Near Unanimity in Being Mistaken...oh, and Gullible, too!

Lets just say the link to the http://www.nationalpost.com
"story" was SAD.

It bounces around with "data" from the Britain's Hadley Centre, the IPCC , and the U. S. National Climatic Data Center to TRY and prove a point. It fails!

The mashed -up logic is just BOGUS!!

The data from National Climatic Data Center on global land surface in January 2008 leaves out REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT NEWER DATA like ..

IN MARCH OF 2008:
The average GLOBAL LAND TEMPERATURE WAS THE WARMEST ON RECORD


http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080417_marchstat s.html

Pointing out that March's global temp was warmest on record is an interesting, but not terribly important fact. Again, just because this anecdotal occurrence can be pointed to, even if part of a perceived trend, it is no different from the U. S. National Climatic Data Center January '08 data. You could no more point to the March data as conclusive evidence of warming, than I could point to the January data as evidence of cooling.

Remember, just because the last 2 miles have been uphill, doesn't mean that road goes up forever. Until you have all the facts, you just don't know. The National Post article just provides a prime example of the fact that we don't have all the data needed to justify taking such drastic action.

The point of my post is not that global warming isn't happening, but that those who would have us make drastic changes to our lifestyles and economies are not basing their rationales on solid science based upon all relevant data. When the data is there, then we can make accurate predictions and informed policy decisions. Until then, we're needlessly hindering our economy by listening to the cries of the alarmists.

I fully support the cause of global warming. In fact I support all of the causes of global warming.

This hoax falls under the heading of "being alive causes premature aging". According to Albert "Carbon Credit" Gore, humans exhaling cause as much greenhouse emission as man's industrial processes do.

The best case scenario for enviro- wackos, is negative population growth. They may be able to convince liberalism soaked "intellectuals" to voluntarily go along with this scheme, but they'll have a hard time getting less "advanced" peoples around the world to do so. That leaves two choices, enforced population control (ala China) or the real possibility that the new majorities will repeat our industrial revolution almost certainly without the "guidance" of these condescending nincompoops.