Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Lockjaw]

You are the one who used the Inuit as a source of how many polar bears there were and now you are dismissing their evidence within two posts because it doesn't fit your bill, make thi mind up Wikicat.

 

I think you might need to read post 1228 carefully, including emoticons, before you embarrass yourself further or, alternatively, you could choose to criticise Wildcat's slightly ambiguous posting style on that occasion.

[Wildcat]

You are the one who used the Inuit as a source of how many polar bears there were and now you are dismissing their evidence within two posts because it doesn't fit your bill, make thi mind up Wikicat.

 

It was Convert's link that was claiming polar bear numbers were up not down because the Inuit see them more. And I pointed out the reason for that is the bears are being forced inland because of arctic ice melting.

 

Do try to keep up.

[Wildcat]

A little round up of events:

 

The floods of 2007 - Blamed on climate change.

 

The recent mild winters - Blamed on climate change.

 

Natural disasters - Blamed on climate change.

 

The hot Australian summer - Blamed on climate change.

 

The last two severe winters in the UK - Not blamed on climate change because dont forget that (now these winters have gone "against the grain") weather and climate change are TOTALLY different things.

 

They make it up as they go along.

 

The Uk takes up less than a thousandth of the earths surface area. We may well be the most important country in the world because we live here. But that doesn't mean our weather has anything more than a proportional impact on global temperature.

[Lockjaw]

The Uk takes up less than a thousandth of the earths surface area. We may well be the most important country in the world because we live here. But that doesn't mean our weather has anything more than a proportional impact on global temperature.

 

That's perfectly true but doesn't address the point Top was making.

[Wildcat]

That's perfectly true but doesn't address the point Top was making.

 

I think it does address the point, but I suppose additional observations can be made to address it.

 

Like for example that, I am not clear who precisely has said that flooding etc. is down to global warming... but whoever it is you can understand their reasoning as long term those are the sorts of effects you might expect.

 

Ironically it may be the case that the Arctic Oscillation that has caused this winter for us to be colder than usual may also be due to global warming, but the jury on that is still out so whilst some have made that claim, as I suppose some made the claim about the previous events, others are sceptical.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html

[convert]

Some people are so certain of Global Warming, and that it is mainly attributable to Man. Are these people just fools and fanatics?

 

 

Wouldn't it be wiser to be full of doubts?

 

 

Edited January 23, 2010 by convert

[retep]

I think you might need to read post 1228 carefully, including emoticons, before you embarrass yourself further or, alternatively, you could choose to criticise Wildcat's slightly ambiguous posting style on that occasion.

 

I'll choose that option.

[top4718]

The Uk takes up less than a thousandth of the earths surface area. We may well be the most important country in the world because we live here. But that doesn't mean our weather has anything more than a proportional impact on global temperature.

 

The point I am making is that when the weather patterns fit the global warming agenda then GW is the cause, when the weather doesnt fit in they are separate entities.

 

The last time I looked Australia was not in the UK.

[truman]

What more data do you require?

 

We already have data from: hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe.

 

And I've shown you pictures of where some of these stations are...

[convert]

Looks like NOAA may not have been using as many stations as they could to measure temperature.

 

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.

 

 

Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

 

 

Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.

 

 

It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).

 

 

For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

 

 

Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

 

 

"It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set."

 

 

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.

 

 

Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA, including all the cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this “selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history.

 

 

Source http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html