GISS: 2010; warmest spring ever.
-
The spring (March/April/May) of 2010 in the northern hemisphere was the warmest (land/sea combined) on record going back to 1880, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).[^] (Hope that isnt too much link for you Dave and Ian. If it is I will just take out all the consonants next time ;)) Tell it to the fruit trees that are two weeks later than last year.... Maybe it was warm enough somewhere to offset the snow and cold records most of us experienced this winter and spring, and if it was, is the concept of a global average temperature even usefull? After all, how can it be relevant if much of the area is experiencing the opposite? Its like saying the percappita wealth of a country is high, and thus all the people live well, when only 20% of the population has almost all the wealth while 80% live in total poverty. Then add the fact that GISS are using only 10% http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/[^] the number of weather stations today to prepare this data than in the 80s, and, as the number of stations used has declined, the temperature hase risen [^], you can see that really, these statement by GISS are not only irrelevant to much of the world, but very likely wrong. And even worse, intentionally wrong.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
The spring (March/April/May) of 2010 in the northern hemisphere was the warmest (land/sea combined) on record going back to 1880, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).[^] (Hope that isnt too much link for you Dave and Ian. If it is I will just take out all the consonants next time ;)) Tell it to the fruit trees that are two weeks later than last year.... Maybe it was warm enough somewhere to offset the snow and cold records most of us experienced this winter and spring, and if it was, is the concept of a global average temperature even usefull? After all, how can it be relevant if much of the area is experiencing the opposite? Its like saying the percappita wealth of a country is high, and thus all the people live well, when only 20% of the population has almost all the wealth while 80% live in total poverty. Then add the fact that GISS are using only 10% http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/[^] the number of weather stations today to prepare this data than in the 80s, and, as the number of stations used has declined, the temperature hase risen [^], you can see that really, these statement by GISS are not only irrelevant to much of the world, but very likely wrong. And even worse, intentionally wrong.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Tell it to the fruit trees that are two weeks later than last year....
Uhm .... all the farms around here have opened up their U-Picks three weeks earlier than last year. In fact July 1st is traditionally a Strawberry festival day, along with being Canada Day, and I know of two that have been cancelled because they have already run out of strawberries, even though the crop was great this year.
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
fat_boy wrote:
Tell it to the fruit trees that are two weeks later than last year....
Uhm .... all the farms around here have opened up their U-Picks three weeks earlier than last year. In fact July 1st is traditionally a Strawberry festival day, along with being Canada Day, and I know of two that have been cancelled because they have already run out of strawberries, even though the crop was great this year.
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
The spring (March/April/May) of 2010 in the northern hemisphere was the warmest (land/sea combined) on record going back to 1880, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).[^] (Hope that isnt too much link for you Dave and Ian. If it is I will just take out all the consonants next time ;)) Tell it to the fruit trees that are two weeks later than last year.... Maybe it was warm enough somewhere to offset the snow and cold records most of us experienced this winter and spring, and if it was, is the concept of a global average temperature even usefull? After all, how can it be relevant if much of the area is experiencing the opposite? Its like saying the percappita wealth of a country is high, and thus all the people live well, when only 20% of the population has almost all the wealth while 80% live in total poverty. Then add the fact that GISS are using only 10% http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/[^] the number of weather stations today to prepare this data than in the 80s, and, as the number of stations used has declined, the temperature hase risen [^], you can see that really, these statement by GISS are not only irrelevant to much of the world, but very likely wrong. And even worse, intentionally wrong.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Do you or have you grown any thing like tomatoes?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Do you or have you grown any thing like tomatoes?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Do you or have you grown any thing like tomatoes?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Why? (I hate myself for falling for this - it was probably the 'poison apple[^]' I had for lunch).
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Proves my point about 'global' statements being irrelevant.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Yes, it does. I just got confused about the warmest spring and then fruit trees being late. :doh: I once had a statistics prof who suggested that during data collection, you just make the population size bigger and bigger and eventually you will get the average that you are looking for. ;)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
Yes, it does. I just got confused about the warmest spring and then fruit trees being late. :doh: I once had a statistics prof who suggested that during data collection, you just make the population size bigger and bigger and eventually you will get the average that you are looking for. ;)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
The spring (March/April/May) of 2010 in the northern hemisphere was the warmest (land/sea combined) on record going back to 1880, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).[^] (Hope that isnt too much link for you Dave and Ian. If it is I will just take out all the consonants next time ;)) Tell it to the fruit trees that are two weeks later than last year.... Maybe it was warm enough somewhere to offset the snow and cold records most of us experienced this winter and spring, and if it was, is the concept of a global average temperature even usefull? After all, how can it be relevant if much of the area is experiencing the opposite? Its like saying the percappita wealth of a country is high, and thus all the people live well, when only 20% of the population has almost all the wealth while 80% live in total poverty. Then add the fact that GISS are using only 10% http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/[^] the number of weather stations today to prepare this data than in the 80s, and, as the number of stations used has declined, the temperature hase risen [^], you can see that really, these statement by GISS are not only irrelevant to much of the world, but very likely wrong. And even worse, intentionally wrong.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Maybe it was warm enough somewhere to offset the snow and cold records most of us experienced this winter and spring, and if it was, is the concept of a global average temperature even usefull?
Actually, here in New York, it was a ridiculously warm spring... We were getting July-style weather back in April. Totally ridiculous. And when it wasn't staying insanely hot, it was jumping up and down 20 degrees day-to-day... One day it's 80, next day it's 60... 70... 50... 80 again... Lost count of how many times my coworkers and I talked about the schizophrenic weather...
fat_boy wrote:
After all, how can it be relevant if much of the area is experiencing the opposite?
I think the point of the global warming theory (As opposed to climate change) is that the overall amount of energy in the system (Earth) would increase. That doesn't mean every region would be affected the same way.
fat_boy wrote:
Then add the fact that GISS are using only 10% http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station\_data/\[^\] the number of weather stations today to prepare this data than in the 80s, and, as the number of stations used has declined
Does that mean they don't have enough data now, or that they had so many in the 80s that it was redundant? Are they more concentrated geographically than they were in the 80s, or more evenly distributed?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Maybe it was warm enough somewhere to offset the snow and cold records most of us experienced this winter and spring, and if it was, is the concept of a global average temperature even usefull?
Actually, here in New York, it was a ridiculously warm spring... We were getting July-style weather back in April. Totally ridiculous. And when it wasn't staying insanely hot, it was jumping up and down 20 degrees day-to-day... One day it's 80, next day it's 60... 70... 50... 80 again... Lost count of how many times my coworkers and I talked about the schizophrenic weather...
fat_boy wrote:
After all, how can it be relevant if much of the area is experiencing the opposite?
I think the point of the global warming theory (As opposed to climate change) is that the overall amount of energy in the system (Earth) would increase. That doesn't mean every region would be affected the same way.
fat_boy wrote:
Then add the fact that GISS are using only 10% http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station\_data/\[^\] the number of weather stations today to prepare this data than in the 80s, and, as the number of stations used has declined
Does that mean they don't have enough data now, or that they had so many in the 80s that it was redundant? Are they more concentrated geographically than they were in the 80s, or more evenly distributed?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You seriously dont find the fact that less and less weather stations are being used to prepare these data sets disturbing?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I find it interesting, but without answers to the questions I just asked, I have no reason to find it "disturbing." If there are a dozen rooftop weather stations in a five mile radius, do you really need to use ALL of them when trying to figure out a global average temperature? Keep in mind that a "weather station" isn't some huge building with heavy machinery... For instance, this one[^] is a little over a foot tall.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You seriously dont find the fact that less and less weather stations are being used to prepare these data sets disturbing?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I find it pretty telling of the amount of budget cuts done to schools in the last 30 years. A huge amount of those stations were on schools that were in the program. Over the last 10 years my school district has removed both of our stations. They were the first thing on the chopping block each time a mid-year budget cut was announced by our moronic governor. They can only do so much. By the same token, a weather station of today can gather and store TONS more data than the ones from the 80s.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
I find it interesting, but without answers to the questions I just asked, I have no reason to find it "disturbing." If there are a dozen rooftop weather stations in a five mile radius, do you really need to use ALL of them when trying to figure out a global average temperature? Keep in mind that a "weather station" isn't some huge building with heavy machinery... For instance, this one[^] is a little over a foot tall.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
If there are a dozen rooftop weather stations in a five mile radius
No, no where near that density. Actually its quite low. And even worse outside the US and northen Europe. Many countries only have a few weather stations whose data goes back more than 50 years. Very few countries have records back to the mid 19th century. In the UK I believe there are only a few this old. No, what is disturbing is the way that only stations showing warming are kept, ie those near airports or other urbanised locations with the rural ones being dropped. The gaps are then filled in by computer programs using the remaining readings as a base. r the data is adjusted to show warming. Take a lok at wattsupwiththat for a full rundown on this. Naturally, and if you had looked at my link to a chart showing number of stations vs temperature, you wil see that as the number of stations dropped, and rapidly, the temperature increased. If GW is such a 'defining issue' then why arent ALL the weather stations that were used, being used today? Why arent MORE stations being built? After all they put satellites into space to measure temperature, so its not as if there was a lack of will. The simple answer is that the only warming comes form fiddling the data in this way. You can choose to ignore this if you like, I wouldnt expect anymore from you. From anyone. Mankind is infinitely capable of deluding itself, of clinging to long held truths because the alternative is too painfull a quesiton to bear. Go on. On your way.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I find it pretty telling of the amount of budget cuts done to schools in the last 30 years. A huge amount of those stations were on schools that were in the program. Over the last 10 years my school district has removed both of our stations. They were the first thing on the chopping block each time a mid-year budget cut was announced by our moronic governor. They can only do so much. By the same token, a weather station of today can gather and store TONS more data than the ones from the 80s.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
A lot of schools in Antatrcica and the oceans are there? 70021355000 Harry -83.00 -121.40 954 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70021358000 Theresa -84.60 -115.80 1463 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70021359000 Doug -82.30 -113.20 1433 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70021363000 Erin -84.90 -128.80 990 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70073500800 Nansen_Ice_Sheet -74.80 163.30 40 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70073510800 Cape_King -73.60 166.60 163 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70073520800 Priestley_Gl -74.30 163.20 650 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70073540800 Enigma_Lake -74.70 164.00 160 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70073550800 Hi_Priestley_Gl -73.60 160.70 1982 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70073560800 Tourmaline_Plateau -74.10 163.40 1702 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70073790800 Cape_Philips -73.10 169.60 310 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70088938000 Deception -63.00 -60.70 8 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70088940000 HOPE BAY -63.40 -56.98 -999 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70088958000 Adelaide -67.80 -67.90 26 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70088963001 PETREL -63.50 -57.30 18 205R -9HIICCO 1A-9WATER A 70088970000 MATIENZO -64.97 -60.05 -999 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70088971000 Almirante_Brown -64.90 -62.90 7 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70089001000 S.A.N.A.E. ST -70.30 -2.35 62 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70089002000 NEUMAYER -70.67 -8.25 50 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70089009000 AMUNDSEN-SCOT -90.00 0.00 2835 2770R -9FLICno-9x-9WATER A 70089022000 HALLEY -75.50 -26.65 30 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9WATER A 70089034000 BASE BELGRANO -77.87 -34.62 256 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9WATER A 70089034001 BELGRANO -77.90 -34.50 55 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70089043000 ELLSEWORTH -77.72 -41.02 -999 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70089050000 BELLINGSHAUSE
-
A lot of schools in Antatrcica and the oceans are there? 70021355000 Harry -83.00 -121.40 954 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70021358000 Theresa -84.60 -115.80 1463 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70021359000 Doug -82.30 -113.20 1433 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70021363000 Erin -84.90 -128.80 990 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70073500800 Nansen_Ice_Sheet -74.80 163.30 40 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70073510800 Cape_King -73.60 166.60 163 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70073520800 Priestley_Gl -74.30 163.20 650 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70073540800 Enigma_Lake -74.70 164.00 160 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70073550800 Hi_Priestley_Gl -73.60 160.70 1982 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70073560800 Tourmaline_Plateau -74.10 163.40 1702 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70073790800 Cape_Philips -73.10 169.60 310 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70088938000 Deception -63.00 -60.70 8 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70088940000 HOPE BAY -63.40 -56.98 -999 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70088958000 Adelaide -67.80 -67.90 26 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70088963001 PETREL -63.50 -57.30 18 205R -9HIICCO 1A-9WATER A 70088970000 MATIENZO -64.97 -60.05 -999 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70088971000 Almirante_Brown -64.90 -62.90 7 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70089001000 S.A.N.A.E. ST -70.30 -2.35 62 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70089002000 NEUMAYER -70.67 -8.25 50 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70089009000 AMUNDSEN-SCOT -90.00 0.00 2835 2770R -9FLICno-9x-9WATER A 70089022000 HALLEY -75.50 -26.65 30 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9WATER A 70089034000 BASE BELGRANO -77.87 -34.62 256 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9WATER A 70089034001 BELGRANO -77.90 -34.50 55 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70089043000 ELLSEWORTH -77.72 -41.02 -999 0R -9FLICCO 1x-9ANTARCTICA A 70089050000 BELLINGSHAUSE
so the places with funding for research still have weather stations and the ones located at schools or rural spots that had joint funding don't. Man, I wish I wasn't actually agreeing with you somewhat on a problem...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
so the places with funding for research still have weather stations and the ones located at schools or rural spots that had joint funding don't. Man, I wish I wasn't actually agreeing with you somewhat on a problem...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
It is a problem. Its a problem fof credibility. How can GISS use less and less stations (like now its only 10% or so of what they used to use) and fill in the gaps with software generated guesses, and tell us its warming. Quite blatantly they have massively changed their data base since the 80's, so at a very fundamental level they havent got a leg to stand on. GISS is interested in only showing warming, not cooling. So you can also bet that those stations discarded are the ones that show cooling. They also adjust data. Stations that show cooling show warming after beign adjusted. Not only that, OLD data form decades ago is also adjusted, downwards. Yep. Hansen is quite shameless about his data manipulation.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If there are a dozen rooftop weather stations in a five mile radius
No, no where near that density. Actually its quite low. And even worse outside the US and northen Europe. Many countries only have a few weather stations whose data goes back more than 50 years. Very few countries have records back to the mid 19th century. In the UK I believe there are only a few this old. No, what is disturbing is the way that only stations showing warming are kept, ie those near airports or other urbanised locations with the rural ones being dropped. The gaps are then filled in by computer programs using the remaining readings as a base. r the data is adjusted to show warming. Take a lok at wattsupwiththat for a full rundown on this. Naturally, and if you had looked at my link to a chart showing number of stations vs temperature, you wil see that as the number of stations dropped, and rapidly, the temperature increased. If GW is such a 'defining issue' then why arent ALL the weather stations that were used, being used today? Why arent MORE stations being built? After all they put satellites into space to measure temperature, so its not as if there was a lack of will. The simple answer is that the only warming comes form fiddling the data in this way. You can choose to ignore this if you like, I wouldnt expect anymore from you. From anyone. Mankind is infinitely capable of deluding itself, of clinging to long held truths because the alternative is too painfull a quesiton to bear. Go on. On your way.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
No, no where near that density. Actually its quite low. And even worse outside the US and northen Europe.
An exaggeration, I admit, but you get the idea.
fat_boy wrote:
Many countries only have a few weather stations whose data goes back more than 50 years.
Which is why they use the data they have (Even if it only goes back 20-30 years), and use other sources to fill in the gaps. Remember the controversy about the tree ring data? That's just one indicator they used.
fat_boy wrote:
No, what is disturbing is the way that only stations showing warming are kept, ie those near airports or other urbanised locations with the rural ones being dropped. The gaps are then filled in by computer programs using the remaining readings as a base. r the data is adjusted to show warming. Take a lok at wattsupwiththat for a full rundown on this.
Is that just you speculating, or are you going to back that up? That's a pretty bold assumption.
fat_boy wrote:
Naturally, and if you had looked at my link to a chart showing number of stations vs temperature, you wil see that as the number of stations dropped, and rapidly, the temperature increased.
Correlation does not imply causation.
fat_boy wrote:
If GW is such a 'defining issue' then why arent ALL the weather stations that were used, being used today? Why arent MORE stations being built? After all they put satellites into space to measure temperature, so its not as if there was a lack of will.
There isn't one central group maintaining the weather stations. A lot of them are set up by schools and universities, and those places decide when to put them up or take them down. And you know, now that you mention satellites... If those satellites can give accurate temperature readings, and have a MUCH better line of sight than a ground-based station, wouldn't that make a lot of the ground-based ones redundant and unneeded? The point being that less quantity does not mean less quality. One nuclear missile is a stronger deterrent than a hundred conventional ones, even though 1 is less than 100 (Ok, that statement is debatable, but you get the point).
fat_boy wrote:
The simple answer is that the only warming comes form fiddling
-
It is a problem. Its a problem fof credibility. How can GISS use less and less stations (like now its only 10% or so of what they used to use) and fill in the gaps with software generated guesses, and tell us its warming. Quite blatantly they have massively changed their data base since the 80's, so at a very fundamental level they havent got a leg to stand on. GISS is interested in only showing warming, not cooling. So you can also bet that those stations discarded are the ones that show cooling. They also adjust data. Stations that show cooling show warming after beign adjusted. Not only that, OLD data form decades ago is also adjusted, downwards. Yep. Hansen is quite shameless about his data manipulation.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
occums razor is going to be invoked now. What is more likely? Funding has been cut in a ton of places so the first thing to go is weather stations? Or... A comprehensive, extensive, and effective manipulation of all the weather stations (including ones they aren't fully funding) is going on.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
fat_boy wrote:
No, no where near that density. Actually its quite low. And even worse outside the US and northen Europe.
An exaggeration, I admit, but you get the idea.
fat_boy wrote:
Many countries only have a few weather stations whose data goes back more than 50 years.
Which is why they use the data they have (Even if it only goes back 20-30 years), and use other sources to fill in the gaps. Remember the controversy about the tree ring data? That's just one indicator they used.
fat_boy wrote:
No, what is disturbing is the way that only stations showing warming are kept, ie those near airports or other urbanised locations with the rural ones being dropped. The gaps are then filled in by computer programs using the remaining readings as a base. r the data is adjusted to show warming. Take a lok at wattsupwiththat for a full rundown on this.
Is that just you speculating, or are you going to back that up? That's a pretty bold assumption.
fat_boy wrote:
Naturally, and if you had looked at my link to a chart showing number of stations vs temperature, you wil see that as the number of stations dropped, and rapidly, the temperature increased.
Correlation does not imply causation.
fat_boy wrote:
If GW is such a 'defining issue' then why arent ALL the weather stations that were used, being used today? Why arent MORE stations being built? After all they put satellites into space to measure temperature, so its not as if there was a lack of will.
There isn't one central group maintaining the weather stations. A lot of them are set up by schools and universities, and those places decide when to put them up or take them down. And you know, now that you mention satellites... If those satellites can give accurate temperature readings, and have a MUCH better line of sight than a ground-based station, wouldn't that make a lot of the ground-based ones redundant and unneeded? The point being that less quantity does not mean less quality. One nuclear missile is a stronger deterrent than a hundred conventional ones, even though 1 is less than 100 (Ok, that statement is debatable, but you get the point).
fat_boy wrote:
The simple answer is that the only warming comes form fiddling
-
Why dont you start by doing a llitle digging around. If you are interested that is.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Because you're the one trying to prove a position and make accusations of fraud and data manipulation with malicious intent, yet you refuse to back it up with conclusive evidence. I'm just trying to insert a little sanity and skepticism into both sides of the debate... I would debate against the extreme AGW-supporters too for the same reasons, but there don't seem to be any on this particular forum... Just the anti-AGW extremists and those of us in the middle.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)