At the left is a graph of four of the major data collection surveys used in determining global temperatures. It is included in the article below from April 2008. The article talks about how each data set is collected and such in an attempt to reconcile the differences. One conclusion that it draws is that, while different, the data sets are remarkably similar. The data collectively does show a gradual increase in global temperatures. What it doesn’t say is the apparent disconnect in how the northern third of the world seems to be the portion that is warming rapidly while other parts of the world are static or even showing a trend downward. What is left to be answered is if global-warming pollutants are equally distributed around the world, then why is it that only the extreme northern third is experiencing the dramtic changes? One thing that jumps out at me is that the southern hemisphere is dominated by oceans. But that is probably too simplistic and there is obviously something more at play.
As I’ve said before, the whole topic is extremely complicated and cannot be solved or even understood through simple means and using questionable methodology in reaching conclusions does no one any good. In fact, in this highlighted post, you will find that reputable members of the scientific community suggest that the IPCC report…the same UN report which Al Gore and others claim requires enormous taxation and political alteration to save the planet…is in fact deeply flawed. One could even suggest that what they are saying without saying it is that the document is even fraudulent for the gross neglect of proper academic procedures and data collection used in an effort to fit the world view and not to produce an honest document. One thing that I find interesting is that those who tend to write in opposition to the anthropogenic global warming craze tend to be members of the science community with strong credentials. Those who tend to write in favor of all the hub-bub tend to be political activists or journalists, neither of whom have much of a foundation on which to speak.
Which brings me to the final paragraph of this essay. It talks about how “Journalists dealing with temperature data should keep in mind that there are a number of different global mean temperature series available, and that advocates often tend to pick the one that will best reinforce their perspectives. ” But, I doubt if anyone will pay attention to this bit of advice because the media foofs either don’t care, aren’t smart enough to get it or they just want what makes the biggest headline.
By the way….if you look at the chart….you can see the anomoly that was 1998, when is about the time all of the media started going bananas over global warming. It was the perfect excuse for those who can profit from it to get the ball rolling. If you look at the end of the chart, you see this year, which looks to perhaps be another equally dramatic, if not the opposite, anomoly. What for opponents to use this opportunity to trumpet the folly of the global warming enthusiasts.
The truth is…they are both anomolies and neither do a trend make. But it doesnt matter because people seem to be trying to score political points (Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh) than truly find the truth.