fayfreethinkers.com

The hoax is that massive government spending and intervention into the economy is the "solution" to what is well within natural atmospheric temperature variations. The objective evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period had comparable (if not warmer) temperatures than late 20th century. This is not to say that humans have had no effect, only that it is nothing to freak out about, and certainly not justification for massive aggression by States. It seems that, as statist socialism has been discredited as an excuse for ramping up State aggression, apocalypse abusers are using catastrophic global warming as a new excuse. The fact that their one and only "solution" is more regulation (as opposed to, say, better definition of property rights, or relatively inexpensive harm reduction measures) makes their program rather transparent.

DAR
In a September 26 post in this thread I provided two articles making the point:

"If global temperatures go up another 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C), it would be equal to the maximum temperature of the past million years."

We are on track to easily reach this in my lifetime.

Why don't you drop the pretense that you care about the science. I can't imagine anyone buying it at this point. You are against the evidence for GW due to a zealous devotion and attachment to anarchy and because a solution to the GW problem will require humans coming together in a large organized way to deal with it.

D.

DAR
Underline mine.

Time to Accept the Obvious
By David Miliband
Newsweek

Monday 04 December 2006 Issue

To be pro-growth, we need to be pro-green. The costs of action are smaller than the cost of business-as-usual - by a factor of five to 20.

Climate change raises issues of science, economics and politics. By the month the debate moves on: 2007 will be a key year. And the science is now unambiguous. At the recent 12th annual United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Nairobi, no country challenged the consensus: climate change is man-made, it is happening now, carbon levels already in the atmosphere are dangerous, and if we carry on catastrophic climate change will become more, rather than less, likely. Contrary to Robert Samuelson's unfounded claim in NEWSWEEK (Nov. 15 issue), scientists do have a good idea how much warming might occur. Within ten years we will be running a better than even chance of a two degrees Celsius average change in the earth's temperature; within 50 years it will be a majority chance of a three-degree change.

...In each of the five main sources of greenhouse gases - electricity, heat, transport, agriculture and deforestation - there are solutions. Energy efficiency in homes and buildings is the cheapest approach; in the UK, we have improved energy efficiency of new homes by 40 percent since 2002. As the International Energy Agency has shown, low-carbon technologies, from wind and solar to nuclear and carbon capture and storage, are available. In transport, hybrid cars reduce emissions by a third. Deforestation can be avoided if people are provided with alternative ways of earning a living.

...In the UK the Labour government has overseen a 25 percent growth in the size of the economy since 1997, while greenhouse-gas emissions have been cut by 7 percent. The UK is on track to more than double its Kyoto commitments on greenhouse-gas reduction, representing a 60 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. A new Climate Change Bill will put legislative force behind our drive. And we are not alone.

Across Europe, governments are firming up hard targets for emissions reductions. So are US states like California. We believe it is in our economic self-interest: as they say at Google, if the market is going to move, then get there first. But there is also a political reason: hard targets from industrialized countries create a double dividend. They break the logjam of distrust with the developing world, by showing commitment to take action, and they create a carbon market through which private-sector capital can flow into low-emissions energy infrastructure in the developing world.

The truth is that for 150 years we have pumped carbon dioxide and other dangerous gases into the atmosphere as if it had no environmental or economic cost. Now that we know the costs, we need to put a price on them. In the process we will effect a transition in our own economies to low-carbon living, and set in train a resource transfer from North to South.

In the next few months there will be further scientific confirmation from the International Panel on Climate Change. The European Union will take further steps on energy efficiency and carbon trading. And the dialogue established by Tony Blair for the Group of 8 leading industrialized countries, plus five leading developing countries, will be taken forward during the German presidency of the G8.

The first set of international emissions-reduction commitments agreed at Kyoto in 1997 will run out in 2012. New commitments are essential to succeed them. The industrialized countries must lead the way. For developing countries, there must be other ways to make a contribution - according to the U.N. principle of "common but differentiated" responsibilities....

link

Just being pessimistic here, but I don't think we have enough time left to avoid the costs of "business as usual" - Exxon and people like W (and Hogeye) have delayed action passed the "tipping point". That doesn't mean I think we shouldn't try. We should, because I could be wrong. But we'd better be preparing for the worst while we work for the not-so-bad.

So, you wanna nuke China and India, since they will be putting out more greenhouse gasses than the US real soon now? For some reason, they want to develop and become wealthy, too. LOL!

Seriously, you needn't worry. The global warming craze will go the way of global cooling, the population bomb, silent spring, and all the previous alarmist scams in a few years. Last I looked, warming peaked in 1998.

Hogeye wrote:Last I looked, warming peaked in 1998.

DAR
As usual, that's misleading. Only a very silly bunny would expect skyrocketing temperature increases to step up precisely in perfect steps each year. As the rocket shoots up you will get extra bumps (or slumps), such as '98. Notice how we have really cooled since that "peak" year:



And as usual, your claim is not accurate anyway. There are many ingredients to global temperature and thus many sources show 2005 ties 1998, AND, last I checked, the first half of 2006 set an even higher record.



D.
------------------------
Bonus:

"August 7, 2006 — The continental United States suffered through its second-hottest July on record because of a blistering heat wave from California to Washington, D.C. The heat wave broke more than 2,300 daily temperature records for the month and eclipsed more than 50 records for the highest temperatures in any July, according to the NOAA National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The hottest July on record occurred in 1936, and the third hottest was 1934.

The agency also reported that the first seven months of 2006 was the warmest January-July of any year the United States since records began in 1895. And, the scorching temperatures, combined with a shortage of rainfall, expanded moderate-to-extreme drought conditions in areas already hard hit."

The first graph supports my claim that 1998 had the hottest earth atmospheric temperature. You admit there was a "bump" there which has not been surpassed since.

Next you deceptively give a table for the US only while implying that its for the whole earth ("There are many ingredients to global temperature and thus many sources show 2005 ties 1998..."). Then you give some anecdotal evidence for the US only, including the "first seven months of 2006" claim. We're freethinkers who use critical thinking - we won't fall for that kind of stuff. We're talking global atmospheric temperature. Please - no more bait and switch.

Hogeye wrote:The first graph supports my claim that 1998 had the hottest earth atmospheric temperature.

DAR
That's not what you claimed. Stop being so goddamn dishonest. Let's review. You said to Barbara:

"Seriously, you needn't worry. The global warming craze will go the way of global cooling, the population bomb, silent spring, and all the previous alarmist scams in a few years. Last I looked, warming peaked in 1998."

Claims can be technically true while at the same time, very misleading, twisted and dishonest. Politicians call them talking points, I call it a Hogeye post. Why would you say "warming peaked in 1998"? Because you want to imply that that was the top and we are going to go down. Just a few weeks ago you said that to suggest the earth is cooling would be a ridiculous strawman of the GW skeptic position. You dared me to find one example and I gave you three of your friends, including the dishonest resume padding clown Tim Ball you were trying to peddle at the time. Now you tell Barbara nothing to worry about, 1998 was "the peak" and we are on our way down. Inconsistent and ridiculous.

The idea that 1998's Nino bumped numbers are slightly higher than the few years following, means anything for your position is so blatantly ridiculous I won't waste anymore time unpacking it. It fools no one. It's a problem an elementary child would suggest. I will share this global chart again:



Note that the top five hottest global temperature averages occurred SINCE 1998. Have you no shame?

You admit there was a "bump" there which has not been surpassed since.

DAR
Not that it matters, no I didn't. In fact I said: "many sources show 2005 ties 1998". Stop with the dishonest bullshit.

Next you deceptively give a table for the US only while implying that its for the whole earth

DAR
Of for pity sake, get competent or keep your ignorant mouth shut. The table I gave, given again above, was global, as was clear by my reference in the sentence describing it "...global temperature..."

Here is what the article accompanying the chart says:

"Global average surface temperatures pushed 2005 into a virtual tie with 1998 as the hottest year on record.[1] For people living in the Northern Hemisphere—most of the world's population—2005 was the hottest year on record since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable instrumental records were available worldwide.

And, importantly:

"The year 2005 exceeded previous global annual average temperatures despite having weak El Niño conditions at the beginning of the year and normal conditions for the rest of the year. (El Niño is a period of warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in the east-central Pacific Ocean that influences weather conditions across much of the globe.) In contrast, the record-breaking temperatures of 1998 were boosted by a particularly strong El Niño."

Then you give some anecdotal evidence for the US only,

DAR
Yeah, it's worth pointing out that we don't have the global numbers in yet for 2006 but we do know that the US, for 2006, has had the highest temperatures in recorded history. And as I pointed out a few weeks ago so has the UK. From earlier in this thread:

"Climate variability scientists at the Met Office have revealed that this year's extended summer period has been the warmest on the long standing Central England Temperature (CET) record.

The record that dates back to 1659 is the longest instrumental temperature record in the world and May to September 2006 has been warmer than any equivalent period since then."

We're freethinkers who use critical thinking - we won't fall for that kind of stuff.

DAR
Spare me the irony of you talking about critical thinking. Call yourself what you want but I consider you nothing other than a goose-stepping fundamentalist free-market worshipper. Just like all of the fundies I have dealt with in my life, you will say and believe anything as long as you can torture language to make it fit your devotions to a blindingly stupid anarchy doctrine. The funny part is that, as far as I can tell, you goose-step completely alone.
Readers might not know your consistent history of annoyance. I was a member when the Arkansas Medical MJ movement/forum gave you the boot for making threats. You said the Ayn Rand people banned you from their forum. You said NWA politics gave you the boot. OMNI gave you the boot from their committee after you made violent posters with their name on them and distributed them and now I am told you still disrupt their meetings with your insane rantings.

D.

"Global warming" is the theory that earth's atmosphere is warming to catastrophic levels due to human-caused greenhouse gasses. There are several ways to measure atmospheric temperature, some more reliable than others. The least reliable is taking temperatures from land-based meteorological stations, since these are a) not randomly distributed, b) affected my topography (microclimates) and land use patterns (e.g. urban island effect, agricultural uses, deforestation, etc.) Surface measurements made on oceans are somewhat better, but still less reliable than taking measurements above the surface, such as in the stratosphere or troposphere. After all, the global warming theory is a hypothesis about atmospheric temperature, not land/ocean surface temperature.

The table Darrel offers (without link to source) uses the least reliable data, surface temperature, with heavy reliance on the most unreliable data of all, land-based weather stations. But there has been more than one group that takes such measures. He chooses the one that agrees with his alarmist view. The fact is, the claim that 2005 was as warm or warmer than 1998 (based on the less reliable surface data) is disputed. The NOAA/NASA group in the US says 2005 was warmer; the Hadley Centre/EARU in the UK says 1998 was warmer. (Due to error factors, the NOAA/NASA only commits to 2005 being about the same as 1998.) The alarmist web site, of course, only tell you about the one that agrees with them. No pretty graphs or table for the other group, just as respected scientifically! Nor is there a mention in "summary" propaganda articles. You have to delve into the 10 Meg State of the Climate in 2005 (pdf) to find that out. They're banking on the fact that most people aren't fanatic enough to do that. (Rational ignorance.)

State of the Climate in 2005 (pg.1) wrote:As shown in Fig. 2.1, the value for 2005 ranks as highest on record according to the NOAA and NASA analyses and second highest, behind 1998, according to the Met Office’s Hadley Centre/University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit analysis.

But this averages in the least reliable land surface data. What if we look only at the relatively more reliable ocean surface data?

State of the Climate in 2005 (pg.2) wrote:According to the NOAA/NCDC record ... sea surface temperatures ranked third highest (Fig. 2.3), behind 1998 and 2003.

So if you look at the data not corrupted by topographic and land use issues, 2005 is not so hot.

Now let's look at data more reliable and indicative of atmospheric temperature - from the atmosphere. Specifically, we examine measurements from the troposphere and stratosphere.

State of the Climate in 2005 (pg.3) wrote:The annual LT [low to middle troposphere] temperature anomaly for 2005 was second warmest (tied for second in UAH) since either radiosonde (1958) or satellite (1979) records began (Fig. 2.6). The warmest calendar year remains 1998. ... The MT layer (Fig. 2.7), which includes some stratospheric influence, presents a similar picture. However, while 2005 was the second warmest globally for the two radiosonde datasets, it was fourth and fifth warmest in the RSS and UAH satellite datasets, respectively.

Going up to the stratosphere, arguably the most reliable measure of atmospheric temperature, being least affected by corrupting surface effects, what do we get? It's cooling!

State of the Climate in 2005 (pg.3) wrote:The 2005 global annual anomaly was near those of 1995, 1996, and 2000 in the satellite records (Fig. 2.8), but was not the coldest. Linear trends are more variable among the datasets, but all indicate significant cooling over the period (Table 2.1). However, since about 1995, global trends have been near zero (Fig. 2.8).

Jeez, you wouldn't know any of this if you'd only read the alarmist sites! Where are the pretty graphs of the stratophere data? Anyway, bottom line: The alarmist claim that 2005 was as warm or warmer than 1998 is almost certainly false, and based on cherry picking, not only the least reliable measurements (surface data), but the NASA study which agreed with their alarmist bias.

I stand by my claims: that 1998 was a (recent, since MWP) maximum, and that it is most likely the peak of the recent warming. (I can't say "certainly," since I cannot foretell the future.)

Errata: For the unsourced, untitled list of dates, I looked at the image URL, saw it was from ucsusa.org, and thought it was about US temperatures. It was in fact based on the NASA version of global temperatures. Also, there was an inadvertent change in the formulation of the 1998 claim that upset Darrel so.

Hogeye wrote:"
The table Darrel offers (without link to source)

DAR
I certainly meant to give the link as I always do. It is important to read the article:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sc ... p2005.html

And the note:

[1] The years 1998 and 2005 are so similar (i.e., within the error range of the different analysis methods or a few hundredths of a degree Celsius) that independent groups (e.g., NOAA, NASA, and the United Kingdom Meteorological Office) calculating these rankings based on reports from the same data-collecting stations around the world disagree on which year should be ranked first. Annual global rankings are based on combined land-air surface temperature and sea surface temperature since 1880.

DAR
Even if the 1998 numbers vastly surpassed the next few years, it would be misleading to make the assertion that you did. If you take the decade of the 90's and scramble the order of the years (and their temps), does it matter in the least? No. Only a fool would say it would matter. What matters is that almost every year is a record temp and when considered in the century context and a multi-century context and what we know of the cause... good grief, it's just absurd. Actually dishonest. And that is what I cannot stand about communication with you. Your claim, even if it was true, is misleading, actually ridiculous, in any context. No one expects yearly temperatures to increase linearly in perfect steps. To imply this causes a problem for the GW science just shows how desperate you are. THINK before you regurgitate the pap you read on your nutbar sites. Suggestion: try discussing these things honestly without spin. Your word games fool no one and just destroy your credibility.

D.

Darrel wrote:Even if the 1998 numbers vastly surpassed the next few years, it would be misleading to make the assertion that you did.

On the contrary, the graph you gave earlier based on the CRU/UK data already has close to zero slope (.004) at 2005 for the smoothed graph. (Here's the data. I can't find what smoothing function they use - maybe a 10 year moving average?)


(graph from this page)

If 2006 falls more than a tenth of a degree or so, we already have a negative slope, and can reasonably claim a peak. Look at the global surface temperature data so far in 2006:

2005 87 77 87 79 66 73 67 66 87 88
2006 56 76 65 66 46 63 67 67 70 85
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
(NASA data from bottom of this page)
Most months have been cooler than corresponding months in 2005. It seems very likely that 2006 will be cooler than 2005. Whether it will be cool enough to yield a relative maxima (aka "peak") for the smoothing functtion remains to be seen. Of course, it depends on the function used. No doubt if it turns out to be a local maxima, alarmists will want to use a longer moving average.

On another note, after reading up more I've decided that the stratosphere is not a fair measure of the greenhouse effect. But I still maintain that the troposphere is, and a better one than surface temperature data, for reasons given in the previous post.

So in response to my suggestion, you are not interested in discussing these things honestly without spin. Pathetic.

"It seems very likely that 2006 will be cooler than 2005."

DAR
If so it is because 2005 ties with the all time high. And you dishonestly ignore that it did so without 1998's El Nino effect so any reasonable and fair person would understand that when this considered, '05 high is even more profound. And you ignore my other points as usual. You think you are very smart but you are so dense you can't even grasp my point or why I am so disgusted with your comment (which has nothing to do with whether '05 is slightly higher or lower than '98):

"Last I looked, warming peaked in 1998."

It is classic Hogeye in that it has so much dishonesty and spin packed in such a short space.

Do you believe that if yearly temperatures do not increase in linear perfect steps this is a problem for the non-GW skeptic position? Just how foolishly are you prepared to posture yourself to protect your fantasies?

I forgot to point out the absurdity, actually dishonesty, of comparing a pop environmentalist book like Silent Spring, to the mountains science showing human caused GW. I have had it with cutting you any slack. You are just plain dishonest.

D.
------------------------
"Claims can be technically true while at the same time, very misleading, twisted and dishonest. Politicians call them talking points, I call it a Hogeye post."

Don't you think it is rather childish to call someone who disagrees with you "dishonest?"

I agree with most of your earlier post, i.e. "No one expects yearly temperatures to increase linearly in perfect steps." "If you take the decade of the 90's and scramble the order of the years (and their temps), it doesn't matter in the least." "What matters is that almost every year is a record temp."

Do you agree that, if the 2006 temperature is enough lower, the slope of smoothed curve on the UK graph will be negative, giving a local maximum? You seem to think it's outlandish and "dishonest" to point this out, or even acknowledge the possibility. Do you agree that the slope is declining at the "current" end of the graph?

Some constructive criticism:
One complaint I have with you is that you seem reluctant to acknowledge the the truth of even the most obvious claims. Maybe you want to get back to your prepared "playbook." Maybe you think you lose points or something. I suggest that, on the contrary, agreeing with obvious claims would make you seem more reasonable and fair, and would gain "points" from the debate audience. A related complaint: you seem often to try to duck and evade your debate opponent's point, and try to set up a strawman - usually a ridiculous one, easy for you to knock over. You'll even resort to ad hom and various rhetorical tricks to try to get your opponent to accept your strawman. (E.g. a recent one - claiming not to understand the word "facilitate"). I might suggest a different approach: Agreeing with the obvious claim, and saying "so what?" or "what of it?" Using the same example: You could have come off as reasonable instead of obstinate by saying, "Sure, gun control facilitates genocide. That's obvious. But that does not imply that gun control causes genocide." You get the idea.

Hogeye wrote:Don't you think it is rather childish to call someone who disagrees with you "dishonest?"

DAR
Fallacy of the complex question. The question assumes I just disagree with you. I don't just disagree with you, I think, I know, you are intellectually dishonest. Believe in the Great Pumpkin if you wish. Argue for it strenuously. But as with any fundie, once I recognize they are not even interested in finding out the truth of the matter, then I know they are wasting my time, (except to the extent others may learn about fundie mindset by watching the exchange).

Since you say you agree with my comment:

"No one expects yearly temperatures to increase linearly in perfect steps." and "If you take the decade of the 90's and scramble the order of the years (and their temps), it doesn't matter in the least." "What matters is that almost every year is a record temp."

Then anyone can see that it makes no sense to say one "needn't worry" about global warming because "warming peaked in 1998."

Why don't you admit your statement is misleading? Why don't you admit that a bump in a single years temp 8 years ago means absolutely nothing regarding the veracity of global warming concerns?

Do you agree that, if the 2006 temperature is enough lower, the slope of smoothed curve on the UK graph will be negative, giving a local maximum?

DAR
If it's low enough. But this question just shows that you still don't understand that my point has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth of your claim regarding 1998. That's why I said, repeatedly: "Claims can be technically true while at the same time, very misleading, twisted and dishonest." I didn't remember that 2005 was a near tie until later. It doesn't matter.

You seem to think it's outlandish and "dishonest" to point this out, or even acknowledge the possibility.

DAR
Completely irrelevant once you accept the truth of this claim (as you say you do):
"No one expects yearly temperatures to increase linearly in perfect steps."

Do you agree that the slope is declining at the "current" end of the graph?

DAR
No. Nor does that graph appear to have the corrections for 2005, as explained in the NOAA footnote provided above. But again, a red herring.

you seem reluctant to acknowledge the the truth of even the most obvious claims.

DAR
You are projecting.

various rhetorical tricks to try to get your opponent to accept your strawman. (E.g. a recent one - claiming not to understand the word "facilitate")

DAR
The irony is thick and strawy. Of course I never claimed to not understand the word "facilitate", in fact I provided the word to you and you said I gave "an accurate rendition of my claim". Then I said:

"borrowing my "facilitated" gets you nothing specific"

This was a clue that you need to show:

a) that gun control indeed faciliates genocide
b) how gun control indeed facilitates genocide

I might suggest a different approach: Agreeing with the obvious claim,

DAR
I don't agree with the "obvious" claim. Regarding the Nazi's, either you didn't read the guncite article or the information didn't make it through your filters.

You could have come off as reasonable instead of obstinate by saying, "Sure, gun control facilitates genocide."

DAR
But you have never shown gun control facilitates genocide.

If I say: "guns facilitate genocide" or "lack of gun control facilitates genocide" are you going to just accept the claim as obvious?

Of course your original claim was stronger and vague about how strong the casual link was between gun control and genocide:

"People killed in the 20th century by their own governments after being disarmed by gun control laws: 170 million."

Enough.

D.

Darrel wrote:Why don't you admit that a bump in a single years temp 8 years ago means absolutely nothing regarding the veracity of global warming concerns?

Sure. No problem. I admit that a bump in a single year means nothing. I have never claimed a peak on the basis of that single year. It may turn out to be a peak in conjunction with temperatures before and since. In particular, the slope of the smoothed curve is declining, and we may see a local maximum once we get the 2006 results. Yes if the 90s were permuted, and the max was in 1995 instead of 1998, then I would have claimed warming peaked out in 1995. (BTW, I dispute that 2005 was equal to 1998; I believe the UK rather than the NASA conclusion.) Neither of us knows for sure at this time whether a peak has occurred. Neither of us is clairvoyent. Ten years from now we will both know.

As I've said before, I think ten years from now the global warming scare will sound as silly as the silent spring that never happened, the global cooling that never happened, running out of copper that never happened, and so on. I've seen way too many of these stupid apocalyptic predictions to fall for it, any more than I fall for a religious fanatic on the street carrying a sign saying "the world will end tomorrow." The apocalypse abusers have cried "wolf" way too many times. I believe govt bought and paid for global warming "science" about as much as I believe 1980s govt cannibis suffocate the monkeys science. I put more weight on independent research than govt-funded research.

Darrel wrote:I don't agree with the "obvious" claim. [that gun control facilitates genocide]

Oh, really? Hmmm. Bizarre. Let me try to understand. You apparently believe, then, that a) gun control laws are ineffective in reducing gun ownership, and/or b) it is just as easy and safe to kill armed people as unarmed people? And maybe c) those who intend genocide don't mind getting shot at by their victims? Tell me this: Do you believe that people prefer more of a good to less? I confess; I have no idea why you don't recognize "gun control facilitates genocide" as an obvious truism. To me, it is a rather obvious application of the praxeological law that (ceteris paribus) people prefer more of a good to less (and less of a bad to more.) My reasoning:

A State's gun control laws provides penalties (a bad) for violation. (def of gun control law)
Thus, ceteris paribus, there will be a reduction in gun ownership. (Prax Law 1)
A reduction in gun ownership makes genocide easier. (since it is easier and safer to kill unarmed people than armed people.)
Ergo, gun control facilitates genocide.

I'd call that obvious.
(Note that this argument is analytic; it requires virtually no empirical data, just simple definitions and a law of human action.)

Hogeye wrote: Sure. No problem. I admit that a bump in a single year means nothing. I have never claimed a peak on the basis of that single year.

DAR
Quote: "...warming peaked in 1998."

It may turn out to be a peak in conjunction with temperatures before and since.

DAR
Gibberish.

if the 90s were permuted, and the max was in 1995 instead of 1998, then I would have claimed warming peaked out in 1995.

DAR
Right. You would have claimed a peak "on the basis of" the year 1995, instead of claiming a peak "on the basis" of the year 1998. Yet, "a bump in a single year means nothing." Keep spinning.

Neither of us knows for sure at this time whether a peak has occurred.

DAR
Last you checked, warming peaked in 1998.

Just for fun, a NASA chart (doesn't matter if you include 2005):



When people see this chart, they can be reassured, because warming peaked in 1998.

Here's the blurb:

"NASA GISS Reports 2005 Warmest Year Globally in Instrumental Record

On January 18 James (Jim) Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), sent a message to many leaders in the meteorological and scientific communities reporting that global temperatures in 2005 exceeded those of any previous year since extensive instrumental records have been available. These records extend about a century and a quarter. By the GISS calculations 2005 was slightly warmer than 1998, previously regarded as the warmest year in instrumental records." link

When I look at my little red graph given early I am reminded that every single year from '01 to '05 was hotter than every year (except the '98 anomaly) in the blistering 90's. And the best science agrees, 2 to 1 odds, that the 90's were the hottest in a thousand years.

My reasoning: [on gun control]

DAR
All full of assumptions. In the other thread, show gun control has facilitated genocide. Show it wouldn't have happened just the same (or in some instances even worse) without gun control. In Rwanda a lot of the people were killed with machete's. If there were a lot of guns one could just as easily assert that more killing would have been facilitated by their use. In Germany, the odd Jew that fought back with a gun would have been killed quicker (on the spot) by Nazi power and more certainly rather than having a shot at making it out of the death camp (many did). Looks like gun control facilitates the prevention of genocide. It's obvious. No need to show this. It's easy to make stuff up. Showing is the hard part. It's not your fault though. You don't show what you need to because you cannot. It's a cooda bean game. Without the "gun grabber's" it cooda bean this way instead of that way. But you can never show that the genocide wouldn't have just happened anyway.

D.
------------------------
The Cooda Bean

Do you know the cooda bean?
It's magic. I think it's green.
Its magic consists in this:
it's always right, with nary a miss.

If someone tells you, "That's a contradiction!
It's full of lies! It's merely fiction!"
Answer them back, with reply serene:
"Oh no, you're wrong, it's 'cooda bean.'"

If someone claims, "That's simply untrue,
science shows that will never do."
Go to the garden, get out your tureen,
and serve them up some cooda bean.

When they say, "That's incoherent,
the truth of that is not apparent."
Don't serve them blood, don't serve them bread,
get out your cooda beans, instead.

Just one last thing, one last condition
concerning cooda bean nutrition;
they might be filling, and promote weight gain,
but they're sadly lacking as food for the brain.

So while they're fine as fodder for making up tales
about ghosts and spirits, or ribs or whales,
when it comes to knowledge about what's real,
faxen sions make a better meal.
--Hymn #666, Nullifidian Hernbook (the n is silent)
"The Cooda Bean" (from Greg Ewrin)

By the way - "Silent Spring" was a projection of what would happen if we kept doing what we were doing. We didn't. Whether you call it the straw that broke the camel's back or whatever, "Silent Spring" kicked off the environmental movement. We quit using the pesticides Carson was talking about - especially the ones that not only killed insects, but also so weakened the shells of bird eggs as to endanger the insect-eating songbird population (and on up through the food chain to raptors like falcons). "Silent Spring" has the kind of problem every preventative exhortation gets when the issue was addressed proactively. For some reason, successfully working to keep nasty things from happening always seems to bring the accusation of "hoax" when the nasty thing doesn't happen due to the work to prevent it.

Darrel doesn't acknowledge that a smoothed trend line depends on a number of data points and not a single year. He then gives the NASA graph, which disagrees with the Climatic Research Unit - UEA/UK graph he gave earlier. Fair enough - we've noted that NASA and UK research groups disagree (in particular about the rank of 2005 wrt 1998.)

The apocalyptic Silent Spring
Never happened but cooda bean.

As I said, prevention isn't dramatic and doesn't sell movies/books/dvds. The preventers are always accused of hoax (cooda bean) when what they prevented didn't happen. Good thing the French didn't think that way about rabies work in the 19th century.

DAR
Cooda Bean that Silent Spring was exaggerated scary hype. Cooda Bean that if it hadn't exaggerated it's scary predictions we wouldn't have gotten nearly the agressive environmental action that was accomplished. Just an observation.