On the face of it, I’d be surprised if there weren’t some degree of warming in the 20th Century as a result of bounceback from the nadir of the Little Ice Age, some 300 years back.

I also fully agree that the temperature rose during the 1980s and 90s. But a good part of those measurements may have been a result of the exurban creep (ACs, asphalt, buildings, malls, other heat sinks) and that hasn’t been accounted for.

Besides, this is, itself, “bounceback” from the “Eenie-Weenie Ice Age” from 1940 to the earlly 80s, exactly the point when CO2 output took off.

And, of course, in the last 10 years, the temperature has been “jig-jag flat” in spite of a 5% increase in CO2 output.

The graphs your daughter sees don’t show this because they use multi-year averaging, a method that makes “it goes up-and-then-down” look like “it goes up and stays there”. Or “it-goes-up-and-stays-there” look like “it-just-keeps-going-up”

Multi-year averaging IS important. It smoothes the outliers, and can indicate longterm (past) trends. But not to the exclusion of the year-by-year data. All the IPCC stuf that shows a continually increasing trend line over the last decade is a mere stitistical artifact .

Conclusion? Maybe temeperatures are up, maybe they are not. The Margins of Error and Statistical Snow dwarf the half-a-degree delta we all squawk about. In this sense, I am a “true denier”. Not only do I question man’s role, but I actually question the measurements themselves. Until the surface stations in the US AND the rest of the world have been CAREFULLY audited, I will remain skeptical. (No true liberal could do otherwise.)

Not until the audit is complete will we know how much of 20-century GW is “real” and how much is an artifact of continually increasing exurban creep and (astounding) microsite violations.

Your daughter will be told that oversampling cures all ills. But, oversampling won’t feed the bulldog, here, because the adjustment skew is all in one direction–to the warm.

Keep up the good work. All we want is the truth. If it’s warmer, it’s warmer. But if it ain’t, it ain’t! Answer still To Be Determined . . .

And maybe this is not so bad a lesson for the kiddies, either. They have been presented with a piece of advocacy shot through with very serious, and easily auditable errors. Throw in large and equal servings of surety and sanctimony, and this is bound to produce an intellectual counterreaction.

I think, overall, I am pleased that the kids are witness to this spectacle.

In later years, they will remember their trepidation, the somber, angry, or near-tearful attitude of their instructors. They will remember the abrupt intrusion of the political debate into their classrooms.

And if, as I suspect, the base measurement data is badly off-key and scandalously adjusted, they will, in later years, cast a jaundiced eye when some as-yet-unknown, similarly poorly supported end-of-the-world scenario is introduced and say, “Oh, yeah? Show me.”

I only hope that the wealth destroyed or never produced as a result of this intellectual-faith-based meltdown will not result in the deaths by disease and malnutrition of too many thousands of nine-year-old girls in poverty-stricken areas of the world. That is the tragedy which brings out my own sanctimony, but I can’t and won’t help it.

Tell, me, how did the teachers react to your daughter and the other kids? How did the other kids react?

This “global warming” hype is not helping the education of our young ones. One day it is this and the next it is that. Pardon my ‘ domestic-like’ comments into this forum . Fear is a mind killer especially when most of our public is glued to the “boob tube”. I am not brainy but I do indeed love the TRUTH of true science. Nerds have always been cool in my book ! Ha !

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/157%20evt.sci.fraud.pdf

Note the comments on the surface statons, Rev. Your work has not gone unnoticed!

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1

One advantage that may come out of this travesty is a more public demand for data and methods!

– Arf.

Bob

It’s debatable, i.e. unknown, how much of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is due to human activities, including, but by no means restricted to, burning of fossil fuels.

However, it doesn’t matter, unless you are a liberal and need something to feel guilty about. Increasing CO2 levels either is or isn’t a problem sufficiently serious we need to do something about it. The source of the CO2 is irrelevant, because every molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere is the same as every other molecule and all contribute equaly to whatever problem might exist (or not as the case may be).

So is increasing CO2 levels a sufficiently serious problem we need to do something about it?

The answer is we don’t know, but it is telling that there is almost no credible scientific evidence directly linking rising CO2 levels to increasing temperatures. In fact, almost all the direct evidence links observed warming to other causes. This absence of evidence for CO2 driven warming is the dog that doesn’t bark in the whole debate, and to be perfectly honest it is something of a mystery why we are not seeing CO2 driven warming.

Doubtless, at some point we will get an answer when the politically motivated fog surrounding the issue clears. My 2c worth is that a negative feedback, perhaps water vapour, largely cancels out the effect of CO2, which is pretty small anyway, less than 1 degree C for the fabled doubling of atmospheric CO2.

The Telegraph UK reported that the judge’s final ruling only contained nine:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/11/scigore111.xml

Perhaps there were some last minute changes by the judge to his final ruling.

The source in the first post cited 11 errors found by the court. This post cites 9. Do you know why the sources disagree?

I have a way that Gore can make a genuine contribution to peace. He can go to Iran and teach Physics. That should set their nuclear program back by twenty years.

As the WSJ says: “These men and women put their own lives and livelihoods at risk by working to rid the world of violence and oppression. Let us hope they survive the coming year so that the Nobel Prize Committee might consider them for the 2008 award.”