Comments on: New GW denialists’ deceptive lie on global temperatures

By: It boggles the mind - Page 5

It boggles the mind - Page 5 — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:32:30 +0000

[...] not climate scientist) put up their latest lie. This graph is the brunt of their argument. New GW denialists� deceptive lie on global temperatures Energy Smart In 1998, Exxon devised a plan to stall action on global warming. The plan was outlined in an [...]

By: Get Energy Smart! NOW!!! » Will-fully Ignorant

Get Energy Smart! NOW!!! » Will-fully Ignorant — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 04:02:59 +0000

[...] them. 1998 was a hot year, a warmth that is directly related to an exceptional El Niño event. If one shows temperatures solely from 1998 to the present, it looks as if there hasn’t been a … (even, perhaps, a slight reduction). But, if one shows a longer time frame, such as 150 years, a [...]

By: Will-fully Ignorant « Energy Smart

Will-fully Ignorant « Energy Smart — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:57:58 +0000

[...] them. 1998 was a hot year, a warmth that is directly related to an exceptional El Niño event. If one shows temperatures solely from 1998 to the present, it looks as if there hasn’t been… (even, perhaps, a slight reduction). But, if one shows a longer time frame, such as 150 years, [...]

By: Newsweek editors: are you idiots? « Energy Smart

Newsweek editors: are you idiots? « Energy Smart — Wed, 14 May 2008 20:04:02 +0000

[...] them. 1998 was a hot year, a warmth that is directly related to an exceptional El Niño event. If one shows temperatures solely from 1998 to the present, it looks as if there hasn’t been… (even, perhaps, a slight reduction). But, if one shows a longer time frame, such as 150 years, [...]

By: Johannes

Johannes — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:41:43 +0000

Whoa Whoa Whoa. We’ve changed the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 20 ppm in 10 years? From 365 to 385 ppm in 10 years? Can that be right?

By: Drugde takes “truth” out of truthiness « Energy Smart

Drugde takes “truth” out of truthiness « Energy Smart — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:36:42 +0000

[...] going to be raised time and again until the 1998 temperatures are blown through, even though it is so blatantly truthiness rather than truth. 1998 was an exceptionally warm year, which enables people who want to mislead to use a 10-year [...]

By: Global warming: God as Steward, Christians as Subduers « Dominionists for Tancredo 2008—If we build it, He will come

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:37:52 +0000

[...] since the earth’s temperature is going through a perfectly natural period of very slight, almost undetectable warming, we can conclude with great scientific certainty that global cooling most certainly is NOT [...]

By: A Siegel

A Siegel — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:46:48 +0000

Veritas,

This is classic denier/delayer/”skeptic” diversionary comments.

1. Perhaps the CO2 line is “dropped” because he is pulling graphics from other people rather than creating his own. His focus is not the CO2 line rather the temprerature data.

2. Does anyone, with knowledge, speak of CO2 having an immediate feedback, within days, weeks, a year/two of changing CO2 and temperature levels. Even within a decade?

3. There are plenty of scientific looks going back 1000; 100,000; 500k+ years. This was unnecessary for this discussion.

Etc …

By: Veritas

Veritas — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:08:16 +0000

Bruinkid,

I agree with your point that a longer time-frame is needed to establish a trend. Your trend only goes back to 1850. That seems like a very short-time in which to establish a normal global temperature range. Why did you choose to stop at 1850? Some researchers go back much farther than 1850 in trying to show temperature trends.

I’m curious as to why you dropped the CO2 line shown in the “deniers” graph. I’d very much like to see how CO2 changes with temperature over the time-frame you presented. This seems logical. If proponents of AGW claim that CO2 is the cause, shouldn’t the graph show some correlation between CO2 and temperature?

By: Angeline

Angeline — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:50:33 +0000

Thanks for your thorough debunking explanation! It kills me when people ignore important logic (like having a large enough sample) and twist data to tell a story they want to hear rather than trying to truly understand reality.