Search results

No, because I'm not intellectually lazy, and I can read a scientific paper. Why would I go to a second hand accounting of something I'm fully capable of understanding myself? The only people who seem to care about what Gore says, are people like you. Contrarians.

I don't care what Gore said, I don't follow the man's work. If he said that then he's bat sh|t wombat crazy. That's an if though. I don't know you well enough to take your words at face value, and frankly I don't care enough to check.

I think he meant to say, "The most convincing proof that the Earth is getting warmer, is that it is getting colder." Of course it's total bat sh|t wombat crazy talk.

Yes, it's the change in the moving average. With the change, the running mean contains no data from 2009, and makes the warmth of 2009 disappear. There's valid reasons to change moving averages, but he should have explained why he would do so here. January may turn out to be very cold, given the...

Those wacky deniers. They must think their audience is quite dense not to notice this. It's Roy Spencer's monthly update to the UAH MSU temperature records. See if you can spot the difference: November: December: Lame...

Yes, all the moaning and bitching by the anti-science brigade about urban heat islands, and site changes, etc. is well known. Bad stations are excluded, and since temperature is highly auto-correlated geographically, they can ignore the bad stations. I should note they trust the surface record...

The United States may be experiencing one of the coldest winters in decades, but things continue to heat up in the Southern Hemisphere. Science has obtained exclusive data from NASA that indicates that 2009 was the hottest year on record south of the Equator. The find adds to multiple lines of...

So, a prorogued Parliament means more instability. If you follow his logic...confidence votes, favoured by Harper, create instability. He's making the case for the opposition parties: Harper creates instability. More here.

This is not correct. No temperature anomalies are measured against a baseline which correlates to a specific concentration of carbon dioxide. They are measured against the average temperature for a given interval, like say 1951-1980 for GIStemp. HadCRUT has a baseline of 1961-1990. The...

See, you really don't know what you're talking about. If the signal is significant, it means that the noise in the system is unlikely to be the source of the response. More than that, we have other methods to determine if something is periodic. One such method is called Fourier analysis. Or it...

Surprise, surprise. Mojib Latif's work appears to have been misrepresented, again (excellent coverage of other instances where Latif's work was misrepresented here): Leading climate scientist challenges Mail on Sunday's use of his research A leading scientist has hit out at misleading...

Lowest temperatures in 20 years, ie. not climate Walter. This is not the average weather is it? Nope. Good thing it's weather and not climate, there wouldn't be any oranges growing at all in Florida.

It's not surprising that your source of wit in the face of reason is Homer Simpson.

It's no start to an ice age, it's called the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation. The rebound from 2007 is still well within 1 standard deviation of the long-term trend in Arctic ice loss, ie. it's just natural variation on top of a long-term trend.

Did you not mean what you said then Extra? Seems like a big concern over nothing? You said that after pointing out that in the past magnitudes have been larger. If you want to amend what you said, here's a good opportunity to do so. Everyone here knows what a strawman is. I've quoted you...

So the claims of harm due to our actions must be trumped up, incorrect etc. Seems like a big concern over nothing. I enjoy watching you twist so.

Big news this year from a Canadian researcher. We've been interpreting the data from our satellites incorrectly. When the satellite observations are compared to physical examinations of the ice by researchers, what they find is "rotten ice". Abstract here: Perennial pack ice in the southern...

I can understand Janke's apprehension towards good journalism, I don't agree, but I can understand why he'd think it's a bad thing to report the scientific facts, and take care not to create balance on ideas which in reality are not so balanced.

Nobody said Antarctic sea ice is retreating. They said Antarctic ice sheets are decreasing in volume/mass. That's a huge difference. One is grounded, the other is floating. But they know most people don't know the difference.

So, why should someone have to prove global warming exists every time there is a lull or cold snap, but for a mini-ice age we get to wait for more data?