Why do global warming alarmists use outdated and false data?

Question

The hottest year of all was not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml

Be sure and note how many responders have totally missed the point that what the GW proponents have been claiming was the hottest year wasn't. The data they were using was innacurate.

Answer 1

because they cant prove that it does exist....so they try to force false or out of date data on you...

Answer 2

The hottest year worldwide was 1998. It was 1934 only in the US, and then, only by much less than a tenth of a degree.

The adjustment to the NASA data amounted to about one-thousandth of a degree, worldwide. And then only for 2 years. It changed absolutely nothing about global warming science.

Do you honestly think thousands of scientists are using "outdated and false data'? That's conspiracy theory run amok.

Answer 3

Pick and choose theory for you. You must listen to drive by media Rush limbaugh because he uses false claims. Now answer this mr right winger. Why is the only data that shows no global warming is provided by the oil companies and their scientist that they pay their salary? Second question if you were a oil company and wanted to get rid of global warming concerns would you provide data the supports you even if it was questionable data? Yes you would.

Answer 4

LOL! That's the most ironic question I've read in a long time.

1934 was not even a warm year on a global scale. It was the hottest year on record...in the lower 48 United States!

Talk about outdated and false data. This story was debunked months ago many, many times.

The hottest years on record on a global scale are 1998, 2005, and soon to be 2007. Wow, you must be embarassed right now.

Answer 5

I read that whole linked article and I didn't find any data in it at all.

Here's what real data looks like, from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

... and here's what real data looks like from the UK:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/data/download.html

In the NASA data, 2005 was the warmest year globally during the period 1880-2006, 1998 was the second warmest, and 1934 was 63rd warmest.

In the Hadley data, 1998 was the warmest year globally during the period 1850-2006, 2005 was the second warmest, and 1934 was 60th warmest.

So why do GW skeptics use false data? Or perhaps GW skeptics just don't understand the difference between global data and 48-state US data?

Answer 6

BTW Hansen, whom I listened to in a 2 hr evening lecture at The Baker Institute for Public Policy, did examine and consider alternative explanations or factors contributing to GW. He eliminated several as not having the capacity or magnitudes to explain the quickening and continuity of the changes in Temperature an climate changes that are causing GW triggered by the human-caused greeh-house effect!!!

No one has ever said that humans are totally responsible for GW in its entirety. We have tipped or triggered the instability in the thermal equilibrium and once set in motion we have to ride it out. If we humans are lucky and smart we will find a way to attenuate the climate problems and restore the equilibrium by changing our energy use and CO2 production patterns which are overly dependent on fossil carbon fuels. I wish uninformed or misinformed people would stop the demagogery, and listen to the real experts who have little to gain scientifically by lying about the problem they have studied over a lifetime.

Comparing I year vs 400,000 yrs of atmospheric composition data analyses of ancient trapped gases in sedimentary layers of tubular ice cores from drilling into glaciers in the the Arctic (Greenland) and in Antarctica is a no brainer for me. Too bad the idea of what is scientific data and what isn't is not broadly understood by Amateurs. Tell me how many weight scale measurements do you take of a sample before you average it? Also there are always aberrant measurements in an "open system" and there are mathematical ways to determine if it is part of a trend or the data group. All measurements are subject to "errors of the 1st and second kind". Bone up on it before you go any further muddying up the way. Also listen to Jim Hansen's lecture at TRCradio.org. AGainI find your added comment to your Q is perpetuating the demagogic and very unscientific Q. Counter-examples in empirical data are not the disqualifier you make it out to be esp in a complex non-linear equilibrium. Have you forgotten, or do you dismiss outright, the "Butterfly effect" and Chaos theory too?

You folks are definitely in denial of the problem facing humanity and all life on the planet and the psuedo-science I am seeing is beyond contempt--It is unethical. But reason and wisdom always defeats irrationality, ignorance and stupidity.

Thisis an issue settled by the scientific method, not by the use of silly votes by the use of a thumbs up or down gesture which I think is abused by subjectivists compared to the objectivists among us. LOL. I think the more thumbs down I get, the more I know I've stuck a nerve. Now that I've said that, you GW deniers face a dilemma-a catch 22 situation.. LOL. It's your right, pls vote by thumbing me down to your hearts content!!!! Be sure to use your other usernames Mr gelatin.

Answer 7

that may be true (I didnt check the site)

however MOST of the hottest years on record are within the past 15 years... that was the ONLY one which was not.

Also if you take samples from glaciers or antarica snow packs - ( such records reach back farther than human records do) you can see the change has really occured since the 1900's...

Answer 8

As noted in the article you gave, 1934 was the hottest year on record for the continental US. The hottest year on record globally is still 1998.

Here's a graph of temperatures from the GISS website for the US and the globe:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/USHCN.2005vs1999.gif

Answer 9

how is the data false? peer reviewed subjected to intense scruitiy by the old fossil fuel cadre of men (eg those that read the telegraph) trying to hang on to power, and even they have accepted all the evidence presented by the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch

the latest data is even more alarming.

Answer 10

have you actuly looked at the info that came from?? and you claim that global warming alarmists use outdated and false data.

Answer 11

I'm not sure they really consider their data false,some are just bias and others just play with the numbers making sure it fits into their models.That's just human nature,but it's good to know both sides of the story.That way we can formulate our own opinion and speak our own voice.