Climate change and overpopulation are two serious threats to the world.

Answer 8

deniers will continue to deny until the damage is irreversible.



We have watched the ice caps shrink at an alarming rate... if that's not proof that the temperature is getting hotter, then I don't know what people think the reason for that is.



The recent scandal are those emails that have outed some scientist acting very unprofessionally, however we can't ignore all the data, we must continue to place our brightest minds on this issue to better understand our situation..

Answer 9

yah