Flashback: U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

Here’s a blast from the past. Dr. James Hansen’s view in 1989 seemed a lot more temperate than it does today. Back then, he’s ready to accede to a study that says something counter to what his theory predicts, saying “I have no quarrel with it”. Today, he uses labels like “deniers” (see here) when such contradictory essays and facts are made public. What a difference 20 years makes.

And even back then, with no firm evidence in hand, Gore was pushing to cede White House environmental policy to “world policy”.


January 26, 1989

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times
Correction Appended

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25—
After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.

Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ”cast doubt” on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.

Readings taken by other scientists have suggested a significant warming worldwide over the last 100 years. Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in this century and that the average temperatures in the 1980’s are the highest on record.

Dr. Hansen and other scientists have said that that there is a high degree of probability that this warming trend is associated with the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases that absorb and retain radiation.

But other scientists, while agreeing with this basic theory of a greenhouse effect, say there is no convincing evidence that a pollution-induced warming has already begun.

Dr. Michael E. Schlesinger, an atmospheric scientist at Oregon State University who studies climate models, said there is no inconsistency between the data presented by the NOAA team and the greenhouse theory. But he said he regarded the new data as inconsistent with assumptions that such an effect is already detectable. More Droughts Predicted

Many of the computer models that predict global warming also predict that certain areas, including the Midwest in the United States, would suffer more frequent droughts.

Dr. Hanson of NOAA said today that the new study does not in any way contradict the findings reported by the NASA scientists and others. He said that his study, in which he was joined by George A. Maul and Thomas A. Karl, also of NOAA, looked at only the 48 contiguous states.

Dr. Hanson said that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect might have been countered by some cooling phenomenon that has not yet been identified and that the readings in his study recorded the net effect.

”We have to be careful about interpreting things like this,” he said. What About Urbanization? One aspect of the study that Dr. Hanson said was interesting was the finding that the urbanization of the United States has apparently not had a statistically significant effect on average temperature readings. A number of scientists have theorized that the replacement of forests and pastures by asphalt streets and concrete buildings, which retain heat, is an important cause of rising temperatures.

Dr. Hansen of NASA said today that he had ”no quarrel” with the findings in the new study. He noted that the United States covered only 1.5 percent of Earth. ”If you have only one degree warming on a global average, how much do you get at random” when taking measurements in such a relatively small area, he asked rhetorically.

”We are just arguing now about whether the global warming effect is large enough to see,” he added. ”It is not suprising we are not seeing it in a region that covers only 1.5 percent of the globe.”

Dr. Hansen said there were several ways to look at the temperature readings for the United States, including as a ”statistical fluke.”

Possibililty of Countereffects

Another possibility, he said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.

Dr. Hansen suggested that at some point there could be a jump in temperature readings in the United States if the measurements in the new study were a statistical aberration or the result of atmospheric pollutants reflecting heat away from Earth. He noted that anti-pollution efforts are reducing the amount of these particles and thus reducing the reflection of heat.

Several computer models have projected that the greenhouse effect would cause average global temperatures to rise between 3 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century. But scientists concede that reactions set off by the warming trend itself could upset these predictions and produce unanticipated changes in climate patterns.

Legislative Action Sought

Coincidentally with the new report, legislation was introduced in the Senate today prescribing actions for addressing the threat of global warming. Senator Al Gore, Democrat of Tennessee, introduced a bill that calls for creating a Council on World Environmental Policy to replace the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality. This change would emphasize the international aspects of environmental issues.

The bill would also require a ban on industrial chemicals that not only are depleting the atmosphere’s ozone layer, which blocks harmful ultraviolet radiation, but are believed to be contributing to the warming trend. It would also require stricter fuel-economy standards for automobiles to reduce the consumption of gasoline to reduce carbon dioxide.

About these ads

98 thoughts on “Flashback: U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

  1. Priceless…

    Hansen: ”We are just arguing now about whether the global warming effect is large enough to see,”…

  2. Many of the computer models that predict global warming also predict that certain areas, including the Midwest in the United States, would suffer more frequent droughts.

    Has this turned out to be accurate?

  3. “Dr. Hansen and other scientists have said that that there is a high degree of probability …”

    Which sounds a bit less confident than
    “Very high confidence…” in AR4

    Are they mellowing?

  4. As the American are fond of saying, ‘what a crock!’

    No warning trend found so lets blame some ‘unknown’ forcing factor.

    If this study had found any warning trends, you can bet your bottom dollar that the story would have been a straight ‘warming found’ piece.

  5. That’s how a hoax in the public domain is started.
    What was the name of the newspaper again?

  6. I note the Arctic ice has stopped expanding, maybe to show we sceptics are objective and even handed this should be highlighted.

  7. The U.S. is the country with the best data set available, and it’s not that small a place. To assume that a global phenomenon somehow “skips” the United States seems far-fetched, and without good reason it is a frivolous contention.

    That the United States with its fuel-burning, urbanizing ways should not show a UHI effect gives pause. What happened to that? Is it really aerosols? Or is there really cooling, as seen in many rural stations, neutralized by UHI in others?

  8. QUOTE:
    Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ”cast doubt” on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.
    END QUOTE

    That wording is highly illuminating.
    US weathar just a regional variation? Small part of the earths surface?
    Yeah, what he is saying is “Please don’t hit me, I just had to get my report published and I’m trying not to say up front that AGW is rubbish.”

  9. Newsflash: SS Global Warming is sinking

    (Off Topic, but still worth it.)

    Over the last few years, the average google hits for news on either global warming or climate change has been around 13,667, reaching an all time peak in Dec 2009 with 23,800 news stories in that month.

    In Jan 2010 that figure sharply declined from those at the end of 2009 when climategate was fresh to 14,200. But last month (Feb 2010) that figure crashed to 2790. That is a massive drop to 20% of “average”. It’ has not been so low since Feb 2004 in terms of the number of hits, but as many more media have gone on-line in that period the it is more like it was in 1995 in terms of percentage of the news. (Based on the scale used by google, which I assume is a scale with relative percentage of all news story hits)

    Moreover, the type of story has also dramatically changed. Before climategate it was common to search 50 or so stories and not find one with a proper scientific scepticism. I would now say as a rough rule of thumb, that there is just a majority of news stories that are sceptical. More importantly, the kind of news story that used to be the cheap fillers between serious news: “the global warming could ..” prefix to any research which the University hoped to get publicity for by linking it with the kudos of global warming, is now a very rare exception.

    So at a rough estimate, the percentage “pro” stories has fallen by something like 90%. The percentage of “pro” stories from the general academic research community has probably fallen by another order of magnitude.

    Late me state that again: the MSM support for global warming (propaganda) is now at 10%, of the average value in the last few years.

    This really is like sitting on the coast in Indonesia and suddenly watching the publicity tide going out from the beach leaving global warming fish flapping in little pools isolated from the sea. What do we do next? Go down onto the beach and pick up the fish and eat them for supper? Lift up our King Canute deck-chairs and go home with a job well done?

    See: http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=%22climate+change%22+OR+%22global+warming%22&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=uk&um=1&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2010/02&as_hdate=2010/02&lnav=hist1

  10. @Mooloo (00:24:39) :

    “Many of the computer models that predict global warming also predict that certain areas, including the Midwest in the United States, would suffer more frequent droughts.

    Has this turned out to be accurate?”

    Certainly not in 2008.
    See: MIDWEST FLOOD RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
    Link: http://www.usa.gov/flooding.shtml

  11. Gareth Phillips (01:00:09) :
    JAXA
    I note the Arctic ice has stopped expanding, maybe to show we sceptics are objective and even handed this should be highlighted.

    I don’t agree with that graph from NSDC, it being fabricated for the AGW agenda,,, have a look at DMI, NORSEX , JAXA. Cryosphere today has been known to constantly change the NH picture to suit the AGW agenda as well
    Im sick and tired of these people, no longer time to be nice to them… refer toclimategate and IPCC LOL

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

  12. Well….. the truth was out there!
    Watts, EM Smith,DÀleo,satellites, Willy Eisenbach,Monckton,Long ,Spencer,Lindzen,Pielke JR & Sr,McIntyre,Carter,Plimer,Karlèn and numerous other created an unorginazed pack of woodpeckers.Finnaly bringing this big rutten awful dangerous tree down!Mainstream media has made on an for trust and reability long slow harakiri! We will never forget whos to trust and whòs not!

  13. Depicting USA as 1,5% of the world is not true !!, it’s more than 2%
    USA occupies 6% of worlds total land mass, so then it looks different with a stable temerature.

  14. OT

    Credit Agricole have been reading their Mencken (“the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary”) but not their WUWT:

  15. “Coincidentally with the new report, legislation was introduced in the Senate today prescribing actions for addressing the threat of global warming. Senator Al Gore, Democrat of Tennessee, introduced a bill that calls for creating a Council on World Environmental Policy to replace the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality. This change would emphasize the international aspects of environmental issues.”

    What coincidence?

    That is how a political PR campaign works.

  16. Mike Haseler (02:52:23) : “Over the last few years, the average google hits for news on either global warming or climate change has been around 13,667, reaching an all time peak in Dec 2009 with 23,800 news stories in that month.”

    It must be the way you do your search. Just now I did “climate change news” for 31.3 million hits and “global warming news” for 24 million hits. These come from Australia, using the button from Australia rather than Global. Can you be more explicit how you search?

  17. Let’s see. The climate scientists are panicking for detecting a rise of about 0.6 C over 100 or so years. Has anyone stopped to think such a rise is not even measurable over that time? It’s less than the noise level and the amount one would expect from natural variability. So why the panic? Where’s the catastrophic warming? Obviously there isn’t any. As for predicting the future using computer models of climate change – we all know they are just wild guesses and are useless. I can already see in the decades to come how all the AGW alarmists will be considered to be fraudsters and hoaxes at best, and corrupt and grimy individuals at worst who deserve to be behind bars.

  18. @ jbrodhead (01:45:13) :

    “Here’s an article a FB friend just posted…
    http://www.alternet.org/environment/145838/how_the_mountain_of_climate_change_evidence_is_being_used_to_und

    That article is written by Bill McKibben. Obviously the author takes that “Mountain of Climate Change Evidence” as gospel, and is unwilling to recognize how the science has been corrupted by politics, as well as the skewing and cherry picking of data, the uncertainty of the AGW hypothesis, the complexity of the Climate, the unreliability of proxy data, the gross exaggerations and unproven claims regarding how much increased CO2 will affect the climate, the infancy of Climatology, that correlation is not proof of causation, the fallibility of climate computer models (can’t even reliably predict last week’s weather), the reliance of Climate researchers on “one sided” grant funding, the rigging of the peer review process, the motivations of the UN /IPCC (just Google “Maurice Strong”), the lies and distortions contained in “An inconvenient Truth”, the history of natural climate change going back millions of years, AND the mountain of counter evidence. Did I miss anything? McKibben’s article is hardly fair and balanced. Rather than we AGW skeptics having an “OJ Moment” as suggested by McKibben, the warmists have been having a 20 year “Cardiff Giant” moment.

  19. completely o/t but over the road from me is a “zero-emission” electric van on charge, plugged into a mains outlet.

    Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this kind of mindless greenwash? Yes, the vehicle doesn’t emit but I’ll bet the coal-fired power station it’s plugged into does.

  20. I wonder if there was no warming trend because they hadn’t yet ‘added value’ (massaged) to the data…

  21. Hmmm — no warming up until 1989 or so. No warming from 1995 to the present as admitted by Jones. Must be one hell of a spike there between 89 and 95 then — anyone see it?

  22. This essay was before GISS had ‘clarified’ the record, and before the hockey sticks had been ‘discovered’.
    On a serious note, I think the history will show that in the El Nino year of 1998, Hansen and the politicians decided that what they thought saw was *proof* of AGW calamity and flipped right about then from simply scientists and advocates into fear mongers and charlatans.
    All for the best of reasons (in their minds).

  23. As there has been no warming prior to 1989 according to Hanssen(Thankyou Dr. Hanssen!) and there has been no warming since 1995…..so, we have a window of 6 years where the Science isn’t settled but otherwise we all agree. But what ever happened between those years(nothing), everything returned to normal by 1995. This is a very damning article with Gore already throthing at the mouth with all the cash that can be made and power he can garner without the slightest piece of science to stand on.

  24. There are a great many variables to knowledge of even how climate interacts.
    Temperature reading are effects along with increased precipitation are effects.

    The climate models will always be wrong as not all the variables will have been thought of to put in.
    Our own arrogance that the theories we have now is 100% correct will be civilizations downfall.

    Very few people on this planet have a very good understanding of how this planet actually works. Why?
    Too many people believe what ever is written must be true.
    Our understanding of science is so backward that it totally misses the mark of the achievements this planet went through to adapt and change to give us the balance we see today.

    Darwin did not go deep enough! Similar plant and animal life evolved differently when the land masses broke apart and became separate isolation areas. This is only one variable.

  25. ……………………………Slabadang (02:56:23) : Well….. the truth was out there!
    Watts, EM Smith,DÀleo,satellites, Willy Eisenbach,Monckton,Long ,Spencer,Lindzen,Pielke JR & Sr,McIntyre,Carter,Plimer,Karlèn and numerous other created an unorginazed pack of woodpeckers.Finnaly bringing this big rutten awful dangerous tree down!Mainstream media has made on an for trust and reability long slow harakiri! We will never forget whos to trust and whòs not!

    I’d like to add that Roll:
    Professor Tim Ball – Dept. of Climatology – Uni. Winnipeg
    Professor Nir Shaviv – Institute of Physics – Uni. Jerusalem
    Professor Ian Clark – Dept. Earth Sciences – Uni. of Ottawa
    Dr. Piers Corbin – Weather forecaster – Weather Action
    Professor John Christy –
    Professor Philip Stott – Dept. of Biogeography – Uni. of London
    Professor Paul Reiter – Pasteur Institute, Paris
    Patrick Moore – Greenpeace
    Dr. Roy Spencer – Weather Satelite Team Leader – NASA
    Nigel Calder – New Scientist
    Prof. Syun Ichi Akasofu – Director – International Arctic Research Unit
    Martin Durkin – WagTV –
    These guys came out infront of the cameras and said it how it is. I noticed there were only 4 comments in 3/2007 after the showing of the
    ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ documentary and I don’t know why that is as I consider this the greatest, most important documentary ever made. (9 parts available over on Youtube).

  26. What a difference 20 years makes.

    Why is that surprising, exactly?

    There’s a huge amount of data that’s been collected in the past twenty years showing a clear warming trend, to the point that even a certain Mr Anthony Watts says that “Nobody I know of in the sceptic community denies that the earth has gotten warmer in the past century. I surely don’t.”

  27. Wow talk about Déjà Vu. This sounds identical to what we hear from the IPCC everyday. “This is the hottest decade ever…more severe weather, more droughts, more famine…”

    On another note, I found this paragraph to be rather amusing. Can we say, ‘water vapor’?

    “Another possibility, he said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.”

  28. Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in this century and that the average temperatures in the 1980’s are the highest on record.
    Must have been before he figured out the 30s were the warmest, then ten years later he figured out how to lower the past and make the 90s the hottest.

  29. Geoff Sherrington, you need to search news stories for Global Warming, and not every webpage for News + Global + Warming. The difference (if not obvious) is that the searches for news are limited to news sites and e.g. don’t include this website.

    The link I posted should get you straight to correct search.

    Alternatively, go to google, search “global warming”, click the option at the top for “news”. This takes you to http://news.google.co.uk ( http://news.google.com.au for you)

    Then down the left select a date like 2007, and then navigate by clicking bar chart.

    Alternatively in Australia just click:

    http://news.google.com.au/archivesearch?q=%22global+warming%22+OR+%22climate+change%22&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=au&um=1&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2010&as_hdate=2014&lnav=hist6

  30. “What a difference 20 years makes.”

    Over five thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers (and that’s only counting those cited in the IPCC FAR) did not exist twenty years ago. That’s the difference.

  31. Did I miss an explanation for why the period of coverage ends in 1987? The fact that they start with 1895 could mean that they used USHCN data, or perhaps the regional or state composites. But that data is available up to the present. Why did they stop in 1987?

  32. “Dr. Hansen of NASA said today that he had ”no quarrel” with the findings in the new study. He noted that the United States covered only 1.5 percent of Earth. ”If you have only one degree warming on a global average, how much do you get at random” when taking measurements in such a relatively small area, he asked rhetorically.

    ”We are just arguing now about whether the global warming effect is large enough to see,” he added. ”It is not suprising we are not seeing it in a region that covers only 1.5 percent of the globe.””

    This doesn’t sound scandalous – it sounds like Jones did in his interview with the BBC – an honest answer that could easily be spun by some folks.

  33. As of Jan 1989 acording to Hansen
    “After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.”

    As of Feb 2010
    Acording to Jones: There has been no significant warming since 1995.

    Ergo all the warming claimed by Gore, Obama, and Boxer occurred in the 6 years between 1989 and 1995. Having lived through that period, what did I miss?

  34. In reply to Gareth Phillips,

    Normal cyclical variations in Arctic ice-cover are, well, normal.

    No skeptic claims that the arctic ice-sheet will be ever-expanding! If that were the case, it would be disasterous.

    Relatively warm water quite a bit farther north than “normal” is perfectly “normal” for a winter with a strong El Nino. I would assume that this would have some effect on the arctic ice-sheet.

    The default position for the vast majority of skeptics is not that the Earth never warms, that would be silly. We do not advocate for continual ice-ages. The default position for most skeptics is, “The earth warms (sometimes dramatically) and cools (sometimes dramatically) quite often when measured on a geological time-scale, and the current trend is in no way out of the ordinary when compared to other past climate variation.

  35. A team of scientists has concluded… that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall [USA, 1895-1987]

    – Dr. Kirby Hanson .. said in that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ”cast doubt” on previous findings
    – Dr. Michael E. Schlesinger said there is no inconsistency between the data presented by the NOAA team and the greenhouse theory. But he said he regarded the new data as inconsistent with assumptions that such an effect is already detectable
    – Dr. Hanson of NOAA said today that the new study does not in any way contradict the findings reported by the NASA scientists and others
    – Dr. Hansen said there were several ways to look at the temperature readings for the United States, including as a “statistical fluke”

    Oh my. Is there any kind of measured data, which “do not contradict”, “cast no doubts” or “are not inconsistent” with the AGW theory?
    “Several ways to look at the temperature readings” by Dr. Hansen is very telling.

  36. Okay, Duh…

    I missed that the “flashback” here is that this NYT piece was published in 1989.

    I wonder what it would show if the same study were done today?

    My guess: slight warming, but only because of the warming associated with th 1997-98 super El Nino, and the fact that trends are sensitive to outliers at the ends of the periods.

  37. Prior to the year 2000, USHCN data showed no warming trend and the 1930s was the hottest decade. The USHCN adjustments made in 2001 bumped up all recent years – and magically a warming trend appeared.

  38. Can we do a study for the rest of the world so we do not have to stick to 1.5 percent?
    Or are we lacking data?

  39. I don’t think that our knowledge of the earth’s climate is all that much better than it was in 1989. This is not to say that it’s not worth the effort to figure out what’s going on.

    Has our ability to forecast short-term climate (weather) improved significantly (by orders of magnitude) since 1989? I just don’t think so.

  40. “Another possibility, he said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend.”

    Yeah right. We’re now forced to argue for special conditions and magic to try and fit the AGW theory to observations. I can see exactly what they mean by Post Normal Science.

  41. Quote: “A number of scientists have theorized that the replacement of forests and pastures by asphalt streets and concrete buildings, which retain heat, is an important cause of rising temperatures.” Unquote

    Is this supposed to be a reference to the Urban Heat Island Effect? If so, the writer does not understand the issue.

    What a number of scientists are concerned with is that the thermometers used to measure the temperature of a region may be showing temperatures that are biased upwards because the thermometers are sited in urban hotspots.

    These same sites were once cooler because the locations were in rural. The thermometers now register higher temperatures, not because the whole region is warmer, but because the thermometer location has become urban.

    The rise in temperature at the thermometer site was caused by local heating, not by regional climate change.

  42. Gareth Phillips (01:00:09) :

    I note the Arctic ice has stopped expanding, maybe to show we sceptics are objective and even handed this should be highlighted.

    – Before much can be said about the current Arctic ice extent a few obvious matters must be considered:
    1)a stronger El Nino effect, 2)winter ice extent not a predictor of summer extent, 3)AMSR-E extent data has current extent about average since ’02, 4)other data sets (as elsewhere noted), 5)wind, etc.

    I haven’t followed much closer, just glancingly observing. There doesn’t seem to be enough of any trends to comment on. And, as a “skeptic” I’m not sure I would like the Arctic to “continue” to expand much anyway – the Antarctic expanding may be more than enough! Nuances are interesting, but plenty of other more dramatic things have provided much to consider.

  43. I hope not too OT…..

    Phil Plait’s “Bad Astronomy” blog usually reflects a sceptical point of view. Certainly regarding vaccination and other medical matters. So I was surprised to find that he appears to have been completely taken in by Al Gore. This is from today’s blog:

    *****
    Gore vital
    I know mentioning Al Gore, let alone linking to him, is like throwing red meat into the pit of denialists, but Gore’s Op Ed in today’s New York Times [dead hotlink here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html%5D is really quite good. I wonder if he reads my blog? He hits a lot of the points I have the past few days… though he doesn’t mention the troglodytes in the South Dakota and Utah legislative bodies [dead hotlink here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/21/you-cant-resolve-away-climate-change/ ].
    The only point he makes I’m not sure about is the capping of carbon emissions, simply because I haven’t looked into the issue. One more thing on my to-do list.
    Anyway, I will be much amused, I’m sure in a schadenfreudelicious sort of way, about the comments that will ensue below. I know! Let’s make it a game! Score ten points for every comment that makes fun of “Inconvenient Truth” without addressing the content of the Op Ed, 20 points for anyone who clearly didn’t read the Op Ed but comments anyway, 30 points for a comment thoroughly rebutted by science (either previously known or pointed out in a subsequent comment) but ignored by the commenter, and 100 points for someone who comments making fun of Gore’s name. First person to 1000 points wins!
    What do you win? A planet 1° Fahrenheit warmer than it was a century ago! Hurray!
    *****
    I sent a reply to Phil asking if he reads WUWT, but I don’t know if he will see it. It was worth a try, anyway.
    The second hotlink leads to text from Phil showing that he is a card-carrying believer in AGW.
    It is sad to see one of one’s icons crumple to dust before one’s eyes!!

    IanM

  44. “Fred (07:15:35) :”

    Have you been following E. M. Smith’s input to this blog about thermometers, their placement (As well as Anthony’s surface stations project) and the change in which stations actually get inputted to the official database? Interesting read indeed.

    Short story; rural (Read “cooling”) out, urban in (Read “hot”).

  45. I just wrote out a posting, clicked Submit, and it appears to have vanished. Usually there is a note saying that the posting is subkect to moderation, but I see nothing. This posting is a test to see if that happens this time.

    IanM

  46. Apparently as the amount of money enlarged on the table, scientist’s opinions changed.

    A show last night “Prehistoric New York” on the Discovery channel talked about the sea levels going up and down from today’s level as climate changed. They even mentioned that 22,000 years ago, during the last ice age, sea levels were 300 feet lower. Sure would be good if they would give that film to schools to show their kiddies and their parents.

  47. MODS: TYPO:

    The middle of the article contains a heading that should be dis-embeded: “More Drought Predicted”

  48. The fix was in on this being a “belief system” rather than science, even then. Parsing this quote from Hanson [not "Hansen"] in the article:

    “Dr. Hanson said that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect might have been countered by some cooling phenomenon that has not yet been identified and that the readings in his study recorded the net effect.”

    It clearly shows that the a priori premise is that “global warming cause by greenhouse effect” is indisputable – that they are only arguing over what might mask it, not what causes it.

  49. A New CARBON TAX BILL is being finalized by Sen’s Graham(R), Lieberman(I) & Kerry(D):

    INHOFE EPW PRESS BLOG:
    Monday, March 1, 2010
    Democrats Say Game On For Global Warming Legislation
    Associated issues: Commitment to Independent and Verifiable Science, Global Warming, Cap-and-Tax Opposition Resource Center; Impacts of Costly Climate Bill Exposed, Commitment to Oklahoma, Commitment to Cost-Benefit Analysis
    The Senate trio at the center of talks on a comprehensive climate and energy bill will present a draft proposal this week to their fence-sitting colleagues and high-profile interest groups amid warnings from Democratic leadership that the window for action is closing.

    “It’s time,” said a Senate aide close to the process. “Game on.”

    Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) have been working for months behind closed doors on a plan that promotes domestic energy production while putting a first-ever price on greenhouse gas emissions. Aides say they have settled on a relatively short but detailed list of ideas that are ready to be turned into formal bill language, but first they want to get feedback from key blocs of Democratic and GOP senators with a stake in everything from coal to natural gas, manufacturing and transportation.

    Kerry this week is scheduled to have at least eight climate-related meetings with senators and other interest groups. Graham and Lieberman have talks lined up with critical voices from both parties in the debate, including Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).

    The overall goal, Kerry’s spokeswoman Jodi Seth said, is to jump-start talks that can help pave the way toward 60 votes.
    “Dozens of meetings and scores of decisions and negotiations still have to happen before anyone knows what a bill would look like, but every day we are making progress,” Seth said.
    The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman draft to be circulated this week starts with an overall goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gases by 2020 in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels.
    To get there, they will propose a significant redesign of the carbon pricing mechanisms of the House-passed climate bill, H.R. 2454, and a Senate counterpart authored by Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), S. 1733. Rather than include all major industrial sources of greenhouse gases in one broad economywide cap-and-trade system, the Senate trio will propose different types of limits for different sectors of the economy, beginning with electric utilities and then turning later to manufacturers such as chemical plants and pulp and paper mills.
    “The bottom line with utilities is they’ll assume a compliance obligation from day one of the program,” the Senate staffer said, adding that no decisions have been made on how to allocate valuable emission allowances to the power companies except to incorporate an industry recommendation to shuttle revenue toward consumers to help pay for higher energy bills.
    Transportation fuels can expect a carbon tax that rises based on the compliance costs faced by the other major emitters. Several major oil companies, including Shell Oil Co., ConocoPhillips and BP America, floated the original idea on Capitol Hill, and the Senate trio has evolved their plan by funneling revenue toward transportation projects, reducing fuel consumption and lowering domestic reliance on foreign oil. The Highway Trust Fund is also a potential recipient of the carbon tax revenue, Senate aides said.
    Manufacturers would face a series of greenhouse gas limits after power plants, but talks are still ongoing over when the phase-in begins and what specific industries fall into the suite of restrictions. …….

    “Cap and trade as we know it is dead, but the issue of cleaning up the air and energy independence should not die — and you will never have energy independence without pricing carbon,” Graham said in yesterday’s New York Times. “The technology doesn’t make sense until you price carbon. Nuclear power is a bet on cleaner air. Wind and solar is a bet on cleaner air. You make those bets assuming that cleaning the air will become more profitable than leaving the air dirty, and the only way it will be so is if the government puts some sticks on the table — not just carrots.”
    Climate bill supporters said the shift in legislative approaches could offer a chance for success even amid in the current political climate on Capitol Hill. …

    Dan Weiss, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, said “the most important element” of the upcoming Senate plan involved a carbon price capable of curbing emissions by at least 17 percent by 2020.
    “The method in the bill to achieve that call — whether it’s cap and trade, cap and dividend, carbon tax, or a hybrid system — is much less important as long as it can meet the goal while attracting 60 senators’ votes,” Weiss said.

    (complete … )

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

    paullm – Is there really a need to increase taxes and subsidize a non-profitable wind/solar industry to address the non-problem of a slight increase in historically low levels of plant nourishing CO2 while temps have not tracked CO2 levels as predicted by alarmists like Hansen? The EPA is under attack following Climategate fallout and the continuing IPCC implosion, so what’s with a new Cap/Tax bill? Are your politicians as anxious to increase subsidizing the Chinese and Indian economies as Graham, Kerry and Lieberman are?

  50. Has our ability to forecast short-term climate (weather) improved significantly (by orders of magnitude) since 1989?

    Calling weather “short-term climate” is like calling a planet a “super-size atom.”

    It doesn’t really require specialized knowledge to be able to discern the difference between events and statistical trends. The whole “how can we project future climate when we can’t even predict weather” canard has been beat into the ground. Please.

  51. Tarpon, I don’t know any climate scientists that would deny that in the past, the Earth has been warmer and colder and that sea levels have been low (and higher, too). The sea level lowering during ice ages is the result of vast volumes of ice being shored up in continental ice sheets – if you’re interested in the investigation of ice volume in past climates, you should look into “d18O”, or isotope analysis of ice cores and ocean sediments. This same isotopic ratio is used to estimate ~local temperatures near the ice core deposition sites (the ocean sediments do not provide any approximation of this IIRC).

    None will dispute that carbon dioxide has fluctuated significantly in the past, and that one of main mechanisms proposed for how the Earth escaped total glaciation (‘Snowball Earth’) is the greenhouse effect. A simple stability analysis of an ice/albedo radiative earth model will show you that both ice-free, partially ice-covered, and totally ice-covered regimes can exist given the current solar constant (look up the Budyko model). Even given large changes in solar output, the ice-free and ice-covered regimes remain equally likely and equally stable. The slow accumulation of greenhouse gases from volcanic activity (which can neither be absorbed by the ocean, because it was likely covered in ice, nor scrubbed by plants since far fewer would exist in a mostly ice-covered world) is the most plausible factor proposed in how earth escaped such a stable state.

    There is a perception that, apparently, the same community of folks doing paleoclimate reconstructions ignore them. That’s not the case.

  52. Ian L. McQueen (07:23:00) :

    Phil Plait’s “Bad Astronomy” blog usually reflects a sceptical point of view. Certainly regarding vaccination and other medical matters. So I was surprised to find that he appears to have been completely taken in by Al Gore.

    Phil Plait is the new head of the James Randi Foundation.; i.e., he is a capital-S “Skeptic.” I.e., he is a reflexive and adamant “believer” whenever Science Has Spoken. (Curiously, Randi himself is a heretic on this issue.)

    R. de Haan (06:06:25) :

    The end of the scare!
    State of fear, not!

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/state-of-fear-not.htm

    That’s a bad link (the terminating “l” was clipped). Here’s the right one:

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/state-of-fear-not.html

  53. The US Government is broke and it needs taxes for any cause and claim……..let’s face it, the truth is no longer an issue at DC. The system is broke and you cannot fix it with lies and fraud.

    my thoughts….

    Steve

  54. Interesting from a historical and social perspective, and I suppose a psychological one– if one cares to guess what was gong on in someone’s mind back in 1989. But much more data has been collected since then…and 2010 isn’t 1989.

  55. “…a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period…The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration…”

    “…other scientists have suggested a significant warming worldwide over the last 100 years. Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen…”

    ______________________

    Note this is a “government” study done by NOAA! Meanwhile, Hansen, James E. is at NASA ISS.

    “Government” studies will say whatever the study-ers are told to say. The first law of government service is that you never say anything new or original or different that what the 450 lb. Jerk in the front office believes. These are trying times in ‘climate science’.

    Al Gore has only recently invented the Internet.

    An OMB study concluded many years before that the best way to get money out of Congress was to have conflicting reports form two or more federal agencies. This was merely a typical ploy to get more paper, pencils, pens, and TDY money; and a new teletype.

  56. “Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in this century and that the average temperatures in the 1980’s are the highest on record.”

    I didn’t know that the ’80’s were the hottest decade on record? See a pattern here with Dr. Hansen. This year is the hottest ever, next year will be hotter, and so on ans so forth. What I fraud this guy is. And to think, Obama is cancelling our space program so we can give this guy more money to study “global warming.”

  57. We have had little increase in emissions (1977-2009) which indicates our
    environment has not changed since 1998 to cause any such spike in temperature. CO2 concentration has increased about 22 parts per million
    but our last large temperature change was El Ninos in 1997/1998 and 2002.
    The trend since 1998 has been slightly cooler. over a “down-up-down” range.
    Like the previous 100 years.

  58. Over at The Resilient Earth ( http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/cherry-picking-black-swans-and-falsifiability ) I found the following comment:

    >Science and decision-making
    >Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 03/01/2010 – 09:53.

    >Dear Doug,

    >I have been considering the problems of scientific vs legal proof for a number of years and I think that what you are discussing here is another example of this trend.

    >In a legal argument, there are two sides and each one presents evidence in support of its position. This – in and of itself – is cherry-picking, but is made even worse by the whole process of casting doubt on both the other side’s evidence as well as the motives of the source of that evidence.

    >You have nicely summarized the scientific method so I wont repeat that, but the whole approach taken to most issues in the modern world is a legal one – develop a case by picking evidence, disparage the source of conflicting evidence and appeal to some form of inherent moral value that the jury should uphold.

    >This is not science.

    >In no way can it be compared with science.

    >In no way should it be construed as being science.

    >Of course the world is not and can not be run as a scientific experiment – decision-making is the art of determining a course of action in the absence of proof and leaders nearly always make decisions following this legal/debate approach. But by trying to justify their decisions by invoking scientific proof they are hiding behind the scientists (looking for someone else to blame if it turns out they have made the wrong decision) and as a consequence they are degrading science as an approach to understanding the natural world. Even worse, a number of scientists have forgotten their role in this and begun to act as direct advocates – lawyers, by another name – thus debasing their work and removing their claim to be treated as scientists.

    >In the fight for free speech, it is often quoted that “I abhor what you say, but I will defend your right to say it”. Right now, we need a defense of free science, that says “I disagree with your findings, but I will attempt to disprove them, not prevent them being published or impuning your motives”.

    >If the climate debate can do one good thing for science it would be to remind people of the proper role for science and scientists – to inform decision-makers not to take responsibility away from them.

    >Thanks for your article and I hope you feel my comment has added to the debate.

    >For the record, as a scientist, I do not believe in AGW. But then again, I try to believe in very little. That is the point. As a human being, I trust in our ability to adapt as a species and to cope with any issues that a changing climate may throw up. Reducing our ability to adapt has to be the worst possible response to these circumstances.<

    ****

    I don't believe I've seen a similar argument here, but was intrigued by "Anonymous's " observation that scientific debate has been replaced by a kind of "courtroom antics". Lawyers, who have no regard for the truth, but only care about winning their case, use guilt-by-association and cherry-picked evidence, and attempt to suppress conflicting evidence. This analogy sure fits with post-normal science. I suppose this drift in scientific standards and the rules of scientific debate is the consequence of Marxist contamination of modern life, by which every facet of life, including, the weather, has become politicized. Truth is the casualty.

    If only the perpetrators of this travesty of science could be forced to go back through all their former predictions and observations, and be forced to face their own record.

  59. Several posters here have made the inappropriate logical leap that “since the 1989 paper showed no warming, and Phil Jones admits there has been no warming since 1995, all the warming must have taken place in 6 years.”

    Okay, I’m going to scream at you to read more carefully. PLEASE!

    DIFFERENT DATA SETS!!!

    The 1989 NOAA-led paper was talking about the continental U.S. only–the lower 48 states. Phil Jones during the BBC interview was talking about an THE ENTIRE GLOBAL DATA SET since 1995.

    GET IT?

    Don’t talk nonsense, leave that for the AGW fanatics.

  60. Herman L (06:22:41) :

    “What a difference 20 years makes.”

    Over five thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers (and that’s only counting those cited in the IPCC FAR) did not exist twenty years ago. That’s the difference.
    Not to mention the trees used to print all that drivel, plus the man-hours and $billions wasted alarming the world over a non-problem.
    Other than that though, yes, we do have those papers.

  61. Robert E. Phelan (04:24:33) :

    So, in 1989 there was no US warming (Hansen)…flat as a pancake.
    In 2010, there was no warming the last 15 years (Jones).
    That’s a 3 year overap of no warming.
    The US still doesn’t show any warming.
    What US/Global Warming?

    And right now, the Arctic Ice isn’t growing because it’s too darn busy blowing cold down the back of the US from Canada.
    Don’t you just love Climate Swap?

  62. Jim Hansen tried to make it clear that a lack of a statistically significant trend in the data covering only 1.5% of the global surface (the USA) has little relevance to the statistical significance of the trend of data from more nearly 100% of the global surface.

    That comment in no way amounts to a rejection, on his part, of the validity of multiple analyses of a century of GLOBAL data.

    Anthony, you should be ashamed of yourself!

  63. Chris R. (09:17:26) :

    Great, let’s assign weight to those 2 datasets.
    What % of the Global Data Set is the US data set from 1995 to 2010?
    What % of the Global Data Set is the US data set from 1890 to 1989?

  64. Gareth Phillips (01:00:09) :

    I note the Arctic ice has stopped expanding, maybe to show we sceptics are objective and even handed this should be highlighted.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries

    Hi, I posted this because when the seasons ice started to expand we had a dedicated section which pointed out it was up from last year. It would be interesting to have that same debate at the other end of the season.

  65. tarpon (07:34:48) :
    (…)
    A show last night “Prehistoric New York” on the Discovery channel talked about the sea levels going up and down from today’s level as climate changed. They even mentioned that 22,000 years ago, during the last ice age, sea levels were 300 feet lower. (…)

    Which is likely to get cited as alarmist evidence that we now have an unprecedented rise in sea levels.

    Thus I would be more interested in if and by how much the sea levels were higher in the past.

    It’s been awhile since college, and some theories have changed since then. Does anyone know, far back in the dim geological past, if Earth was ever a complete water-world, with absolutely no land above the surface? I have heard before that “all land was once under water” but that can refer to normal plate movements, the divergence and convergence etc, bringing up land from where it formed under the surface. Was there ever a time when there was nothing above the water (that includes above frozen water as at the polar regions)?

  66. Ref – vigilantfish (09:04:28) :
    “Over at The Resilient Earth…I found the following comment:
    >Science and decision-making
    >Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 03/01/2010 – 09:53.
    >Dear Doug,
    >I have been considering the problems of scientific vs legal proof for a number of years and I think that what you are discussing here is another example of this trend.
    ________________________

    Sooooooo True! Thank you!

    The root cause of so many modern problems in our shrinking world is the proliferation of JD’s. ‘Global Warming’ is NOT a scientific problem, it is a legal problem. The One thing that Congress and the current administration could do to solve the climate problem, the medical problem, the environmental problem, etc., etc., is to ban lawyers from practicing in the United States. This does not make the Supremes redundent; they will have much more to do once this legislation goes into effect: flipping coins and adjucating the result of ‘non-fatal’ duals, etc.. (The Supremes will be able to handle the extra workload with more speed as the current group retires and non-lawyers are appointed.)

    There is a grain of truth in every joke. I really do think so many of our social problems today are the result of too many lawyers. If we can’t ban them, can we put a quota on the law schools? One per year? We really do need more doctors of medicine – especially the kind that speak the local lingo like they were born to it.

  67. GISS did not report January as the “hottest.”

    Satellites (UAH and RSS) seems to have problems with ENSO events, reporting large positive and negative anomalies which are not reflected in the surface record. It would be good to hear an explanation from Dr. Spencer.

  68. Bruce Cobb (09:22:31) :

    Not to mention the trees used to print all that drivel… alarming the world over a non-problem.

    It would be helpful if you could direct me to the published scientific research that supports your assertion here.

  69. >>Here’s a blast from the past. Dr. James Hansen’s view in 1989 seemed a lot more temperate than it does today. Back then, he’s ready to accede to a study that says something counter to what his theory predicts, saying “I have no quarrel with it”.

    Something else happened in 1989 that may help explain the change in attitude. The IPCC was formed by the WMO and the UN to assess:

    “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.”

    If you have the UN and governments around the world through the UNFCCC saying that human’s are responsible for climate change, the science is settled, it might make you a tad more strident in your position.

  70. @kwik “The AGW theory can hereby be declared dead.”

    An animate thingy is just that, animate not alive. AGW has never been alive so it can’t be dead. That a certain shizo-like-behavior has kept the irrational panic stricken anxiety of the possible maybe-but-what-ifs alive is just a symptom of the sickness itself.

  71. @jbrodhead

    Don’t let that article scare you. Few would disagree that earth is probably warmer than it was during the “Little Ice Age”. What people disagree with is the slimy way that computerized models have been used (and fudged measurements, too) to “prove” that human output of carbon dioxide is the primary cause of said warming.

    Also, people disagree about the “catastrophic” part–why is it that people in the Northeast move to Florida and Arizona when they can afford to leave their jobs? Because it is warmer.

    Finally, we disagree with the overemphasis on restricting carbon dioxide emissions because it takes the focus off of the things we really should be doing to protect our planet. I’m in California, where incandescent bulbs will soon be banned, but all it took was increase electricity bills to convince me to swap out the old bulbs for energy-conserving compact fluorescents. All it will take to get people out of their SUVs is a prolonged increase in the cost of motor fuels. All it will take to convince people to insulate their homes is for their wallets to be affected. All it will take to convince people to live near work and work near home is–you guessed it–their wallets to be affected.

    We don’t need “green police”, we don’t need “cap-and-trade” schemes. We need clear and accurate pricing signals, unmanipulated by government or large corporations. We need widely available solar / wind generation for homes and small businesses instead of or in addition to the larger generation facilities that have proven themselves not to be cost-effective.

    I wish Mr. Gore had put his millions into outfits that would insulate homes (to R100+) and install those generation systems at prices that made it difficult to refuse. I wish the enviro groups were focusing on ways to adapt human society to work with the world we live in (and minimize our impact on the other creatures here). I wish that “climate scientists” and the mainstream press were concentrating on getting honest and detailed raw data, and making that data available along with any processing steps and code they use in producing those scary graphs, instead of labeling anyone who wants to see proof as a “denier”. We could be a heck of a lot further along than we are now,

    Let your friend know these things.

  72. Obviously Hansen will say anything.

    Just 6 months prior to this article the IPCC was setup, and Hansen was testifying on Capital Hill before a Gore Committee and saying he was 99% sure of warming but made no real connection to CO2. After the hearing he said it was CO2 induced and now in this article he says there’s only a “high probability” of a connection: “Dr. Hansen and other scientists have said that that there is a high degree of probability that this warming trend is associated with the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases that absorb and retain radiation.”

    Here’s the entry from the ClimateGate timeline on this:

    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/

    Jun 1988
    HANSEN: STOP WAFFLING; OTHER SCIENTISTS REBUKE HANSEN

    “The present hysteria formally began in the summer of 1988, although preparations had been put in place at least three years earlier…. James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in testimony before Sen. Al Gore’s Committee on Science, Technology and Space, said, in effect, that he was 99 percent certain that temperature had increased and that there was some greenhouse warming. He made no statement concerning the relation between the two.” [151] Afterwards, HANSEN tells journalists that it is time to “stop waffling, and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.” [4] [5]

    The media leap onto CO2 induced global warming, and the number of American newspaper articles about it rise tenfold in just one year. [4]

    “The interest Hansen generated in the media was also well-timed with regard to a major conference held in Toronto at the end of June 1988 [the World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere] organised by scientists involved with the Villach and Bellagio workshops of 1987. This conference brought together 341 delegates, including 20 politicians and ambassadors, 118 policy and legal advisers and senior government officials, 73 physical scientists, 50 industry representatives and energy specialists, 30 social scientists and 50 environmental activists from 46 countries.” [5] According to Franz, the conference’s challenge to reduce CO2 emissions by about 20 percent of 1988 levels by 2004 had minimal scientific support. [5]

    “Many scientists were critical of the approach taken by Hansen and others for damaging the integrity of science. According to [climate historian Spencer] Weart, ‘respected scientists publicly rebuked Hansen, saying he had gone far beyond what scientific evidence justified.'” [5] See also [151].

  73. January 26, 1989 …. a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures….


    Curious date.

    Isn’t 1989 the year James Hansen started dropping temperature stations used in GIStemp that were located in rural and mountain areas and kept only those near heat sources, i.e., those effected by UHI?

  74. Gareth Phillips (01:00:09) : “I note the Arctic ice has stopped expanding, maybe to show we sceptics are objective and even handed this should be highlighted.
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

    It always stops expanding about this time of year, and, even after pumping record gigatons of cold air down to the rest of the NH for three months, the ice is about the same as 2005, so what’s the big deal?

  75. Paul Coppin (07:46:47) :

    “It clearly shows that the a priori premise is that “global warming cause by greenhouse effect” is indisputable – that they are only arguing over what might mask it, not what causes it.”

    Its the force. Its Obi wan Kenobi.

  76. @W^L+ Thank you for writing in response to my comment. Though you believed I was concerned by the article (link) I embedded in my comment, I only posted it because of the similarities to the article, which heads this thread. I will certainly copy your comment to my friend.

    I have been following WUWT, since the climategate news broke. AGW is not of even a tiny concern to me. The Progressive political forces, which hijacked and politicized AGW theory, turning it into a global scare tactic to implement their attempted global coup, are in my sights.

    WattsUpWithThat has been a wonder; a bright spot, to which I can escape my political ‘battles’.

    I am no scientist, but a generalist (electronics, programming, mechanical, etc…) who sees the consistancy of physical systems through the filter of my Christian beliefs. I do not see this existance on planet earth as an accident of chaos and therefore see the systems of the earth are designed to survive the relative stupidity of humanity – a system which will dynamically compensate over time. It is similar to the PID control loops I use in motor and temperature control. Now if we look at any one control parameter only (P xor I xor D), it will scare us. That is the tactic of the AGW scheme.

    Sorry, I am writing and listening to the CATO institute broadcast on the Constitution… I hope this was a sensible response. :)

    Regards,
    Jeff

  77. Interesting to see the early political machinations that developed into the Eco Fascism which is environmental policy today….. These “progressives”(socialists), are deliberate in their desire to usurp our freedom and replace it with their ideology.

  78. To: rbateman

    You wrote:

    “Great, let’s assign weight to those 2 datasets.
    What % of the Global Data Set is the US data set from 1995 to 2010?
    What % of the Global Data Set is the US data set from 1890 to 1989?”

    Why ask? You should know that the land area of the U.S.A.’s lower 48 states amounts to only 3,119,885 square miles, while the total land area of the world is 35,705,170 square miles. This is 8.7% of the land data set, but of course there is a great deal more ocean than land, so the CONUS is 2.55% of the world’s total surface area. Assuming equal coverage, this would be the naive weight given in the 1995-2010 dataset.

    However, I was simply trying to get people to stop making completely silly assertions, as for example, “Jeff Kooistra” at 05:03, “johnnythelowery” at 05:15, or “Don Shaw” at 06:40 did.

  79. The good doctor said…

    The greenhouse effect might have been countered by some cooling phenomenon that has not yet been identified

    Yep. Then again it might have been countered by flocks of geese migrating over the US, or maybe fewer Bison farting or maybe or might be or could be. He should know, he is a doctor afterall.

    By the way, did I tell you there is a giant asteroid going to smash us to bits in 73.4 years? We can’t see it just yet, it’s view might be blocked by an unknown phenomena, we need more research.

  80. Chris R. (17:38:42) :

    Why ask? Because I was referring to the # of stations used to represent the USA vs the # of stations used to represent the Globe.
    Weighting. Whether the oceans are included or not.

  81. It’s always Marcia, Marcia (13:12:18) : Curious date.
    Isn’t 1989 the year James Hansen started dropping temperature stations used in GIStemp that were located in rural and mountain areas and kept only those near heat sources, i.e., those effected by UHI?

    Good observation. See: http://i27.tinypic.com/14b6tqo.jpg

  82. O/T but has anyoneseen this?
    Greenman(Gavin Schmidt) used the caitlin expedition from last year(that was a failure) as proof that 2009 was the lowest summer mass on record.

Comments are closed.