It makes no difference whatsoever. I linked to a current news item.
Do you have any evidence that it was actually a current news item, from a reputable source, and not some quackery from 'some guy's blog'? Then there's the credibility of 'current news items'. Remember 'climategate' and the way Fox News 'reported' that? It's hard to find such a horrendous and callous and cynical disregard for the truth: unless of course they were all just
morons and do not understand the 'investigative' part of journalism.
But the fraud I exposed here is typical of the kind of fraud exposed as endemic in the climategate e-mails.
1. You're jumping the gun again and have not actually exposed any fraud. I'd rather you kept grand pronouncements like this to when you actually do prove something, rather than just assert unfounded and paranoid conspiracy theories based on your own peculiar reading of database history. More on that below.
2. Oh, so Fox News does clarify as 'current news' to you? You
believed the climategate stories? Wow.
It hurts to be you right now. That's up there with Aliens at Area51 and the Moon Landing was Faked. Go the conspiracies!
What I have proved, and proved beyond the possibility of rational debate,
I think you need to have a glass of warm milk and a long afternoon nap.
is that no climate information currently coming out of NASA Goddard's Earth Sciences Division can be trusted as even an attempt at presenting data that is actually based on fact. And the climategate e-mails exposed the fact that this type of fraud is not exceptional. It is the typical modus operandi of Anthropomorphic Global Warming "scientists."
Rant rant rant, but so little
evidence. But what else to expect from a YEC?
Take your blood pressure tablets, and after a nice warm milk and a nap why don't you then explain how I am to believe a thing you say when I can't verify you actually copied the RIGHT NUMBERS FROM THE RIGHT WEBPAGE? I need a source. I've said it before about your quaint old maps. I'll say it till the cows come home. I need an actual SOURCE because if you handle data the way you handle verses from the bible, CONTEXT WILL BE EVERYTHING! You've already demonstrated a propensity to cherry pick data
from anywhere you want to make it
say anything you want. So I have no idea whether you copied your precious 'earlier data' from the average temperatures of a few States within the USA, the lower 48, or if these averages include Alaska etc. What does it cover? We cannot know. But I'm just to trust in your conspiracy theory and disbelieve peer-reviewed scientific evidence because
you copied numbers in from 'somewhere' that demonstrate (through YOUR manipulation of the graphics) 'something'... are you serious? This is just embarrassing.
What you are attempting to assert is that there is a conspiracy involving not just NASA, but the WORLD's top 3 temperature monitoring databases (all using their own equipment). Check it out.
Of the top 3 climate monitoring units on the planet only Hadley says 1998 was the warmest, and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) has pointed to a cooling bias with the Hadley data.
What has global warming done since 1998?
Two of the three most powerful temperature databases on the planet confirm 1998 as the THIRD warmest year on record, even when 1998 had one of the most frighteningly powerful El Nino's we've ever seen. Check it out — NOAA, NASA, then Hadley's CRU.
The NCDC at NOAA says:
///For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average."
State of the Climate | Global Analysis - Annual 2010
NASA GISTEMP confirms the same thing and says:
"Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.///
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/
And now Phil Jones at the CRU, but don't forget the ECMWF has had a go at this particular dataset.
///The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2010. According to the method of calculation used by CRU, the year 2010 was the equal third (see footnote) warmest on record (with 2003), exceeded by 1998 and 2005. The years 2003, 2005 and 2010 are only distinguishable in the third decimal place. The error estimate for individual years (two standard errors is about ±0.1°C, see Brohan et al., 2006) is at least ten times larger than the differences between these three years.
The period 2001-2010 (0.44°C above 1961-90 mean) was 0.20°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean). The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.55°C above the 1961-90 mean. After 1998, the next nine warmest years in the series are all in the decade 2001-2010. During this decade, only 2008 is not in the ten warmest years. Even though 2008 was the coldest year of the 21st century it was still the 12th warmest year of the whole record.///
CRU Information Sheet no. 1: Global Temperature Record
But rather than argue over hundredths of a degree, which is all that seems to separate the temperatures, have a look at the 15 year trend *all* 3 agencies report. Brilliant graphic here.
Climate monitoring - Met Office
Even Denialist's are admitting it. At the 2009 Heartland Institute conference (of global warming sceptics), well known climate denialist Dr Patrick J Michaels warned against using the 1998 El Nino super-spike as some sort of 'proof' of a cooling trend. Take the advice of the words of a fellow Denialist.
///"Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all… If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!"///
1998 Revisited - YouTube
So while Denialists selectively zoom in on a few data points to try and skew the story any way they want, overall, the trend is clear.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Party like it's 1998 - YouTube
The last decade was the hottest on record, and anyone who says otherwise is denying the best data on the planet and pushing an anti-science agenda of their own.
