articles.latimes.com— Widely publicized errors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report on global warming prompt the organization to tighten its standards.
Mar 20, 2010View in Crawl 4
@archiesteel, too bad your respect for the law doesn't extend to honoring Freedom of Information Act requests since that's what the CRU ignored. Of course in retrospect it's pretty incontestable why those FOIA requests were ignored. Warmies knew they couldn't win on the science so they obfuscated, obscured, lied and threatened.Maybe if Phil Jones, head of the CRU hadn't found it necessary to withhold scientific data to cover up the dearth of evidence, the whistle-blower who hacked the CRU e-mail server wouldn't have had to commit his act of conscience.By the way, the article is pretty humorously biased.The excuse for the IPCC reports being shot through with errors is...s**t happens. Unfortunately, the mistakes were all in one direction so that excuse is looking a bit threadbare.And speaking of acting rationally, when do you think you'll begin to see the global warming issue for what it actually was - I'm using the past tense because it's pretty much all over but the rending of garments and tearing of hair.
@Ninh: I wish I was getting paid for this, really, but I'm not.As for you, if you have an interest in the truth, why do you keep spreading lies? Do you really believe in the BS you post? Why not actually look at the science instead of reposting debunked denier talking points?The truth is that AGW is real, and happening, and we have the evidence for it:<a class="user" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence ...</a>
No. When YOU come up with evidence that the data has been manipulated, then YOU will have a point.Innocent until proven guilty. It's a bitch for clueless deniers like you, but it's still valid.BTW, the same raw data was used by NASA GISS, who using different methods came to the same f**king conclusion. Not that this really matters, as we have empirical proof that an increasing amount of heat is being trapped in the atmosphere and oceans by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.Just in case you didn't understand this (considering you are a complete moron): we have evidence that AGW is real, and happening. Until you come up with evidence that disproves this, you have NOTHING.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Finally a reasonable person on Digg. Don't forget all the fake science out there touting that humans caused the smog in L.A. No we didn't, it's just a bunch of liberals trying to make a buck. Also, look at the fact that gravity is still a theory. Scientist aren't even sure how gravity works, yet they want to tell me that it's what keeps me on Earth, and what keeps planets and object orbiting. I'm calling liberal BS and I'm following the money to see who's behind this gravity crap.
Does this mean that references to "climate change" will have to be accompanied by a climate that is actually, you know, changing?NASA DATA (last dozen meteorological years):Source: <a class="user" href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt" rel="nofollow">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts ...</a>Year D-N 1998 57 1999 34 2000 34 2001 45 2002 57 2003 52 2004 50 2005 62 2006 53 2007 59 2008 43 2009 56NOAA DATA (last dozen years):Source: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat1998 0.59711999 0.41992000 0.38862001 0.51732002 0.57462003 0.58172004 0.54142005 0.61532006 0.55992007 0.54722008 0.48042009 0.5569LOLZ! Of course not.
LOLZ...because not knowing wtf one is talking about is often exemplified by NOT posting the actual data from NOAA and NASA, but instead from blogspot. LOLZ!
LOLZ...choosing one scientist's view on Himalayan glaciers, using 2 trees from Yamal rather than the whole record, picking a low temperature span for anomaly comparison, choosing which stations to include....that's all NOT cherrypicking. LOLZ!
LOLZ...how could it be any other way when they keep revising all the older years' temperatures downward? LOLZ!Look at any graph of anomalies from 2003, and check out 1998, for example. Then compare it to now. My how 1998 has cooled! By 2100, the year 1998 will be sub-zero! LOLZ!!
arpadMar 20, 2010
@archiesteel, too bad your respect for the law doesn't extend to honoring Freedom of Information Act requests since that's what the CRU ignored. Of course in retrospect it's pretty incontestable why those FOIA requests were ignored. Warmies knew they couldn't win on the science so they obfuscated, obscured, lied and threatened.Maybe if Phil Jones, head of the CRU hadn't found it necessary to withhold scientific data to cover up the dearth of evidence, the whistle-blower who hacked the CRU e-mail server wouldn't have had to commit his act of conscience.By the way, the article is pretty humorously biased.The excuse for the IPCC reports being shot through with errors is...s**t happens. Unfortunately, the mistakes were all in one direction so that excuse is looking a bit threadbare.And speaking of acting rationally, when do you think you'll begin to see the global warming issue for what it actually was - I'm using the past tense because it's pretty much all over but the rending of garments and tearing of hair.
archiesteelMar 20, 2010
@Ninh: I wish I was getting paid for this, really, but I'm not.As for you, if you have an interest in the truth, why do you keep spreading lies? Do you really believe in the BS you post? Why not actually look at the science instead of reposting debunked denier talking points?The truth is that AGW is real, and happening, and we have the evidence for it:<a class="user" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence ...</a>
archiesteelMar 20, 2010
No. When YOU come up with evidence that the data has been manipulated, then YOU will have a point.Innocent until proven guilty. It's a bitch for clueless deniers like you, but it's still valid.BTW, the same raw data was used by NASA GISS, who using different methods came to the same f**king conclusion. Not that this really matters, as we have empirical proof that an increasing amount of heat is being trapped in the atmosphere and oceans by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.Just in case you didn't understand this (considering you are a complete moron): we have evidence that AGW is real, and happening. Until you come up with evidence that disproves this, you have NOTHING.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aplusjimagesMar 20, 2010
Finally a reasonable person on Digg. Don't forget all the fake science out there touting that humans caused the smog in L.A. No we didn't, it's just a bunch of liberals trying to make a buck. Also, look at the fact that gravity is still a theory. Scientist aren't even sure how gravity works, yet they want to tell me that it's what keeps me on Earth, and what keeps planets and object orbiting. I'm calling liberal BS and I'm following the money to see who's behind this gravity crap.
brockway32Mar 21, 2010
Does this mean that references to "climate change" will have to be accompanied by a climate that is actually, you know, changing?NASA DATA (last dozen meteorological years):Source: <a class="user" href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt" rel="nofollow">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts ...</a>Year D-N 1998 57 1999 34 2000 34 2001 45 2002 57 2003 52 2004 50 2005 62 2006 53 2007 59 2008 43 2009 56NOAA DATA (last dozen years):Source: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat1998 0.59711999 0.41992000 0.38862001 0.51732002 0.57462003 0.58172004 0.54142005 0.61532006 0.55992007 0.54722008 0.48042009 0.5569LOLZ! Of course not.
sirchargeMar 21, 2010
Is the problem that my reasoning isn't logical, or is it that it doesn't fit your belief system?
Closed AccountMar 22, 2010
autistic spammer pestilence reported again <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/political_opinion/George_Will_Global_Warming_Religion?t=31167166#c31172897" rel="nofollow">http://digg.com/political_opinion/George_Will_Glob ...</a>
brockway32Mar 23, 2010
LOLZ...because not knowing wtf one is talking about is often exemplified by NOT posting the actual data from NOAA and NASA, but instead from blogspot. LOLZ!
brockway32Mar 23, 2010
uhm, yeah...because the data of the last 12 years from NOAA and NASA both showing net temperature decline doesn't support my view. LOLZ!
brockway32Mar 23, 2010
LOLZ...choosing one scientist's view on Himalayan glaciers, using 2 trees from Yamal rather than the whole record, picking a low temperature span for anomaly comparison, choosing which stations to include....that's all NOT cherrypicking. LOLZ!
brockway32Mar 23, 2010
LOLZ...how could it be any other way when they keep revising all the older years' temperatures downward? LOLZ!Look at any graph of anomalies from 2003, and check out 1998, for example. Then compare it to now. My how 1998 has cooled! By 2100, the year 1998 will be sub-zero! LOLZ!!