A Planet, Ablaze III

I see no links for ALL your "facts"?
And..you source back to YOURSELF!
Simply Brilliant!
=========================
Thank you, Royal Academy for establishing, some 340+ years-ago, the standards required of the HARD SCIENCES to stop this kind of sad-logic passed off as "science".

I see no links for ALL your "facts"?
And..you source back to YOURSELF!
Simply Brilliant!
=========================
Thank you, ROYAL SOCIETY for establishing, some 340+ years-ago, the standards required of the HARD SCIENCES to stop this kind of sad-logic passed off as "science".

(Corrected: Wouldn't want to get MY "facts" wrong, now would I?)

My bad, of course. I wrote the piece without the intention of publishing on the web, so neglected to source. I'm not sure which sources you want, but here are a few:

Hottest year data, from both NYTimes and Washington Times: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/15/the-hottest-ye ar-1934/

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/hottest-yea r-data-meltdown/

Carbon dioxide historically lagging behind global temperatures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.sv g

Georgia State University Physics Department summary of solar activity/temperature correlation: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/thermo/solact.h tml

Hope this helps!

-KWG

If it is about the "DATA" it should also be about how accurate it is.

The First two links are about a year old and deal with info that was blown out of proportion to begin with and long since corrected.

A NASA corrected study dated May 14, 2008
"Earth Impacts Linked to Human-Caused Climate Change"
http://www.townhall.com/youropinion/comments.aspx?g=9801754 e-436c-4fef-b3c5-12a473265e79


The third is a WIKIPEDIA? This site spits out both sides of its mouth on WIKI, it depends if it supports the spew.


The fourth is just a combo of old "WIKI" and a mix that real science never said didn't play into Global Warming, just not the root cause, solar activity.

It linked back to itself?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/

Data being a year old doesn't invalidate it. Your link doesn't work. NASA still maintains that 1934 is the hottest year on record, even if other scientists dispute it. What is indisputable is that the 1930s were a time of relative warmth, almost as hot as it is today, even if the exact numbers differ a little.

If you had actually gone to the wikipedia page that I sourced, you would see that the graph is a public-domain graph of NOAA data, not random musings of a wiki-editor. (Since you demand actual sites, try here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt and here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt )

As I said in my blog post, I don't buy the solar variation explanation for global warming either. I look upon it with the same skepticism that I do the CO2 argument. My point is that there are competing theories out there and that we're nowhere near understanding exactly what's going on with the climate and our own influence upon it. Upcoming installments of this series will explain why, when we have such a limited understanding of climate, we cannot afford to undertake the drastic action that progressive environmentalists would have us legislate.