Comments on: Scientists measure 6th warmest October, and debunk “global cooling”

By: Ralf

Ralf — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:56:41 +0000

>Increased solar activity.

Umm, wrong. Solar output has been at its lowest for decades.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-sun-global-cooling.html

By: Ralf

Ralf — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:54:07 +0000

You may want to update your opinion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_sc/sci_climate_09_post_kyoto

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html

By: Paul Pierett

Paul Pierett — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:55:07 +0000

Let’s see, this is the 6th warmest October.

If there is global warming, shouldn’t it be number one.

Sixth warmest October. So that means there are five others that were warmer. Then why is this colder or less warmer.

By: popcorn

popcorn — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:46:57 +0000

I will be amusing how the MSM will handle the data leak out of CRU. Their “science is settled” meme took a fatal blow yesterday.

By: sangell3

sangell3 — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:25:41 +0000

Aside from the fact that some of the leading ‘climate scientists’ appear to be frauds if not criminals there is just no way we can rely on data sets that purport to show overall sea and land temperatures over the past 100 years. They weren’t studying ‘global warming’ in 1910, 1930 or 1960 nor was there GPS, orbiting satellites with infrared sensors or any standards of when, where and how to measure temperatures.

To take , e.g. ,sea temperature data based on ships captains logs in an era when a sextant and mechanical chronometer was the best available method of locating one’s position at sea and tossing a thermometer in the water out of curiousity does not meet any modern scientific standard of research. Yet such data is used by the climate frauds in their models and for their legislative agit-prop!

By: Geezer

Geezer — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:21:59 +0000

The evidence that supports the notion that global warming is occurring is overwhelming. The only argument now is how much is the result of natural processes (certainly some is), and how much is driven by anthropomorphic contributions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

By: The Headline is Biased

The Headline is Biased — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:28:55 +0000

OC Register. Your headline is biased. You are not the judge. You should have said “Attempt to Debunk”.

By: Professor W

Professor W — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:09:47 +0000

Somebody needs to show this story to Mark Landsbaum…

By: never ending fight for freedom

never ending fight for freedom — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:00:44 +0000

Yeah, just click the link in my last comment n read all bout it.

By: greater scott

greater scott — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:21:25 +0000

“reset in” == “result in”