Over at Ecotality, there is a heated debate going on about the new numbers. At least they are talking about it.  Debate on this subject is good. Open, public debate. Far from what the MSM is supposed to be doing.You know... talking to both sides.

    Now we have a new post at Ecotaility, explaining the real meaning of the data (according to them) and how conservative bloggers are only interested in bashing the global warming community.  
    On many occasions I have linked to Ecotality and read pretty regularly from their site. Rarely do I agree with what they are saying, but I do take it into account. So for them to lump us into the same category is absurd. Obviously, I take issue with this.

    First off, the post from the Ace Of Spades HQ, is more interested in the fact that the MSM didn't report the news, which any reasonable person would think is important. Instapundit was simply targeting his post, and making his comments based on his belief that the climate records were possibly wrong to begin with. Is that not news? Is this not debatable?

    I think the comments on the first link above explains several of the questions we "global warming deniers" are asking.:
  

Doctor Moore,
Help me understand this. I’ll assume (and correct me if I’m mistaken) that the United States does this weather and temperature tracking as well, if not better, than any other country. Certainly, I’d say that our historical data is at least as strong, since we’ have had the technology to do such detailed tracking before anyone else.
So if our data is found to be wrong, why are we assuming all the other data from around the globe is good? Might they not be susceptible to the same sort of error that was made in this case (or a whole host of other errors besides?)?
It seems presumptuous to say that even though we’ have found our data was wrong enough to change the rankings, all the other data just has to be correct. I would think that an attitude of “well, if it can happen here with all our advantages, it might be worthwhile to check the rest of the data from places not quite so advanced”.

DWPittelli posted this comment on August 10, 2007

    Wouldn't any rational person think the same? The IPCC and others make such huge claims of man-made climate destruction based on computer models that more than likely have several errors factored into them. There is nothing wrong with predicting climate events, but lets make it clear that it could be faulty and that it's "theory" not "fact". True science tests, checks, and independently verifies data. Earth's climate is a very large system that we don't completely understand yet. 
    The data sets that NASA used are not even available to the public, so this implies that maybe the whole thing could be wrong. Then again, maybe it's not. But how do we know?

“The real story to me isn’t just the Y2K bug in the data algorithm, but the inability of the National Climate Data Center to validate its temperature sensors’ accuracy.”

I agree with you. If the NCDC can’t, or won’t, validate its data where we can see it, how on Earth are we supposed to trust it? We’re talking about scientists here, not a medieval priesthood.

Jimmie posted this comment on August 10, 2007

    Legitimate question, if you ask me.

This is what you call debate. Questioning data, correcting problems, and suggesting other options is all part of science. "The debate is over" crowd now has to come back to the table and discuss this. Of course, none of this would be as big of an issue hadn't the likes of Al Gore and others turned it into something that it may not be. They are the ones who made this such a divisive issue. Maybe all of this is a natural occuring event. Maybe this is the way the Earth works. There is no way to prove that theory wrong.

    Climate change is an important issue, but hype and doomsday scenerios are not the way to discuss the issue. Let's look at ALL the theories and have a discussion. And let the media report it evenly.

Just a thought.

    

     Once again the blogisphere has discovered an error in the reporting of facts.
It seems the climate data that NASA has been using is wrong. No longer is 1998 the warmest year on record. New data released by NASA puts 1998 in second place behind 1934. You can find the story here.

    The story behind the story can be found at Ace Of Spades HQ. There seems to be no media coverage of the event, even though this puts some serious doubt into the assertion that humans cause global warming.

    At the Ace Of Spades HQ, he links to a story in the American Thinker site that has a fine article pointing out the "spin-job" being put out by science magazines and publications, readjusting their story line showing that  the real global warming will begin in 2009. 

    This is just another example of the wall being torn down between the global warming fanatics and pure science. Instead of getting the facts correct and taking those facts to the public, they pursue the course of turning the facts into something they can fit into their scenario of doom and gloom. And now with this story, they are twisting them to save face.

    Just another chink in the armor of Al Gore and the IPCC's CO2 laden global warming disaster scenarios.

     What was your first thought when you heard about the tornado in Brooklyn the other day? Was it global warming? It was forABC News. And of course, they had to go talking to some people.

    Climate scientist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, agreed: "You cannot blame a single specific event, such as this week's storm, on climate change," he said.

"However," he added, "it is fair to ask whether the human changes have altered the likelihood of such events. There the answer seems to be 'yes.'"

    And this person:

    And as his crews pumped millions of gallons of water from submerged train tracks, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Executive Director Elliot G. Sander said: "We may be dealing with meteorological conditions that are unprecedented."

    Unprecedented? Tornado's are rare in New York City, but they have happened before as is stated in this N.Y. Times article. 


    The National Weather Service declared the storm a Category 2 tornado on the Enhanced Fujita scale, with winds from 111 to 135 miles an hour. It was the first tornado recorded in Brooklyn since record-keeping began in 1950, said Jeffrey M. Warner, a meteorologist at Pennsylvania State University, and only the sixth recorded in New York City since 1950 and the first since a weak one touched down on Staten Island in 2003.

    So, since tornado's are not that common for the city of New York, it would be surprise no matter were it might touch done. Right?
    
    But clearly, with all the hyper-activity around global warming and the media's fascination with it, what else could it be?



    

    
    

     Wandering around a few web sites, I came across an interview given last year on Gristmill.grist.org with none other than our favorite guy, Al Gore. One of the questions asked , frankly, caught me by surprise. I was further shocked by the candid answer Mr. Gore gave.


    Now, we all know people in power have to "tweak" the truth a little to get their point across, especially if they want the other party to listen. But this is an out-right fabrication.

Read the whole thing here.

     If you remember, a while back I posted on these composting toilets that are all the rage with the "green" community. Glen Reyonolds over at Instapundit found this toilet, and it is by no means "green" friendly.
But it is pretty cool!

     While perusing James Lileks daily blog entries at Buzz.mn, I came across this.  Read the link; if it wasn't so stupid it would be funny.
    This proves that the global warming nutters in our political realm are lost on the obvious and are trying to scare the public. 

    Shameful, really.

     Andrew Revkin of the New York Times has an article that was published in the AARP Magazine. He is trying very hard to be fair, while at the same time blaming the ones who question man-made climate change.

    

    The climate-change debunkers include Richard S. Lindzen, 67, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who claims that human-caused warming is inconsequential, and Michael Crichton, 64, the novelist and moviemaker. Crichton stirred the climate debate with a 2004 novel, State of Fear, in which the bad guys were radical environmentalists trying to scare the world about global warming in order to line their pockets. Opposed are three climate scientists: one from NASA, one from a leading university, and one from a private group called the Union of Concerned Scientists. Most of the night focuses on their differences, mainly concerning the value of quick, aggressive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

    Notice the clear use of "The climate change debunkers".  Such a loose word to identify a MIT meteorologist. You don't get to grace the halls of that institution because your stupid. 

    Yet further on in the story he admits this:


    Crichton and Lindzen, both of whom consider former vice president Al Gore and his allies alarmists, readily agree that human-generated greenhouse gases warm the earth.

    So he gets to the truth, albeit a little later in the story. The fact is, most all scientists who disagree with Al Gore and other "alarmists" is not whether the planet is warming. That's been proven. They disagree with the science that is coming from the IPCC and other people pushing the alarmist view of global warming. They believe we don't know anywhere near enough to make these kind of assumptions based on flawed and short sighted computer models, untested and un-testable scientific data, and funding by liberal colleges and think-tanks expecting to get a one-sided result. They simply disagree with the other side based on their own studies and research.

    And is that not what science is all about? Did Albert Einstein come up with a theory that was just accepted without any study and systematic test of it. You can prove things mathematically, but it's still a theory until it can be tested, re-tested, by more than one group.

    Global warming cannot be tested, cannot be proven and certainly "the debate is over", as many are now saying, is simply not the case. Until the Earth was proven to be round the Earth was flat. Then someone mathematically proved it was round. But it was not proven without a doubt until someone sailed around it. This is no different. Without understanding all the effects of the Earth's climate and their relation to each other, well, it can't be proven. Until we understand how the things outside our atmosphere effect our climate (the Sun, Cosmic rays, and a host of other celestial events) we simply can't lay down a time table of catastrophic events that will befall us if we don't change our ways.

And let's not forget the governmental politics of climate change. 

But that is for another time...

  
    

     Awhile back I had posted on the disappearing bee's. This article from the New Yorker gives a pretty good explanation as to what is going on with them and it doesn't seem to have much to do with global warming.

It's a long article, but a really good one. Once I started reading, I couldn't stop.

     Pick this up from Green Wombat. Notice it will take six acres to power 10% of the buildings power needs.
On the regular power grid it would take what, six feet to power the entire building?
Hopefully they don't put them next to the highway where people who already don't pay attention to their driving, will cause some serious "gawking" delays.
    Anyway, it's best to get the government involved in these things. The solar energy companies are never going to be able to make their product economical, and less intrusive if people don't support it. Besides, it's the government that's pushing the issue, so they should use it. Not that it matters; we are all still paying.

     We are half way through the Hurricane season, and here is what we have; one sub-tropical storm and two tropical storms.

    Remember these predictions earlier this year? They are still holding out hope though.

     Texas is experiencing a uncommon cold spell, and no one is reporting it.

The AP issued its first version of this article around 5AM EST Thursday. Yet, Google News and LexisNexis searches identified almost no print coverage.

As for television news outlets, I can find no mention of this matter whatsoever.

It appears the potential for weather related crop damage is only newsworthy in America if it can be reported as evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

    In today's Denver Post, a story on Colorado peaches shows the problem we are having with the wet and cold, along with the southeastern portion of the nation.

    
    Colorado peaches that are not affected by soft sutures are flying off the shelves, mostly because of a severe freeze in the Southeast and Midwest.

Tennessee's peach production was completely wiped out, and Georgia's vaunted peaches are down almost 70 percent from last year, according to the USDA.

"We wish we had a lot more fruit, because we sure could find homes for it," Talbott said. "I just wish we had a 100 percent crop instead of a 75 percent crop. I think if we had a 200 percent crop, we could sell it all."

California, the largest peach- growing state in the nation, has an 18 percent increase in production this year, helping to minimize the shortfall from cold weather in the Southeast.

    The Earth's climate sure is diverse.

     I had mentioned earlier in the week that I had lost my book, "Unstoppable Global Warming" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. The interesting part is the chain book store Borders does not carry the book. But if you go over to the ecology/ gardening section in their store, you will find a terrific line-up of Al Gore and other global warming alarmist books sitting on the shelf.

Conspiracy?  Probably not. 
    
    Unfortunately, the scientists who question the reasons behind climate change get drowned out by the media, thereby never getting the necessary air time to promote their books.
At least that's my theory. But I could be wrong. Borders may be run by a bunch of liberals.
The Borders by my home does sell conservative authors books, but you tend to find them buried in the back of the store with only two copies siting on the shelf. Yet Barak Obama's new book and Hillary's new book are proudly sitting on the display stand so close to the entrance you practically knock them over with your first step though the door. Interestingly, Christopher Hichens new book ,"God is not Great-How religion poisons everything" is siting right next to them. Don't get me wrong, Hitchens is a very smart guy and he understands the war (for the most part), but boy does he got that issue all wrong.

    Anyway, I guess I will go to Amazon.com and get my book there. They sell everything.

Speaking of Hillary and Amazon...check this out.

     Christopher J. Kelly from the Times-Tribune, tells us his answer to whether he believes in global warming.

    My answer? It doesn't matter.

Why? Because I’m not a scientist. As a result, I choose to defer to scientists, much the same way I don’t try to muscle my way into the cabin and fly the airplane myself. I can string sentences together, trounce the “competition” in Trivial Pursuit(s) and pick a few Johnny Cash tunes on the guitar, but I don’t know how to fly an airplane. 

    So let me get this straight.... because he cannot fly an airplane it must be far to complicated for him. So the same reasoning says that since he doesn't understand global warming, he will not try to learn about it, or question it. He must have a low opinion of himself. 
    My question is; is he not a journalist? Isn't that what they are paid to do? Although I suppose he is just a columnist, and those rules don't apply too him.

And then he talks about common sense:

    Whatever you “believe” about global warming, I think there are a few common-sense things we all can agree on.

For instance, assn’t it a good idea to turn the lights out when you leave a room, to use less energy and produce less waste, generally?

Isn’t it just plain better to recycle, to preserve our remaining wild spaces and protect the water we drink, the food we eat and the air we breathe?

Isn’t it true that every time you gas up that giant SUV plastered with “Support the Troops” ribbons, you’re not only spewing extra toxins but supporting the crazed, oil-funded murderers who wound and kill our soldiers every day?

Isn’t it our responsibility — in fact, our sacred duty — to be good stewards of all the creator has given us, and leave it in good shape for future generations?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. But to think that all of these things will have an effect on a global scale and reduce the planets warming is absurd.

Is it not common sense question anything and everything that comes from the U.N.  There are plenty of scientists that are not funded by the "oil tycoons" that agree the Earth is warming. They just question the reasoning.