Clay Evans gives us his global warming sermon on the editorial page of the Daily Camera today. At least his sermon corresponded with a Sunday
First Clay attacks the cooling myth:
The Associated Press administered a blind test to four independent statisticians, using global temperature data but not disclosing what the numbers represented. Asked to look for trends, the stat guys were unanimous: “The experts found no true temperature declines over time,” despite the fact that 1998 was a record temperature year.
First of all, I’m glad that statisticians can agree there is a trend in a data set. I would expect the same result regardless of whether the source of the data had been revealed. In fact, I bet 99% of people will agree that there is a trend in the data set.
Still isn’t this awful simplistic? This is the case closed argument, that some statisticians can tell you there’s a trend? If you plot the data you can see it for yourself. One of the vital questions is “where did the data come from” (be sure and scroll down and see the locations of a few of the sensors).
Notice how they said that the study relies on ground sensors and pay special attention to the quote “recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data center to re-examine its temperature data” …under NOOOOOO political pressure from the new administration I’m sure…
So I headed over to the WUWT blog to see if they had found the data that I was suspecting and sure enough. The data the story relies on comes from NOAA ground sensors and ignores the oceanic data sets and other important data sets. The NOAA ground censors have been discredited as controlled data because in a great many cases the NOAA censors are placed on or near asphalt, stone, heat vents, parking lots, surrounded by black tires in junk yards etc. all of which absorb heat during the day and release it at night. Also notice how the article states that they did not rely on satellite data that tends to show cooling and that presents another problem. According to alarmist global warming theory more warmth is trapped under the “greenhouse layer” of the atmosphere causing temperatures globally to rise. This layer of the atmosphere can be read by satellites and weather balloons (the John Christy method). So if you are to measure greenhouse warming according to the theory, that is the place to do it. However, measuring it that way does not give global warming alarmists the measurements they want.
For more on temperature sensor location read this article, Is the U.S.Surface Temperature Record Reliable? (great pictures here too).
The statistician report simply gave Clay a blast off point to go on his global warming rant.
He concludes with his typical guilt trip, just like the preacher giving the tithing sermon.
Certainty is indeed hard to come by. But anyone who chooses to “believe” that global warming is, as one U.S. Senator has put it, a “hoax,” or at least that its dangers have been overblown, must also accept that they stand against science.
They must also accept that the consequences of their beliefs, if they hold sway, are nothing less than one selfish generation bequeathing a brutal future and disaster-ridden planet upon its children and (if there are any) grandchildren.
Nope, I don’t subscribe to Clay’s guilt trip. I don’t consider myself selfish either. I suggest Clay read this article about the dangers of exaggerating the effects of global warming.
A long term plan is fine with me. But I have serious issues when I feel the main goal of global warming is to allow liberals and progressives to invade my life and take away my freedoms.
I suspect Clay would like this blog much better. One wonders whether he would agree with the sidebar…
Now that point of view opens a can of worms doesn’t it? Does it matter if they are supporters of your global warming beliefs?
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
added 11/2/09 @ 14:18
NY Times blogger Andrew Revkin at Dot Earth comments and expands on the dangers of exagerating global warming theme.
