Denys,

I can only find reports that say the average temperature for the month 
of January 08, dropped from last year, by .75C or by .60C.   Can you 
please post a link that shows the 12 month average temperature dropping 
by 1C?

Thanks,

Andy Schriber



Denys Beauchemin wrote:
> John, good post and well articulated except for just one small detail.
>
>  
>
> The average global temperature is not rising.  In fact NASA and other
> recording agencies have reported that in the last 12 months the average
> global temperature has DROPPED by close to one degree Celsius, effectively
> erasing the one degree gain over the last century.
>
>  
>
> Not one of the many climate models predicted this event, effectively
> demonstrating they are all useless.  Science magazine in its November 2007
> issue clearly stated that climate was impossible to predict via computer
> models, it was far too complex.
>
>  
>
> The Hockey Stick (MRH 98) model has been shown to be deeply flawed, so
> flawed as to make it a scientific hoax.  When the computer code was finally
> made available for peer review, it was shown that irrespective of data
> entered into it,  the program would always create a hockey stick.
>
>  
>
> NASA recently produced a new set of temperature data when it was revealed to
> them that their algorithms used to massage the raw data had problems; the
> upshot of this was that recent temperature figures had to be lowered and
> 1998 took its place behind 1934 as the hottest year on record.  Record,
> being only the last 100 some years.  In fact the years since 1998 have shown
> no increase in the average global temperature and indeed in the last 12
> months the temperature has started to drop.
>
>  
>
> I understand what you are saying about trying to think for yourself, it
> helps when you have the facts, not the slogans.
>
>  
>
> There is no "consensus," there never was.  When Algore is confronted to
> explain his position, he says "the science is settled, there is nothing to
> discuss."  That is another slogan.  The science is not settled, it's in its
> infancy.  The entire Anthropogenic Global Warming is the perfect example of
> politics corrupting science.  You will notice the full IPCC scientific
> reports are always preceded by political reports, called "Summary for
> Policymakers," aimed at telling governments what to do and think.  These
> summaries are issued months before the main reports and are not written by
> scientists but by politicians, bureaucrats and activists.
>
>  
>
> There is indeed a lot of disagreements on these reports and the "consensus,"
> you just choose not to see that, thinking that such scientists must be
> funded by Big Oil; unlike the Dr James Hansen of NASA who is funded by
> George Soros.
>
>  
>
> By far the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor; carbon dioxide is a trace
> element in our atmosphere, 38 molecules per 100,000 of atmosphere.  Man-made
> emissions make up about 3% of this amount.
>
>  
>
> When Algore shows his little PowerPoint presentation, you will notice that
> he does not overlay the CO2 curve on top of the temperature curve.  There is
> a reason for that, the rise in CO2 levels follows, the rise in temperature,
> it does not precede it.
>
>  
>
> Your final premise is also deeply flawed; carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant,
> it is part of life.
>
>  
>
> Any way you want to look at or interpret the historical data, it does not
> change the fact that by everything we have been told about AGW, there is
> absolutely NO WAY the average global temperature would have dropped in the
> last 12 months and by a significant amount.  But it did and that's not up
> for dispute.
>
>  
>
> If you dispute it, you are simply a global cooling denier.
>
>  
>
> So what happens if the average temperature continues to fall as this rate?
> That's the question you should be asking.
>
>  
>
> But beyond that, now that we know for certain that AGW does not exist, what
> causes the variations in climate on a planetary scale?  As someone who
> prides himself on being able to think for himself, I invite you to perform
> the following little experiment tomorrow.  When it is still dark outside,
> go out and look towards the East.  After a while you will notice a rather
> large thermonuclear device appear on the horizon.  Along with the blinding
> light, you will notice that your face will start to warm up.  I wonder if
> you will be able to make the connection.
>
>  
>
> Once you have performed this experiment and have figured out that it is just
> possible that warming can be associated with that thermonuclear device, come
> back here and we can discuss it further.
>
>  
>
> If you still insist, in spite of all the evidence that AGW is real, please
> explain to me how the Medieval Warm Period occurred without SUVs running
> around.  Then also explain The Roman Warm Period and other past ears when
> the temperature was warmer than it was in 1998.  For bonus points, explain
> the Little Ice Age.   Heck, just think for yourself and explain to us why
> 1934 was warmer than 1998.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Denys...
>
> From: John Clogg [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 6:55 PM
> To: Denys Beauchemin; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: [HP3000-L] OT: Which is your favorite?
>
>  
>
>
> Denys wrote:
>
>   
>> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:55:41 -0600
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Which is your favorite?
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> A is Anthropogenic, which means man-made. This is the correct name of the
>> hoax that Man is responsible for the planet warming and cooling.
>>
>> Denys...
>>     
>
> Denys makes an important point.  It is not the fact of global warming that
> is being debated, but whether it is man made.  The question of whether or
> not global warming is happening is not a matter of opinion; it can be
> empirically determined simply by observing whether the average global
> temerature is rising or not.  
>  
> It is.  
>  
> Global warming is happening.  The question is whether it is being caused by
> the actions of humans.  Regarding that question, I am amazed at the utter
> certainty with which those who would like to believe GW is not anthropogenic
> insist on their position.  It's no coincidence that such absolute certainty
> seems to go along with a certain political leaning.  It seems many accept
> the mantra of the media pundits who have made a career of insisting that if
> you call yourself "conservative" you are required to subscribe to a whole
> litany of beliefs that have nothing to do with the liberal/conservative
> dichotomy, at least as those terms used to be defined.
>  
> I prefer to think for myself.  I believe very strongly in some
> "conservative" positions, and equally strongly in some "liberal" ones.  I
> prefer to decide each question on its own merits, rather than on the basis
> of a label assigned by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.  
>  
> With respect to the AGW question, I am less certain, because I prefer to
> take my position on the basis of science rather than politics or wishful
> thinking.  I lean more toward accepting the AGW model than rejecting it for
> the following reasons:  (1) There seems to be little disagreement among
> those who make their living as climate scientists, as opposed to those who
> have a political axe to grind; (2) We do know that carbon dioxide is a
> greenhouse gas, and that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been
> increasing for some time, mostly through human activity; (3) Glacial core
> samples show a correlation between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere
> and global temperatures.  I realize that a correlation does not prove a
> cause/effect relationship, but it at least seems to help support the
> premise; and (4) even if AGW is not true, it is a good thing to try to find
> ways to be less dependent on fossil fuels and to put fewer pollutants into
> the atmosphere.  
>  
> My $.02
>  
> John Clogg
>
>   _____  
>
> Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your HotmailR-get your
> "fix". Check it out. <http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx> 
>
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>   

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *