IGX

jesus turd, that's just pathetic.

this story can be found all over, and i provided a simple explanation. the truth is not about the reporter. you are just throwing out distractions, because you don't anything else you can do.

smet--your friends haven't see rising sea levels, so it couldnt' be true? are you serious?

should i dig up the articles about the recently reported "unstoppable" melting of the west antarctic ice sheet, which will lead to several feet of sea-level rise?

to demonstrate your convictions, i encourage you both to invest in beachfront property.

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... right.html

Turdacious wrote:However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.

It's about making Politically Correct headline fodder.
After the previous peak in 2010, did you see headlines reading, 2011 a Cooler Year - Climate Scientists Baffled - 'Hockey Stick' Hypothesis in Doubt ?

The headlines come from the same folks who brought you Tawana Brawley, Baby Trayvon, the black Church Burnings, the Duke Lacrosse Rapes, and the Unarmed Teenager Michael Brown. Same propaganda mill, different subject.
The story is too important for Due Process or proper context.

johno wrote:The story is too important for . . . proper context.

context:

In the annals of climatology, 2014 surpassed 2010 as the warmest year. The 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997, a reflection of the relentless planetary warming that scientists say is a consequence of human activity and poses profound long-term risks to civilization and nature.

johno wrote:

Turdacious wrote:However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.

It's about making Politically Correct headline fodder.
After the previous peak in 2010, did you see headlines reading, 2011 a Cooler Year - Climate Scientists Baffled - 'Hockey Stick' Hypothesis in Doubt ?

If their case was so strong, why would they attempt such a bad attempt at lying with statistics?

dead man walking wrote: smet--your friends haven't see rising sea levels, so it couldnt' be true? are you serious?

should i dig up the articles about the recently reported "unstoppable" melting of the west antarctic ice sheet, which will lead to several feet of sea-level rise?

to demonstrate your convictions, i encourage you both to invest in beachfront property.

Melting glaciers and arctic sheet is one thing, and there is plenty of observation that confirms both. Locals in the alps will tell you that the snow caps on every mountain has gotten smaller, for example. Sea level rises - as "dramatic" as they have been - are absolutely invisible and therefore do not have practical impact. A decade ago they predicted mass migration of residents of Pacific Islands to Australia because of sea level rises; hasn't happened. As far as beach property is concerned in Sydney it is grabbed the day it appears on the market.

If you read the article you posted with an open and critical mind you will see that it is seriously retarded. They basically dismiss direct measurements of sea levels and substitute them for estimates of contributing sources - ice sheets, expansion due to temperature etc. - and put them through complicated mathematical models to come up with the "dramatic" new value. It's the same as determining the weight of a person by measuring the degree of wear of the soles of his shoes, because scales are unreliable.

Once again, what you see if what you get. Warming is happening, and I can feel it by every most summers becoming warmer and longer (personally I like it). Glaciers are melting, and people can testify it is true. Sea level rise is of academic interest and hasn't made the slightest impact on my life. Even if it will, there is practically no evidence that bodily movements by greenies and politicians will make the slightest change to the dynamics of weather pattern change.

Maybe if dmw did something to advance his cause, like these two:
http://www.fatchancerow.org/

dead man walking wrote:

johno wrote:The story is too important for . . . proper context.

context:

In the annals of climatology, 2014 surpassed 2010 as the warmest year. The 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997, a reflection of the relentless planetary warming that scientists say is a consequence of human activity and poses profound long-term risks to civilization and nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

For someone interested in the truly scientific discussion:

Latest NOAA mean sea level trend data through 2013 confirms lack of sea level rise acceleration

More complicated than a short article in a glossy magazine, but I am afraid is more credible.

smet,

the story of sea level rise is not merely a short article in a glossy magazine. the information regarding sea level rise is based on a new study published in nature this month. you can read more about it here.

http://www.realclimate.org

here's some more context for you, turd. but by all means, keep pissing into the wind with your meaningless attempts to invalidate the science.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... phics.html

Animated graphics? Unfair! Correctly applied and reported statistics can't compete with that!

so i win?

dead man walking wrote:so i win?

Damn right!

stay cool and don't invest in any beachfront property.

Even if you take that study at face value (which you shouldn't) it does not demonstrate acceleration in sea level rise. As per link I posted.

When I was at school I tried to convince my mom that even if my temperature was normal, taken in the proper context I still had a fever and shouldn't go to school on that day. Now I know I should have explain to her the science of adjustments.

The comment No.17 is pretty enlightening.

I like how you can "adjust" the data to completely reverse the trend. All Of Paraguay’s Temperature Record Has Been Tampered With

Funny thing is, I don't doubt that the climate I can observe is getting warmer, and I actually like it a lot. I just do not believe that it is anthropogenic.

Smet wrote: I don't doubt that the climate I can observe is getting warmer, and I actually like it a lot. I just do not believe that it is anthropogenic.

My critique of that statement is that it is a conclusion of the wrong question. Pollution is detrimental and the question we have to ask is what is the right amount.

Also, I don't doubt just climate science but any institutionalized predictive science. I believe everyone should.

Pollution is a different thing altogether. I am all for reducing pollution and waste.

In Related News, Boston Residents have growing doubts about Global warming.

Smet wrote:Pollution is a different thing altogether. I am all for reducing pollution and waste.

But that is my point exactly. What purpose does climate change or global warming serve that isn't served by investigating pollution and waste?

greenhouse gas emissions primarily result from the burning of fossil fuels, which produces multiple pollutants--sox, nox, mercury, to mention the most obvious. changes to reduce climate change--the use of cleaner and renewable fuels, operating with greater efficiency--also reduce the production of pollutants that harm human health.

it's all of a piece.

dead man walking wrote:greenhouse gas emissions primarily result from the burning of fossil fuels, which produces multiple pollutants--sox, nox, mercury, to mention the most obvious. changes to reduce climate change--the use of cleaner and renewable fuels, operating with greater efficiency--also reduce the production of pollutants that harm human health.

it's all of a piece.

Key difference-- reasonable people doubt the validity of science behind climate change; they don't doubt the damage of pollution.