Global Warming? Yeah, right

Have a look at this chart. It tells you pretty much all you need to know about the much-anticipated scoop by Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?

What it means, in a nutshell, is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – the US government body in charge of America’s temperature record, has systematically exaggerated the extent of late 20th century global warming. In fact, it has doubled it.

Is this a case of deliberate fraud by Warmist scientists hell bent on keeping their funding gravy train rolling? Well, after what we saw in Climategate anything is possible. (I mean it’s not like NOAA is run by hard-left eco activists, is it?) But I think more likely it is a case of confirmation bias. The Warmists who comprise the climate scientist establishment spend so much time communicating…

(to read more, click here)

3 thoughts on “Global Warming? Yeah, right”

  1. James – I’m neither a “warmist” nor a “denier” and am certainly open to any sane presentation of facts (assuming that’s possible). My general impression is that there are some records being broken with regard to higher temperatures in some places (although I think it is amusing to find out that many of the earlier records were set in the 19th century which makes me wonder what was going on then). I read this AM about Artic Sea ice shrinking in volume/area and is quite a bit lower then to be expected. What’s your reading of this?

  2. Funny, James claims that Global Warming isn’t taking place at all yet his argument is that it is now being exaggerated instead of simply not existing.

    Do denialists even bother looking at what’s been written for them by the Oil companies before they click submit?

    1. But the question I would ask is whether its possible to arrive at a “denialist” version of events without invoking the very conspiratorial “Oil Company” cabal? As I stated previously, I am neither a ‘warmist’ or a “denier” but somehow an issue about climate has become politically partisan and it appears to be because either position leads to political solutions. A good example is Thomas Friedman’s book “Hot, Flat, and Crowded” which, while interesting, is clearly biased politically. This puts a neutral conservative in a bad position. However, at the end of the day I think “Green” is not a bad thing as long as it doesn’t keep individuals from choosing to live the way they want. Maybe SUVs will become prohibitively expensive and finally put to rest but I would like to see that occur because of market forces. Anyway, I don’t believe that SUVs in and of themselves cause global warming. An interesting point in Friedman’s book is that cows and deforestation combined produce the bulk of CO2 and Methane emissions. I think it would be more beneficial to concentrate on either both or one of the other first, assuming, of course, that these emissions are causing global warming and additionally assuming thaty global warming is actually happening on the scale that it is sometimes reported.

Comments are closed.