When in doubt, look at the data
I wasn't sure whether to put this as a comment on the Global Cooling post or make a new post, but I figure since it is my first I should make it easy to see.
I looked at the data of the group mentioned in the article, and it sure looks to me like there has been some global warming, and that it did not peak in 1998.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
Am I missing something? If not, that Telegraph article is extremely misleading.
In fact, looking at that graph together with these two graphs from wikipedia, it sure looks like
it would be prudent to spend more money on reducing carbon emissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png
I looked at the data of the group mentioned in the article, and it sure looks to me like there has been some global warming, and that it did not peak in 1998.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
Am I missing something? If not, that Telegraph article is extremely misleading.
In fact, looking at that graph together with these two graphs from wikipedia, it sure looks like
it would be prudent to spend more money on reducing carbon emissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png
posted by Tim at 5:54 PM
2 Comments:
I frankly need someone to put all of this into 4th-grade science language for me to appreciate the various arguments pro or con.
According to "conventional science," has there ever been a period in the earth's history (say, over the past 20 million years or so--no need to go back to their very beginning) in which the earth would have been uninhabitable to humans? If there has been, is there any indication that such can be avoided anyway?
What if the ice age is coming no matter what we do? Is it in the realm of possibility that SUVs and aerosol sprays could be, ultimately, blessings rather than curses (I speak as one who shares a fuel efficient car with my wife--I do like breathing). But, is that within the realm of possibility?
I disagree stridently with Tim's claim that evidence and data is required to support an assertion. If we start to let facts determine our positions, pretty soon we're going to be held responsible for our actions, and then the bleak war-for-resources future that iowaherbman predicted will be the least of our problems.
I do like the inclusion of "graphs" in your "evidence." hurtleg's italicized excerpt of the Telegraph piece refers to "two simple graphs" which illustrate the author's point (and, by extension, hurtleg's alleged skepticism) - and nowhere are these graphs provided.
In fact, another reading of that telegraph piece by Prof Bob Carter ("geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research") shows that it's little more than a smear piece against prominent scientists and the responsible public officials who believe them. Prof Bob has been completely duped by Stephen McIntyre & co and their "refutations" of the generally accepted hockey stick.
(It doesn't take a search of telegraph.co.uk archives to discover that McIntyre is full of shit. Here's one.
Post a Comment
<< Home