What methodology of data collection was used? Was it the same in both cases or different?

I think scraping the bottom of the barrel is a better description than ho-hum. It captures the desperation a bit better.

Well the denialists have done such a great job with their scientific research, they are now ready to bust the longest ongoing hoax that the poindexters have inflicted on mankind, join them now, before everyone else does, and it won't seem so revolutionary a way to "stick it to the man".

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Did you actually read the bit you quoted Calanen? The denialists seem to think that only a monotonic increase would support AGW theory. Do you think we should change our mind about global warming every year in response to annual variations in temperature - aka frost this morning, therefor no global warming?

Quote:


Maybe, but has pollution decreased or increased? If it has increased, then the 5% joining up havn't reduced global emissions, have they?

Unfortunately we see people like Ant, (BTW, welcome to OzPolitics Ant, I hope to see more opinions from you here) who react to the ridiculously overblown alarmist statements, that we see expressed in the media all too often, then taking a position which promotes the opposite end of the reality scale, ie; it is not going to be that big a deal, and even if it is, what can we do about it, so just keep on keeping on.

While I agree to some extent, that we must retain a positive outlook, I also think that diluting the importance of the issue, is more a case of sticking your head in the sand, than actually trying to maintain a fair, and balanced, opinion.

As most people now agree, it is a case of risk management, and harm minimisation, upon which we need to focus, and if we keep an open mind to all the, 'respect worthy', scientific opinions, then we will be best equipped to take the right decisions, as and when we need to.

While I think that it is almost certainly the biggest crisis to hit humanity ever, I think we should beware of knee-jerk reactions.

We've seen the effects of inappropriate choices of biofuels. Some things may appear to be green, but they are actually quite harmful practices.

I agree that we need to take a global approach using the best data possible. We don't have too much time to learn from our mistakes, so each decision needs to be balanced and considered. We need to get it right first time, but at the same time, we don't have time to wait for all the data.

The current economic downturn has its positive and negative aspects. From the positive side, we are no longer using fossil fuels at quite the same elevated rates. From the negative sides, as fossil fuel prices are depressed, sustainable alternatives become relatively more costly economically, and if the economy gets hit really badly, GHG emissions will have a lower priority.

At the same time, there is a real danger that we'll concentrate too much on a single issue and miss some other higher risks, such as soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, world scale epidemics and the increasing salinity of coastal aquifers.

The increasing emphasis on GHG mitigation and abatement is a bit like a bright headlight on a highway at night. If we stare into it too much like frightened rabbits, sooner or later something else will catch us out (like a predator in the analogy). We need to be totally aware of all risks that could catch us out unexpectedly.

As usual, we see the denialists struggling with concepts of time.

It is not that we have not had the earth's climate change before, it is just that we have never seen it change like it is now.

The "RATE" of change, is unprecedented, by a huge factor, so that fact just does not mesh with your argument that it is all just another natural cycle.

Say after me, "rate of change, rate of change, rate of change"

Got that?

Now go back to your denialist blogosphere and find a corresponding rate of change which has occurred through natural cycles, and get back to us when you find it.