Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl
Only your analogy is irrelevant and has no bearing on Climate science expertise. You are in no way qualified to make any judgements about the scientific data that has been collected or the conclusions drawn from them. Neither am I or most of the people here unless they are in the field.
|
Speak for yourself. The questions on the table are simple and if you don't think you have the capacity to understand, that is you, not me or the millions of others who are simply asking questions. The questions are simple, other than a political agenda I don't understand why we don't get answers.
the hits keep coming, from IBD editorial pages today.
Quote:
Global Warming: On Day 2 of the Copenhagen climate conference, the United Nations announced that the current decade is the warmest on record. Please allow us to unravel this web of deception.
The U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization released Tuesday a preliminary report that claims the 10-year period from 2000 to 2009 is the warmest since records began in 1850. We find the claim to be, well, a bit silly.
How, for instance, can serious scientists compare data from record keeping in 1850 to modern record-keeping? The report says the data are culled "from networks of land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, as well as satellites."
It might be rude to challenge the leaders of the faith, but we have to ask: How many satellites, ships and buoys were used in 1850? Whatever the answer is, the WMO needs to explain to the public how adding data sources in later years skews the overall picture.
Furthermore, how do the land-based weather stations match up? Are they the same set of stations used since 1850, or have stations been added and dropped through the decades? Have there always been enough stations to adequately represent the global temperature?
A global map of weather stations shows they are highly concentrated in the U.S. and Europe. Their presence in Asia, Africa and South America is almost nonexistent. How can their readings from only a portion of the globe be indicative of the entire planet?
And what about the placement of weather stations? Developed areas create heat islands that register higher temperatures, which aren't relevant to climate or global temperatures. How many stations located in undeveloped areas 150 years ago are now surrounded by growth and are recording distorted temperatures?
There is, as well, a cherry-picking problem. The record-keeping period the U.N. is using is 159 years. But a look at temperatures over the last 10,000 years as determined by ice cores, not weather stations, shows that the planet has gone through much warmer eras than it is now experiencing.
Also inconvenient to the U.N.'s report is the scandal at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, one of three climate data analysis centers. E-mails between researchers recently made public reveal: a pattern of manipulation of the data; an effort to crush scientists who dissented from the "consensus" that man is warming the planet; and the possible defrauding of the taxpayers who have funded their research.
The global warming alarmists won't admit it publicly, but their campaign is in trouble. The truth is catching up to them.
|
Investors.com - Untrustworthy Data
Sorry, but I don't need a Phd. to understand that!
P.S. - I am importing some stuff from Nigeria worth a lot of money can you send me a cashiers check to get the stuff cleared through customs and I will split the profits with you?
