Climate Data Re-examined (updated)
An anonymous reader writes "An important paper that re-examines historical climate data was published on 28 October in the respected journal Energy & Environment. (The paper is also available here.) According to an article in Canada's National Post, the paper shows that a "pillar of the Kyoto Accord is based on false calculations, incorrect data and an overtly biased selection of climate records." (USA Today also has a story.) This paper will undoubtedly be controversial and should stir a vigourous data review." Update: 11/05 14:54 GMT by T : newyhouse points out a similarly contrarian 2001 Economist article by Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist .
Nooooooo!
Now I don't want to respond to the article's claims, since that'll only spark a flame war I don't want to fight but:
Only in Canada does one see a graph with a flat line then sharp spike and instantly think "Oooo, a hockey stick!"
This just cracks me up because it is absolutely true of most of my Canadian relities, they are just nuts over hockey and I'm sure this doesn't strike any of them as the least bit odd comparison.
... your vehicle's exhaust won't make any harm to the nature. You can try it: lock yourself in the garage and run the engine for an hour. You won't feel anything bad, serious, it's all harmless stuff, everybody knows that, right? D'oh..
Check out the funding behind this.
Noted, as a potential source of bias.
You seem, however, to have left out your scientific criticism of their methodology and results.
As that criticism will comprise 99% of your final grade it looks like you have some work to do if you expect to pass this course.
KFG
> You may be interested to know that the Earth was warmer over the vast majority of its history.
Fortunately, we didn't have to live through those times.
Most of the universe is a hard vacuum, but I kind of like having the local fluke we call "the atmosphere".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Ya screw all those damn texans from .co.uk
nature is sustainable. we bring oil to the surface (just an example) where it doesnt belong and change into objects and then discard them, laying on the surface. sure it will be taken care of by nature but do we have time to wait?
are we able to advance technologically fast enough when the times comes to have an environmentally friendly power source before our world changes and we cannot?
i think this is what darwin had in mind. we shall see... we will see.
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
This is another Microsoft sponsored review isn't it?.
Posted by Hemos on Wednesday November 05, @04:20AM
So this is what Hemos was doing while hitting his first joint of the day?
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
Now I can use hairspray again! Seriously, I looked at the data for the mid to late 1980s and there are distinct spikes in atmospheric GHG that coincide with Poison concert dates.
Appearently, you've seen pictures of me with my shirt off. That's right, Robbin Williams and I have a little bit of an evolutionary head start.
If that ain't the most retarded statement I've heard all week I'll eat my hat.
Not if that hat was made by burning oil, you won't. You'll DIE!
Dum-de-dum-dum.
deserve's got nothing to do with it...