[NatureNS] earth not warming ?

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 09:52:43 -0500
From: Fred Schueler <bckcdb@istar.ca>
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca, Stephen Shaw <srshaw@Dal.Ca>
Cc: "naturens@chebucto.ns.ca" <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
References: <D7047295C4514317AEC995BAB5DCE597@D58WQPH1>
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3.7)
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Index of Subjects
Quoting Stephen Shaw <srshaw@Dal.Ca>:

> I think we've been here before a while back, and that this '17y  
> not-warming' idea is just plain wrong.

* I think the basis of this is that, in documents written in 1999, one  
can read that 1998 was the warmest year on record - and since these  
documents haven't magically updated themselves, there must not have  
been any warmer year since, despite the near-surface googlable datum  
that that 2013 was the warmest.

It's characteristic of pseudoscience to base their arguments on  
outdated statements and documents of the mainstream understanding of a  
subject. A slight excuse for this, in this case, is that it was around  
1998 that the data were first on hand to calculate the overall warmth  
of the planet.

fred.
------------------------------------------------------------
           Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
Daily Paintings - http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
Vulnerable Watersheds - http://vulnerablewaters.blogspot.ca/
     study our books - http://pinicola.ca/books/index.htm
           RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
    on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
     (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
"[The] two fundamental steps of scientific thought - the conjecture  
and refutation of Popper - have little place in the usual conception  
of intelligence. If something is to be dismissed as inadequate, it is  
surely not Darwin [, whose] works manifest the activity of a mind  
seeking for wisdom, a value which conventional philosophy has largely  
abandoned." Ghiselen, 1969. Triumph of the Darwinian Method, p 237.
------------------------------------------------------------


next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects