even more about the already known and acknowledged as flawed computer simulations the all-global-warming-is-caused-by-man hold up as gospel despite their other acknowledged flaws.
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Global Warming and Y2K
Excerpt: NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.
The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.
Then again -- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.
Discussion is locked
1 - 30 of 46 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
Someone actually said that?
I mean, besides you?
- Collapse -
do you need glasses?
As far as who said what, you might want to see what algore and others of his ilk have said repeatedly concerning this latest cyclical warming trend about who is to blame.
- Collapse -
is the chief liar/manipulator/propagandist of the "facts" of man made global warming
- Collapse -
Persobally, I only listen to Bono and what he says.
ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO ! ALL HAIL BONO !
- Collapse -
what did Vick have to do with the Justice Brothers?
Nothing!
So why even bring him up?
- Collapse -
But if you are planning on mixing threads... I have that link about where you said typos don't need acknowledged by wrongly using a word does need pointing out.
Oh... and I'm still waiting for your transcripts, too.
- Collapse -
Another group I don't work for and have no affiliation with.
- Collapse -
meandering all over the road. You admonished Edward for (correctly) invoking the chief eco-shyster, ALGORE, and when shown that you have done the same, start getting cheesy. Do stay on point
- Collapse -
does not deal with FACTS and thus has nothing to do with FACTS.
THAT is why he, as a "leader" of the all-global-warming-is-caused-by-man fiction is mentioned.
Get it?
- Collapse -
... my friends and I experienced while watching a Steelers game the other night. Bryant Gumbel was the commentator.
Gimbel, out of the blue, asks his costar commentator when will people quit connecting the current legal troubles of Michael Vicks with the the NFL foot ball league. My immediate reaction, which was echoed by my beer swilling friends, was that there is no connection except for the one constantly being made by the press.
My point being that no one on this forum ever mentions Gore... except those who want to use him to deride anything to do with those who believe man plays a part in global warming. Those who do believe that man has a connection to global warming never, to my knowledge, ever cite Al Gore for his leadership.
Consequently, it always leaves me puzzled when... out of the blue... Al Gore name is raised as if he actually had something to do with the discussion at hand or the facts being discussed. Simply put, anti-global warmers appear more obsessed about what Gore has to say, than pro-global warmers do.
I personally think he is a wind bag who has done more to harm environmental causes than help.
- Collapse -
Likely because the league has refused to investigate although that should have happened immediately as it usually does when others in the league are accused or charged with illegal activities.
Second ...
no one on this forum ever mentions Gore... except those who want to use him to deride anything to do with those who believe man plays a part in global warming.
From that statement it would appear that you have avoided the many global warming threads posted referencing him and his books by those who adore him and junk science. We know that is not the case however unless someone else is making use of your CNET account.
Note who first mentions Al Gore
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6130_102-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=255913&messageID=2536669#2536669
Do note that someone using your CNET account participated in that thread - better find out who it was so their participation doesn't continue to refute your claims.
- Collapse -
... and sometimes I don't read every post in a thread either. Don't take that as an excuse but simply an explanation of why I may have missed Dave mentioning Al Gore. 
Yes you are correct... Dave did mention him. I would ask to be allowed to qualify my comment, that no one ever uses Al Gore as a definitive source of information when talking about global warming. Whether you allow me that leeway or not. I still am of the opinion that the majority of times the guy is mentioned is by the anti-GW side and not the pro-GW side.
BTW... the post you referenced was principally about RFK Junior and his conduct more than anything dealing with the actual issues of global warming itself.
My defining opinion through that thread was... sounds much the same from both sides to me. Name calling and over the top hyperbole runs rampant on both sides of this argument. To act as if one side has been more reasonable (or as some would have it... reasoning) is to ignore half the debate.
This is just a reinforcement of what I said about Gore being mentioned all the time. Quit paying attention to the chubby man behind the curtain and we may actually come to a reasonable settlement.
- Collapse -
But many try to make it into one. This is unfortunate. This issue maybe a matter of survival. This issue was around before Al Gore was known by many of us.
- Collapse -
being used to "prove" man made global warming, it is completely political. If there were provable science behind it, there would be no debate.
- Collapse -
Questions...
What other organizations gather such statistics?
Is NASA the only institution that determined 1998 as being the hottest on record?
- Collapse -
Even with the correction, the trend is still there:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif
The link above should take you to NASA's graphical representation of the data. Although there was a general cooling observed from ~1940-~1970 the overall trend for the last 125 years is toward warming.
Now this obviously is not news the Kyoto folks wanted to hear, but it does not (by itself) disprove ANYTHING that the climate scientists have been saying.
I'll admit that I don't know enough about climatology to have an informed opinion, but that is also undoubtedly true for the bulk of SE members. I'm skeptical of the spin put on this data by a group that is obviously partisan.
- Collapse -
Because I thought it was noteworthy. But I'll comment now...
Science relies on data, and if the data is not reliable, the science won't be either. How do we know this isn't the only "goof"? I'd be willing to bet it isn't.
AND, we are constantly being told, in no uncertain terms that what they know, they know, and they can't be wrong. Discussion not allowed, much less dissent and contradiction. Hmmmm.
Whom do we trust?
More later....
- Collapse -
hardly a lightweight:
HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
Still digesting this, so I won't comment yet. Worth a read...
- Collapse -
It is well reasoned, acknowledges the stumbling blocks and doubts that can arise in science... and not once does it mention Al Gore as a foil to the question of man's part in global warming. It is an article that frames skepticism in a healthy light. Something to be embraced as part of science.
one of the statements that grabbed me was this...
The humanist ethic begins with the belief that humans are an essential part of nature. Through human minds the biosphere has acquired the capacity to steer its own evolution, and now we are in charge. Humans have the right and the duty to reconstruct nature so that humans and biosphere can both survive and prosper. For humanists, the highest value is harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. The greatest evils are poverty, underdevelopment, unemployment, disease and hunger, all the conditions that deprive people of opportunities and limit their freedoms. The humanist ethic accepts an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a small price to pay, if world-wide industrial development can alleviate the miseries of the poorer half of humanity. The humanist ethic accepts our responsibility to guide the evolution of the planet.
The problem is that market forces do not always work in alleviating "the miseries of the poorer half of humanity". Dyson states it is a worthy sacrifice but does not predict that it will happen. I personally think if all the world governments and global businesses were indeed, dedicated to this cause then a little pollution would be acceptable.
Also... Ed puts some stock in this man's words since he feels free to quote him as a good example of reasonable discourse., I wonder what you, Ed, think of his prediction of the downfall of US dominance in the world in the next 50 years?
All in all a good read from a doubting thomas who raises some very interesting points.
- Collapse -
Go to the main page of those graphs, and at the bottom it says (Last modified: 2007-01-0
.
It is now 7 months later. If the problem with the correction was just recently noticed and applied to get new corrected data (as NASA said had been done)7 month old charts would plot and show the old data.
- Collapse -
it's just now being released, but it was apprently discovered a while ago.
- Collapse -
I found the graph that appears to be the one that started the hoo-rah when it was just corrected this month. In the link look for Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change.
Link: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic