Posts Made By: Jason Cosford

The errors pointed out to Christy in this paper:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1114772v1

Christy acknowledged he got it wrong (in the scientific literature at least). He had to revise his work on the "real climate" and now his satellite record shows the warming trend. This is not an ad hominem attack, it is the scientific method.


"It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way." John Christy

This is an interesting article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/18/MNGNV3PH9D1.DTL&type=printable

In a phone interview, Christy said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."

So he accepts that humans are causing climate change. But, he is not an "alarmist." That Doug, is the current state of the denier crowd - humans are causing the warming but it wont be *that* bad. Twenty years ago, they argued there was no warming. Ten years ago, that there was warming but it was natural. Now there humans are causing the warming but it wont be that bad.

Doug Peterson said:

CO2 KEEPS GOING UP:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html


BUT GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE STAYS FLAT OVER LAST DECADE, RECENT COOLING

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/dec/glob-jan-dec-pg.gif


YOUR TAX DOLLARS PAID FOR THIS DATA


Why do global alarmists ignore the data (and there's plenty more) but keep telling you to believe them rather than your lying eyes? They hang their hats on embarassing computer models that keep predicting warming in direct conflict with the actual climate. I guess that is why we now talk of climate change rather than global warming.

Amazing that you accept NOAAs and NASAs data but not their explanations. Why don't you email them for an explanation?

What struck me most about the comments to this article is that views are so polarized. Either you are an ignorant breeder contributing to the death of us all or you are an elitist misanthropic fascist set on mass extermination. I applaud the author for bringing up the "elephant in the room" because sensible discussion is clearly needed. Economic and social equality in the developing world would lead to diminished birth rates, as happened in developed countries, without the need for some government "culling of the heard." The flip side is that with greater development comes increased per capita resource use. So, there needs to be more efficient use of resources as well.

Now is the time to be talking about these issues.

Jim Babcock said:

Bush v Gore - Easy choice.

Bush v Kerry - Another easy choice. Bush wins again by default because Kerry is a pompous jerk

Really? How many here, knowing what we now know, would choose Bush over Gore? I know, the ideologues will be out in force to come to the defense of "the decider", but that is one where I think most people would like a do over.

Your reasoning for voting Bush was "Kerry is a pompous jerk." So instead you voted for an imbecile. Well, good, that's who we got.

Thomas Steinberg said:

Can you believe it? Antiwar protestors are terrorists.

You are either with us or the terrorists.

According to Time Magazine, Phil Gramm is to blame: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877330,00.html Clinton is mentioned way down the list.

Oh yeah, and in case you forgot, this guy was McCain's financial adviser and famously quipped that America is a Nation of "whiners."

America sure has a lot of czars.

Maybe the lessons learned last century about the reality of socialism is presently lost on the intentionally ignorant or easily influenced.

Most are still learning the lessons of today about the reality of capitalism.

Last 10 years have been flat - as the warmest decade. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

QUOTE: The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008.

And, as for 2008 being the coldest since 2000:

QUOTE: 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.

Doug is right. When you take out the interannual variability the warming trend is clear.

Actually, no, the temporal component to the definition of climate is 30 years.

Beyond that, the mechanisms driving climate change differ.