Ah, the old "it was cold today" argument.
I love going through these articles and finding out where these guys are coming from. Let's take his opening paragraph.
Quote:
THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.
|
Notice how he leaves the UK temperature predictions alone for the rest of the article. Why would he do that?
Because 2007 was the second warmest year ever recorded in the UK -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7169690.stm
Global warming is an unfortunate phrase, climate change is more accurate.
Weather has always been innately variable. Which is why cold records continue to be set.
Who is he quoting here anyway, that big chuck missing from the quote interested me.
Quote:
|
the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change,"
|
Hmph, these guys were in that "documentary"
The great Global Warming Swindle, look it up in your own time.
This chunk of a George Monbiot article devoted to the documentary tells us a little about these scientists' history. They have been proven wrong on this a couple of times
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007...-with-science/
Quote:
|
So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover(6). This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found(7).
|
argh, it's late
*blinks*