Republican Censorship - You can't say that!

[Alate_One]

Florida Governor Rick Scott has apparently banned "climate change" and "global warming" from official documents and his officials.

An employee was recently sent home from work for using the terms.

See if you pretend Rome isn't burning, that makes it not burn. :chuckle:

Meanwhile ....

 

[resodko]

there's an awful lot of gray on that map :think:

 

[shagster01]

there's an awful lot of gray on that map :think:

Weird it's where people don't live too.

Just an observation.

 

[resodko]

people live in the rest of the oceans?:freak:

are they amphibious people?

 

[Buzzword]

No surprise here.

 

[Nick M]

 

[Mocking You]

Ah yes, selective picking of endpoints to "prove" your point. How quaint.

Why start at 1950?

 

[Nick M]

Why start at 1950?

You would have to ask the hoaxers. It is probably beneficial in terms of their doctored data.

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline

 

[Alate_One]

Some parts of the earth are getting colder, but overall the *global* trend is warmer.

But even if you don't believe in climate change, why ban people from saying it?

 

[Alate_One]

So let's see, you picked one station. And you omitted some rather important facts. Number one being the station was moved twice, the lines below.

So to get an overall trend, adjustments have to made, plus removing points that fail quality control. But I'm sure you'll keep cherry picking Nick. :chuckle:

 

[Buzzword]

 

[OCTOBER23]

IT IS VERY COLD IN CANADA

WHERE NO ONE HEARS YOU SCREEEEEEEEEMMMMMMMMMMM

" It's Frigin Cold up here "

 

[The Barbarian]

Nick guzzles the kool-aid:

Originally Posted by email confession on how he perpetrated the hoax
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline

This has nothing to do with the data Nick said he was talking about. The issue has to do with tree rings, which until recently, trended with actual global temperatures.

Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.

Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades...Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.

The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

Nick being Nick, he fell for yet another denier hoax. Nothing more to say about it.

 

[resodko]

Nick ... Nick ... Nick ... Nick...

obsess much? :freak: