source: Watts Up With That?
Watts wryly remarks, "What was down, is now up."
Some warming skeptics say that NASA's adjustments to the historical record--seemingly based on ad hoc algorithms--account for most of the supposed post-WWII warming trend. I'm not sufficiently skilled to be certain. But given the scarcity of stories about the issue, apparently the mainstream media is.
3 comments:
Carl, the main thing that bothers me about the global warming issue is the extent to which it depends on faith rather than facts. That really hit home the other day when I was asked if I "believe in" global warming. What nonsense. This is a question of science, and contrary to what Al Gore and other true believers say, there's a whole lot of serious scientific dissent. Problem is, we're being asked to make significant economic sacrifices in the near future based on the opinion of only one side of the issue. Too bad we can't get an honest, open discussion on global warming out of the media and politicians who have jumped on this particular bandwagon.
1) The signature ain't there.
2) The deeper oceans aren't warming
3) The satellite data says it hasn't "warmed" in over 10 years now (not a scientific argument, since the time constraint is too short, but since the flow in the other direction is also too short, it's just as valid as that argument ever was)
4) Cooling on other planets. That earthly CO2 has one hell of a wide sphere of effect.
5) Even some of the glaciers have started rebuilding.
6) Sea level rise not in accordance with predictions if it is warming.
Etc. etc.
Who needs faith? The evidence is right there, glaring at everyone.
I agree, especially about the media. One caveat: whatever the science actually supports (and I agree that it doesn't prove AGW), the real issue is the proper governmental policy, which necessarily includes economics. Even if the science confirmed AGW, choices other than greenhouse gas curbs--adaptation or amelioration--may be the appropriate reaction.
Post a Comment