Cooling Off: Thank Goodness

By August 16, 2007Global Warming

Just so hard to keep up these days with the collapse of the monolithic global warming campaign, the shrillness of which — see Newsweek — suggests that the advocates recognize and fear their slippage.

Anyway, we’ll let Iain Murray, drawing on scientist Roy Spencer, hit the recent highpoints:

  • The exposure of the inadequacy of NASA’s quality control with respect to recent US annual temperatures
  • Documentary evidence of distorting influences on US temperature monitoring stations
  • Peer-reviewed research demonstrating the existence of a natural negative feedback mechanism that climate models treat as positive
  • The failure of yet another exposure of the supposedly “well-funded denial machine”
  • The emergence of more “skeptical” scientists and meteorologists
  • The promise of more to come
  • The Washington Post examined the controversy over the NASA figures, in which 1998 turned out NOT to be the hottest year on record, in a story yesterday, and gave the self-promoting NASA scientist James Hansen a chance to make his case. Hansen:

    The change does nothing to our understanding of how the global climate is changing and is being used by critics to muddy the debate.

    Bosh. The original figures were used to hype the threat. The critics are now bringing a little clarity.

    The Washington Times cites examples in the editorial, “The hottest year: 1934?

    The Washington Post, in January: “Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years,” read its front-page story, “capping a nine-year warming streak ‘unprecedented in the historical record’ that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday.” Funny, but we thought “unprecedented” would require an absence of, well, precedents, such as the 1920s and 1930s. These years were similarly warm decades, like the present.

    Alas, when the source of data that prompted this story, the National Climatic Data Center, adjusted its numbers in May, The Post did not correct its shrieking January story. Nor has The Post yet bothered to report NASA’s latest data restatement. Instead, on Friday, we get: “Did Global Warming Cause NYC Tornado?”

    If we cannot get through 2007 without a data restatement so fundamental that it dethrones the “hottest year on record,” we should not keep hearing angry intonations that “The debate is over.” The debate is not over — not if such basic climate data is so disputed.

    No, the debate is not over, and be on guard against those who say it is.

    Join the discussion One Comment

    • kenzrw says:

      I don’t believe I’ve ever seen so much ‘heads in the sand’ reporting that the major news outlets have regarding global warming. What happened to investigative reporting? Getting both sides of an issue? You could have a freeze in July in Kansas and at the same time have it be 1 degree above normal in New York or someplace, and that above normal temperature would be the only thing reported. What’s going on with these people? What are they afraid of? Are they the true deniers of facts here?

    Leave a Reply