Thursday, January 17, 2008

So Much For Global Cooling

I wonder if Lorrie Goldstein will do a follow-up to his assinine column last week, where he tried to argue in favor of "global cooling". Goldstein said:
In fact, not only was 2007 cooler than 1998, it wasn't statistically different from any year going back to 2001. None came close to 1998. How many media outlets which gave the original story such prominence will correct the record? We'll see.

Let's see if Goldstein "corrects the record" now that NASA has released the global temperature data for 2007. Compare this sentence, with the above:
Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

I wait for Goldstein to do a follow-up piece, in the spirit of fairness.

6 comments:

Steve V said...

I fired off a quick email to Goldstein:

Lorrie:

I read your piece last week on global cooling. In the article you made the following comment:

In fact, not only was 2007 cooler than 1998, it wasn't statistically different from any year going back to 2001. None came close to 1998. How many media outlets which gave the original story such prominence will correct the record? We'll see.



Today, Nasa released their temperature data for 2007. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm:

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.


In the spirit of fairness, will you offer a correction to your column. Will you "correct the record", as you demand of the media, or are you a big hypocrite? Judging by your dinosaur columns, I don't expect anything- the truth is a casualty in your denier delusions.

Keep up the good fight, and keep that head buried deep inside your ass.

Steve

Steve V said...

Goldstein's response:

Steve:

Nice try, but I was talking about Britain’s Meteorological Office, otherwise known as the MET, not NASA.


As I wrote, the MET wrongly predicted at the start of 2007 that it would be the hottest year globally on record and now, in fact, the MET says it was the seventh-warmest year compared to 1998, which it says was the hottest year on record.

Meanwhile, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has just pronounced 2007 the second-warmest year on record globally, compared to 2005, which it says was the hottest year on record.

Not to be outdone, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just pronounced 2007 to be the fifth-warmest year on record globally. I’m not sure which year they consider the hottest. Perhaps you could ask them.

Second? Fifth? Seventh?

This by what are arguably the three leading agencies monitoring climate change in the world?


Doesn’t sound like much of a “consensus” to me. How about you?

BTW, you do know about that embarrassing little incident earlier this year where NASA had to revise its top 10 hottest years in the U.S. , replacing 1998 with 1934. Right?

Next time, do your homework before opening your little potty mouth.

You might not look so stupid.

Bye


Lorrie didn't read the link I guess, because it addresses the NASA revision, which he says was "embarrassing". In fact, it was "statistically insignificant", but then again, why let math get in the way.

Steve V said...

More, hope this isn't boring:

Lorrie

Stop avoiding the issue.

Fifth. Seventh. Second.

Where’s the consensus?

And if you can’t do any better this time, don’t expect a reply.

Bye



My response:

Here's my reply:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


You don't really understand science do you? You don't get to pick one year, and use that as a baseline, you use the mean average and look for deviations for that point. What you fail to acknowledge (because you don't want to), whether 2nd, 5th, 7th, the global temperature was above average, the trend remains. Was 2007 well above the mean average? Yes, it was. Global cooling would be temperatures below average (see ice age), global warming is above (see dinosaurs, your relatives). You don't understand science, this is pretty elemental stuff. Then again, science is your enemy here, the earth is flat. The good news, the younger generations understand the issue, so we just have to wait for your lot to die off.

Take care, and go educate yourself.

Ti-Guy said...

Next time, do your homework before opening your little potty mouth.

He's got you there!

...next time, say "bum." "Journalists" are notoriously fragile and are not accustomed to such coarse language...sends 'em straight to the fainting couch.

Bailey said...

I think the craziest thing about all of this is his response. Who writes like that? Especially, someone who was at one point the Managing Editor of the Toronto Sun and is now the Senior Associate Editor.

Raphael Alexander said...

NASA has a well-known bias to reality.