Monday, February 15, 2010

Climate Change Debate New Twists

Well, well, well. I first commented on this new information under the DeMint blog entry to which I saw someone responded with:

No, things haven't changed since 1995. But, even if they had, you're taking UNVERIFIED information from conversations FIFTEEN YEARS AGO and using that to support your argument. Do you really not see an issue with that??

How about doing your own research and not using things that you hear in conversation as a basis to support your argument. A lot of what you have here, as people have pointed out, seem to be you picking and choosing small facts out of an issue and attacking that instead of the issue as a whole.


Now I understand I am neither a scientist nor an expert on climate change but I did finally get a moment to read the article that prompted my earlier comment. The article, which is not just a random conversation, discussed that the group, the IPCC, has provided data to support man-made climate change is reversing course. Professor Phil Jones stated that no "statistically significant" rise in temperature since 1995 ( To cast more doubt on the data, researchers are releasing the fact that many of the weather stations were influenced by local factors instead of global changes. Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics that was invited by the IPCC's panel to review the last report, stated, "We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC's climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialization and data quality problems. These add up to large warming bias: (

Some of the examples the second article illustrated were:

  • A weather station located next to a waste incinerator
  • Weather station at Rome airport catches hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxing jets
  • Weather Station at Manchester airport was built when land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings


So, I ask the Anon that posted the above comment, how am I using unverified information or information from 15 years ago? The new data expands skeptic's assertions that climate change is not man-made as progressives want the world to believe. Take this new round of information and combine them with the "climategate" emails and the false belief that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 and a good case can be made for a Ponzi scheme. Former lead author on the IPCC, John Christy, said, "The apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development." Now, does this new information eliminate the effects humans have on the climate; I am not sure. What it does say, at least to me, is we need to look further into real effects of climate change before we infuse our society with higher taxes, increased fuel costs, and the elimination of our freedoms.

Okay, perhaps I am over stating the issue. So I pose these questions: When will progressives open up their minds to the thought that climate change may just be that? Or is this new information just another aberration in conservative thought that man's effect on the climate has been over exaggerated?