NASA, oceans cooling since 2003, bad historical temperature data, so we should believe them on Global Warming?
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/22/nasa-data-shows-oceans-cooling-since-2003/ http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm NASA has produced at least to reports detailing cooling oceans and their historical data on earth temperatures has been called into question. Then there are reports that James Hansen has has benefited from as much as $720,000 in funds from Left-wing activist George Soros http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jake-gontesky/2007/09/26/global-warming-alarmist-james-hansen-shill-george-soros
So if the head guy a NASA's Global Warming club and other top Global Warming scientists appear to be more concerned about promoting an agenda, than about good science should we believe them? Should we destroy our economy so that China and India can take advantage of ignoring Global Warming initiatives? May be we should just trust Al Gore, after all he did invent the internet didn't he?
2009-12-02T15:12:03Z
The ice in the glass of water. That is good. Did you hear the one about the flying saucers
libs, almost as smart as lint2009-12-02T15:07:21Z
Favorite Answer
Algore has masterminded the biggest scam ever. Libs believed Clinton when he wagged his finger and Hillary tried to perpetuate the lie when she refered to everyone who didn't get suckered in as being part of a vast right wing conspiracy. They're doing it all over again with GW, and as frequently happens when you tell a lie, you get caught. Just ask Dan Rather. Several of these 'think for themselves' libs say the same BS, the oceans are cooling because the ice is melting. What idiots, overall, the earth is cooling. If the evidence was in their favor they wouldn't have to pressure scientists to go along or lie about the data.
Global warming deals with trends. Climatologists take a 30 year time period at a minimum, if able to, to show a trend. Shorter time periods display too much variability and too much noise., such as those of La Nina and El Nino episodes. If you look at your graph you'll see many ups and downs. Multiple years show significant cooling, however the trend is still positive and will continue to be positive as long as more energy is being retained in the lower atmosphere., as has been measured by satellites and ground based observatories. This question was alright until your first reply claiming that "They can't even get the 10 day forecast right".Perhaps you should look up the differences between climate, which deals with long term trends, and weather, which deals with single point occurrences.
No NASA link? Yeah, another fossil fuel lobbyist's spin infects another Yahoo member. You might be confused by La Nina following El Nino.
"Statisticians reject global cooling" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/
{The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.
Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.
Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson...}