The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on August 5th, 2017 at 01:58 pm
The Independent’s environment editor, back in April:
The possibility is growing that Britain in 2007 may experience a summer of unheard-of high temperatures, with the thermometer even reaching 40C, or 104F,a level never recorded in history …
This would be quite outside all historical experience, but entirely consistent with predictions of climate change.
So colder temperatures – or even average temperatures – would be inconsistent with predictions of climate change, right? Let’s check London’s predicted maximums for the next few days:
Sunday: 73° F. / 23° C.
Monday: 69° F. / 21° C.
Tuesday: 73° F. / 23° C.
Wednesday: 71° F. / 22° C.
Thursday: 71° F. / 22° C.
- So… thermometers were invented about the same time as writing? That’s a heckuva lot of historical temperatures to keep track of.Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 06 02 at 02:46 PM • permalink
- Whenever confronted with unseasonably cold or even average weather, the Gore-bots substitute “climate change” for “warming” without skipping a beat, and the supposedly “right-wing-controlled corporate Media” never questions it.Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 06 02 at 03:26 PM • permalink
- Spiny:
right-wing-controlled corporate Media” never questions it.
Like those RWDB over at National Republican Radio.
- Now you’re just being childish Tim. As everyone knows, actual temperature outcomes can only be consistent with global warming. Where results differ from those predicted they are in no way inconsistent – they merely reflect the natural variability which is fully consistent with global warming predictions.
- We all know that low temperatures are weather and hot temperatures are climate.Posted by Mystery Meat on 2007 06 02 at 07:36 PM • permalink
- Scientists Rally Around NASA Chief After Global Warming Comments
WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Jun. 1 -/E-Wire/—“NASA’s top administrator, Michael Griffin, speaking on NPR radio made some refreshingly sensible comments about the present global warming scare,” said Robert Ferguson, Director of the Science and Public Policy Institute. “Many rationalist scientists agree with him, clearly demonstrating there is no scientific consensus on man-made, catastrophic global warming,” said Ferguson.http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3967
Hansen of Hockey Stick fame/infamy predictably seethes.
- “Our predictions are perfectly consistent with predictions of climate change. When two sets of predictions agree (Praise Gore) they MUST COME TRUE!”Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2007 06 02 at 08:34 PM • permalink
- I am the weather girl for Blair news today.
Sunday: hot, hot, hot, hot fine and hot, hot, hot temperatures will reach 23. C I should know, as I am paid alot to look important when reading the weather.
. … …. … … .. .. O <—sun
“Sun rays” by 1.618
For Sale $12,900It could be the cricket ball like Tim B’s but it’s not.
a level never recorded in history …
And re. #1: Yes, RebeccaH. The first thing I said to myself was, “And I wonder if ‘in history’ means going back to e.g. 1880 (or whenever) Britain first began national, government-approved temperature measuring?”
Posted by andycanuck on 2007 06 02 at 08:57 PM • permalink
- I used to live in Iowa, which is full of cows and where the temperature often exceeds 100 F.
It would always tickle me to read reports of European ‘heat waves’ in which Danish cows toppled over dead from temperatures that sometimes reached a blistering 85 F.
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2007 06 02 at 08:59 PM • permalink
- Unheard-of high temperatures would be quite outside all historical experience? Amazing!Posted by flying pigs over mecca on 2007 06 02 at 09:58 PM • permalink
- Note: if any of you have upgraded to Firefox 2.4, it apparently checks your spelling anywhere you post. (Not just on this site—in any text-entry box.) I kept wondering why all these red lines kept appearing under my typos. (This is for peter m—I don’t know if that is the “spell checker” you were referring to, but I thought I’d point it out anyway.)Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 06 02 at 10:08 PM • permalink
- And at the risk of hogging this thread, A while back I got into a short interchange with the BBC’s environment correspondent.
In short, he kept publishing articles that were full of scientific errors and misrepresentations. The guy knew nothing about science.
I am sure he is representative of environmental reporting in general. And the cause of much of the hysteria we see in the media.
- I regret to say it, but this clown is RIGHT, except for his use of terms… he should speak of probability, rather than possibility. My extensive research shows that the probability of LONDON becoming a tropical paradise overnight is 0.0000000000000001%. Now even if the independent dickhead settles on a probability of 0.00000000000001% he is RIGHT……the possibility(sic)of the wormenising in question is growing AND BY A FACTOR OF ONE THOUSAND TIMES.
You can’t win!! Time to have a cuppa tea, a Bex and a GLD
Cheers
RodC
- The two students I have that are most sure Global Warmening is going to kill us all really soon now also admit that they have taken the minimum of science courses for their majors (usually Rocks for Jocks [Geology 101] or the equivalent) and both took two tries to get through my required intro stats course. They just KNOW however that the Goracle is right.
And I sadly see that Tony Hendra (Thomas’ link) has now slipped entirely into early onset dementia.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 06 02 at 11:10 PM • permalink
- In case someone reading phil_b’s comment is wondering why a temperature measurement station under a tree is a problem, it’s mainly because as the tree grows or dies or gets pruned, it’s going to change the micro-climate and introduce an inhomogeneity in the record. As for why having one next to an incinerator or air conditioner outlet is a problem, that’s pretty obvious.
The biggest problem with the surface record is inhomogeneity. Put simply, they’re looking for a small trend in the data, except the thermometers keep getting moved, or buildings built next to them, or parking lots, etc. and it becomes difficult to distinguish these effects from any actual climactic variation.
Anyway I heartily recommend anyone who actually cares about finding out the truth – and I mean replicable scientific results – dive into ClimateAudit. It will take a long time to read all of what’s being discussed there, but in the end you will be enlightened, I think.
- #24 The late, great Fred Daly investigated a case where a temperature station was recenty sited in a natural heat trap in Death Valley specifically to try and get a temperature record for the US – and hit the headlines.
There already is a long-standing temperature gauge in the same area that had been sited to give a good idea of the true average. But science was getting in the way of religion, again.
- I have no idea, I don’t take much notice of Clint Eastwood movies.Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 06 03 at 07:41 AM • permalink
- #10, phil_b,
Quoting his quote: “Many rationalist scientists agree with him, clearly demonstrating there is no scientific consensus on man-made, catastrophic global warming,” said Ferguson.
Excuse me, “rationalist scientists?” Is this as opposed to rational scientists? Or perhaps, non-rational scientists?
That is a very sloppy use of concepts, and indicative of why we are having the problems we are. While I hope all ya’ll will forgive the picking of nits, but I can only wish those who ought to know better would do the nit-picking before they opened their mouths. It’d save a lot of time and trouble.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Members:
