Out of tens of thousands of scientists there will always be a lot of bad scientists. We can find quotes from bad scientists that actually say there's no global warming in the data. What's dangerous about such statements, scientifically speaking, is that this scientist can't just *say* there was no global warming found in the data. A scientist presents *data* to back up his or her claim.
Also, the scientist needs to be specific. Is he or she talking about the data for the past few years or past 35 years? When considering global warming, we need to consider data spanning decades due to significant fluctuations. A few years of data by itself is meaningless. The global temperature is not going to increase at some fixed temperature every year. The fluctuations are far greater than the steady rise in temperature each year ->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
Please take a look at that plot, and take special notice to the fluctuations. It's really bad science to even suggest that it means something if global warming is down, even for 5 years in a row. Take a look at that graph again, and you'll see relatively long streaks of global cooling, but then take a look at the entire graph going back 35 years and the pattern begins to become clear. Any scientist who has the nerve to suggest there's no global warming because of the past two years is not being objective. That's called poor science.
As you can see in the graph, it takes decades to see the global warming pattern.
I'll side with Gavin Schmidt at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies on this that the email hacks offer no proof what so ever that global warming is not real. Gavin Schmidt just publicly said, "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax"
Created on 2009-11-28 15:14:48 by EnergyMover
Climate change, Humanitarian, News, Science, Climate change, Misc, News
