Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

[Xenophon]

Which has what to with what I'm sayin'..........

Before you destroy the world's economies you better be damn sure you are 100% right, and have zero chance of a mistake.

 

[Dr Grump]

Which has what to with what I'm sayin'..........

Before you destroy the world's economies you better be damn sure you are 100% right, and have zero chance of a mistake.

I concur...

 

[Vel]

I'm cold. Brrr.

Right?

Our winter temps here have been below average the whole season. I'm wondering where MY global warming was when it was 20+ degrees with 10-20 mph winds and I was working outside.

If you find any global warming will you send a little this way? It's mid-March and I've yet to see a single buttercup.

 

[Chris]

Which has what to with what I'm sayin'..........

Before you destroy the world's economies you better be damn sure you are 100% right, and have zero chance of a mistake.

It was unregulated capitalism that destroyed the world's economy.....last year.

Didn't you notice?

 

[elvis]

Which has what to with what I'm sayin'..........

Before you destroy the world's economies you better be damn sure you are 100% right, and have zero chance of a mistake.

It was unregulated capitalism that destroyed the world's economy.....last year.

Didn't you notice?

which clinton was a part of by deregulating the banks. didn't you know that, Monica?

 

[saveliberty]

Which has what to with what I'm sayin'..........

Before you destroy the world's economies you better be damn sure you are 100% right, and have zero chance of a mistake.

It was unregulated capitalism that destroyed the world's economy.....last year.

Didn't you notice?

That is a completely bogus view. It was over involvement by government attempting unsustainable growth in the economy that caused the bubble to burst. Now folks like you want more government control. That is just foolish.

 

[concept]

I am begining to question scientists in general. We are told mamograms are important, then not so important. This study refutes that study. Makes you wonder how good the research is today.

The basic data on temperatures over the last 40 years has been lost for the most part. So how are scientists able to believe in warming with no raw data to work from? How can they look past empirical evidence without investigating more?

The biggest threat from a global warming world would be flooding of coastal areas. Not happening to date. Very hard to believe a science that can't make accurate predictions.

And this is the whole thrust of the campaign to delegitimize science. And it is working. Your children and grandchildren will get to enjoy the results of it.

There is no campaign to delegitimize science. FFS.

The Warmer science is not "science", it is a political agenda.

 

[concept]

You guys take a mistake and run with it....

Mistake?

 

[Chip]

There is no campaign to delegitimize science. FFS.

The Warmer science is not "science", it is a political agenda.

First of all, there are huge agendas on both sides of this issue.

What we have here is a failure to communicate, because of the use of dramatic means to sound the alarm on a subtle and insidious problem.

Al Gore used a scissor lift.

Bush Jr. talked of mushroom clouds.

When the imagery overstates the problem, you garner people's attention at the expense of obscuring the truth.

 

[Vast LWC]

Vast I have been over this with others several times. I have never suggested a conspiracy theory. What seems to be the case is, most if not all scientists are using the same manipulated data to draw conclusions. Since this data all comes from the same source, your conspiracy would be from that place.

Most of the data all comes from the same source???

What source would that be?

Most of the data comes from the same echo chamber.

That's how exclusive country clubs and other "old boy networks" work.

Pot, meet kettle.

Are you seriously suggesting that relative to the echo-chamber that makes up the anti-global warming crowd, the pro-global-warming folks are a small insular group?

Seriously?

I guess 90% of the world's scientific community (as per my linked poll) is all part of some giant conspiracy to ruin the world economy. Right?

You are all seriously disturbed. You see black helicopter conspiracies in EVERYTHING.

I'll tell you what though, when the sea levels do rise, and people come looking for someone to blame, I point the lynch mobs your way. K?

 

[Vast LWC]

Before you destroy the world's economies you better be damn sure you are 100% right, and have zero chance of a mistake.

It was unregulated capitalism that destroyed the world's economy.....last year.

Didn't you notice?

which clinton was a part of by deregulating the banks. didn't you know that, Monica?

That was the Republican congress, during a period that Clinton was the ultimate "lame duck".

Sure, he could have vetoed it, but would never have had the votes to sustain it.

No, you can blame your buddies for that one. Many of whom are still in congress.

 

[Vast LWC]

"According to the U.S. government, a surface station must be at least 100 feet away from a heat source/sink to be considered reliable. Using the goverment's own standards for properly locating temperature sensors, Watts graded each site on a scale from 1 to 5. A grade of 1 or 2 indicates reliable placement. A grade of 3 to 5 can result in temperature errors of several degrees, according to the governments own studies.

To date, the investigation has noted that only 3 percent of the stations surveyed were grade 1. Roughly 8 percent were grade 2, meaning only 11 percent of the stations are located in a manner that results in reliable temperature data.

Some 20 percent of stations were grade 3, the majority were grade 4 (58 percent), and 11 percent were graded as 5."

"The adjustments also help to 'fix' the gaps in the missing data, there is an adjustment for the new MMTS instrumentation, an adjustment for station moves, and time of observation.
These adjustments amount to a net 'warming' that is applied to the 'raw' data."

Is The U.S. Temperature Record Reliable? - wbztv.com

I thank you for having me look up some old sources. I ran across this new one:
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - U.S. Temperature Rankings Rearranged, Problems and Concerns with Temperature data sets

"But last week (week of August 16,2007), a problem popped up. Researchers Steve McIntyre (A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open Climate Audit) and Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That?: 1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA) noticed that there seemed to be an unusual discontinuity—a step upwards—in the temperature records from many of the individual stations that went into the GISS U.S. national aggregate.

Upon carefully documenting this apparent discontinuity and inquiring to the record keepers at GISS about it, it was determined that GISS had accidentally incorporated a data error in their routines aimed at updating and compiling individual station histories as well as the U.S. national temperatures.

After adjusting their procedure to account for this problem, NASA GISS has now made available a new and improved temperature history of the United States. In this more accurate record, the year 2006 now drops to the 4th warmest year of all-time, a full 0.12ºC behind the new sole record-holder, 1934. In the new dataset, only three of the past 10 years are included among the top-10 warmest years of all-time in the United States."

It would be appreciated if you would keep the discourse civil VastLWC. Also, I tire of doing your homework. You will have to refute my statements with your own sources in the future.

Ahh, yes. A study done by former weatherman, Anthony Watts and published on his blog, SurfaceStations.org. Data oft-Used by the anti-global warming crowd.

Of course, what you didn't mention was this, which can be found in the Wiki Entry for Mr Watts:

On July 6, 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good' or 'best' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, "clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."

Watts issued a rebuttal in which he asserted that the preliminary analysis excluded new data on quality of surface stations, and criticized the use of homogenized data from the stations, which in his view accounts for the creation of two nearly identical graphs.

Since then NOAA has released a detailed peer reviewed study confirming both reliability of the surface stations reviewed. The results show that poor stations produce a slight cooling bias, in stark contrast to Watts claim, but also that after corrections both poor and highly rated stations align very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

Yep.

 

[Vast LWC]

And you're losing the battle.

Too bad, so sad...

I find it telling that you see this as some sort of political game where your side is "winning" or "losing".

Do you always consider the future of humanity in terms of a political PR battle?

 

[saveliberty]

"According to the U.S. government, a surface station must be at least 100 feet away from a heat source/sink to be considered reliable. Using the goverment's own standards for properly locating temperature sensors, Watts graded each site on a scale from 1 to 5. A grade of 1 or 2 indicates reliable placement. A grade of 3 to 5 can result in temperature errors of several degrees, according to the governments own studies.

To date, the investigation has noted that only 3 percent of the stations surveyed were grade 1. Roughly 8 percent were grade 2, meaning only 11 percent of the stations are located in a manner that results in reliable temperature data.

Some 20 percent of stations were grade 3, the majority were grade 4 (58 percent), and 11 percent were graded as 5."

"The adjustments also help to 'fix' the gaps in the missing data, there is an adjustment for the new MMTS instrumentation, an adjustment for station moves, and time of observation.
These adjustments amount to a net 'warming' that is applied to the 'raw' data."

Is The U.S. Temperature Record Reliable? - wbztv.com

I thank you for having me look up some old sources. I ran across this new one:
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - U.S. Temperature Rankings Rearranged, Problems and Concerns with Temperature data sets

"But last week (week of August 16,2007), a problem popped up. Researchers Steve McIntyre (A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open Climate Audit) and Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That?: 1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA) noticed that there seemed to be an unusual discontinuity—a step upwards—in the temperature records from many of the individual stations that went into the GISS U.S. national aggregate.

Upon carefully documenting this apparent discontinuity and inquiring to the record keepers at GISS about it, it was determined that GISS had accidentally incorporated a data error in their routines aimed at updating and compiling individual station histories as well as the U.S. national temperatures.

After adjusting their procedure to account for this problem, NASA GISS has now made available a new and improved temperature history of the United States. In this more accurate record, the year 2006 now drops to the 4th warmest year of all-time, a full 0.12ºC behind the new sole record-holder, 1934. In the new dataset, only three of the past 10 years are included among the top-10 warmest years of all-time in the United States."

It would be appreciated if you would keep the discourse civil VastLWC. Also, I tire of doing your homework. You will have to refute my statements with your own sources in the future.

Ahh, yes. A study done by former weatherman, Anthony Watts and published on his blog, SurfaceStations.org. Data oft-Used by the anti-global warming crowd.

Of course, what you didn't mention was this, which can be found in the Wiki Entry for Mr Watts:

On July 6, 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good' or 'best' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, "clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."

Watts issued a rebuttal in which he asserted that the preliminary analysis excluded new data on quality of surface stations, and criticized the use of homogenized data from the stations, which in his view accounts for the creation of two nearly identical graphs.

Since then NOAA has released a detailed peer reviewed study confirming both reliability of the surface stations reviewed. The results show that poor stations produce a slight cooling bias, in stark contrast to Watts claim, but also that after corrections both poor and highly rated stations align very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

Yep.

A weatherman that was smart enough to find a major flaw in NOAA's manipulated data results. So now NOAA comes out with some new conclusions and you jump to accept them. How many times do you have to be found wrong before you wise up?

 

[beowolfe]

I read where real scientists are going to start fresh and look at the data and try to sort this out.[1]

That is what should have been done from the start.

Instead, they had crap from college kid's book reports included in the UN summary as if it was true.[2]

Do you have links to 1 and 2, please? I like knowing this sort of stuff.

1. That's an excellent idea.

2. That's not, but it's the UN, so no surprise.

Sure:

UN brings in top scientists to review IPCC report on Himalayan glaciers | Environment | The Guardian

From the link you posted:

The announcement follows months of controversy which, while not altering the scientific consensus on climate change, has given fresh ammunition to opponents of action on global warming.

 

[Vast LWC]

A weatherman that was smart enough to find a major flaw in NOAA's manipulated data results. So now NOAA comes out with some new conclusions and you jump to accept them. How many times do you have to be found wrong before you wise up?

The weatherman was completely wrong.

What "new Conclusions" do you think they came up with?

They had not checked for consistency in the way that the weatherman did, and when they did, found that the weatherman's data was completely wrong, and possibly the opposite of what was actually the case.

The weatherman's attempt at a contribution to the discussion in the form of testing the methodology used is admirable, if his motives are in the interests of discovering the facts. However, the fact that he was so completely wrong is telling.

 

[Vast LWC]

From the link you posted:

The announcement follows months of controversy which, while not altering the scientific consensus on climate change, has given fresh ammunition to opponents of action on global warming.

Good point, worth repeating. Bold emphasis added.

 

[Dr Grump]

Before you destroy the world's economies you better be damn sure you are 100% right, and have zero chance of a mistake.

It was unregulated capitalism that destroyed the world's economy.....last year.

Didn't you notice?

which clinton was a part of by deregulating the banks. didn't you know that, Monica?

You mean it had nothing to do with Reagan deregulating the building societies?

 

[saveliberty]

A weatherman that was smart enough to find a major flaw in NOAA's manipulated data results. So now NOAA comes out with some new conclusions and you jump to accept them. How many times do you have to be found wrong before you wise up?

The weatherman was completely wrong.

What "new Conclusions" do you think they came up with?

They had not checked for consistency in the way that the weatherman did, and when they did, found that the weatherman's data was completely wrong, and possibly the opposite of what was actually the case.

The weatherman's attempt at a contribution to the discussion in the form of testing the methodology used is admirable, if his motives are in the interests of discovering the facts. However, the fact that he was so completely wrong is telling.

Absolutely untrue. NOAA took his complaint and determined it was true. The computations were rerun with the error removed.

 

[JScott]

There are thousands of facts that support, scientifically, global warming as a trend. Im not going to post links because it took me all of 5 seconds to locate the data.

The data points to climate, ocean levels, biology, and many other indicators. These are unbiased opinions.

Some of the predictions will effect us in our lives. If you don't care, that's up to you.

The world is made up of leaders and followers.