Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (346344)	8/9/2007 8:57:15 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574326

Did find this. Now it’s the 1930s that are heating By Andrew Bolt Thursday, August 09, 2007 at 10:02am Oops. It turns out that 1998 wasn’t the hottest year on record for the US, after all. Global warming must be working backwards, because NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, having fixed some calculating errors, has discovered that the hottest year was in fact 1934. That’s not all, as Steve McIntyre explains: Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. The new leader-board of the hottest recorded years in the US: 1934 1998 1921 2006 1931 1999 1953 1990 1938 1939 These figures apply only to the US, and the corrections - says McIntyre - do “not make any real difference to the world rankings”, which generally put 1998 as the world’s hottest year since records were kept. But two things should be noted. First, that the most basic calculations behind the global warming hysteria can be screwed up, and stay undetected for years. Second, that NASA quietly changed these figures without any of the press releases and alarmist reports that usually follow the discovery of some data that will feed the fear. (Thanks to reader S.) UPDATE: Meanwhile, a professional warming alarmist finds Kevin Rudd’s targets too alarming even for him: THE head of the world’s leading climate change organisation has backed the Howard Government’s decision to defer setting a long-term target for reducing greenhouse emissions until the full facts are known. Despite widespread criticism of the Government’s decision last month to defer its decision on cutting emissions until next year, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said yesterday he agreed with the approach. IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, in Canberra to meet government officials, said it was critical that policies to address climate change be rolled out only after informed debate based on rational thinking and rigorous analysis of the impact of different options. “Otherwise one might come up with a lot of emotional and political responses that may or may not be the best, and I think in a democracy it’s important to see there is an informed debate in officialdom as well as in the public,” Dr Pachauri told The Australian yesterday. blogs.news.com.au * * *

To: tejek who wrote (346344)	8/10/2007 9:56:57 AM
From: Taro	Respond to of 1574326

Scientists, not lefties,... Leftie "scientists", please. longshort already posted the link. Taro

To: tejek who wrote (346344)	8/11/2007 10:21:39 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574326

This diary follows a rumor's spread through the conservative blogosphere. It begins with a story about how a persistent conservative blogger found a minor (but genuine) error in a NASA dataset, and how that error was promptly acknowledged and corrected. This story was told by the original blogger a few days ago, and then retold by other bloggers (with improvements) and again by other bloggers (with more improvements). By yesterday, we could read on A-List conservative blogs that "global warming hype" is largely derived from a Y2K bug, that the the new information is being suppressed by the media, and that someone had possibly launched an attack on the original blogger's web site to prevent the truth from getting out. We'll start at the beginning by looking at the underlying science; what the error was, and why it matters. And we'll see how that science got lost in successive retellings, even as sensational (but false) details were added. continued... dailykos.com