Thursday, January 28, 2010

NC Media Watch: I have a question - why truncate the chart?
Note the decline starts with the PDO warm shift in 1977.

• The graph stops at 2002, about the time that satellites started to see some global cooling, and we are several years into a cool PDO.

• My question is why did the graph stop in 2002, when we have eight years of additional data?

• The winters of 08/09 and 09/10 were quite severe in the Northern US. If this ice cover data was added to the chart, would the supposed trend be real, or the result of cherry picking a period of time to demonstrate a trend which supports the National Wildlife Federation's political point of view?
UN IPCC in Shambles as it Admits to Flawed Global Warming Reports | The National Scene
How quickly man-caused global-warming went from the ‘great moral challenge of our generation’ to ‘the greatest scam in history’.
Obama: Wirth Waiting For - Chris Horner - Planet Gore on National Review Online
Twenty-two years. Still waiting for warming. Still using the threat as the vehicle for their agenda. And with rhetoric either cribbed or so closely paraphrased Wirth ought to demand a script credit. The very boldness of these fresh ideas and approaches send a thrill down my leg.
Daughter blames mother for global warming - STLtoday.com
Dear Dr. Donohue — My daughter complains that I flatulate more often than most individuals. Furthermore, she claims that the gas an individual passes contributes to global warming. I don't know if I am physically able to keep my gas to myself to go green. Is my daughter really right?
China Daily: Do three errors mean breaking point for IPCC?
I am particularly troubled by the fact that top IPCC officials do not seem to take these revelations seriously. Interviewed by the BBC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC, dismissed the matter as a "human mistake".

Ancient Chinese considered three a breaking point. They could forgive two errors, but not a third. Now that the IPCC has admitted three "human" errors, isn't it time scientists gave its work a serious review?

No comments: