> -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 10:58 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: global warming? how about global cooling > > My source is in the original post in this thread. The article notes > that > NASA has 2005 as the warmest on record but the UK Hadley center has > 1998 as > the warmest on record.
And what reasons do you have to trust the Hadley Center more than NASA? Note that you didn't say "there's conflicting evidence" - you stated the Hadley Center's figures (those figures that support your view) as fact. This shows an all too common tendency to accept opinion-confirming evidence and reject opinion-denouncing evidence. I've not explored the methodology enough to make a clear assessment... but all the evidence I've seen supports the NOAA information I posted. All I've seen to defend your statement is one (unsourced) line in a general article that itself supports the fundamental truth of a warming trend. That article is clear: the trend is upwards. Despite anomalies the trend is upward. Warming is a fact. Granted the trend may end tomorrow or next year or continue for millennia... but our current evidence that it will continue. > They also note that they have the last decade as the warmest on record. > The > import point there is that we know that the Earth has been warmer in > the > past than it is today. Saying "the warmest on record" gives credence to > the > argument for GW, until you find out that "the record" is only a few > decades > worth of data and our planet is several billion years old. We're talking only about actual recorded temperatures - from the mid 1800's. But the general evidence is far broader than that. Sediment analysis, ice-core samples, tree-ring studies, etc - good evidence goes back several thousand years with reasonably good evidence for several 10s of thousands of years. The fossil record gives us good information for much of Earth's history - as you note there is much evidence that the Earth has had warming periods... although you accept that science unquestioningly. The exact same methodologies (often the exact same scientists) resulted in the evidence that you rejected when it doesn't match your opinion. I'm sorry but your just so clearly cherry picking. The temperature record is too short to consider when calling this the warmest decade ever, but information from the past few years is enough to claim an end to the warming trend. The NASA data is rejected while the Hadley data (which isn't even cited in the article) is completely accepted (and relayed as fact). When there's not actual evidence to support the claims you rely on ad hominem: the scientists are personally motivated, there's ambiguous financial reasons involved, there's a concerted effort to hide the "truth" - they're all hacks and liars. I'll happily agree that some people (and generally not the scientists producing the evidence) are creating (or attempting to create) an unwarranted hysteria concerning climate change. But you're using that information to end discussion on the topic, that I can't agree with. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;192386516;25150098;k Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:258054 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
