Global warming : Whose tech should we believe in?

The Register has an explosive in-depth look at global warming using NASAs own numbers. The conclusion is that depending on which publicly available readings one uses, you could predict either catastrophic global warming or alarming global cooling.

"Which view is correct? Temperature data should be simple enough to record and analyze. We all know how to read a thermometer - it is not rocket science," says Steven Goddard. But the problem seems to be which thermometers does one choose to look at?

For example, the article points out that NASAs own sensors tell 3 different stories since 1998. The NASA satellite data sources show a slight global cooling since 1998. But NASAs ground based readings of specific thermometers shows an increase in temperature? Which one to believe?

The article takes an in-depth investigative look at how technology can be politicized depending on ones ideology.

View: The Register: NASA's peculiar thermometer

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Live Search To Be Re-Branded?

Next Story

Neowin: The Next Generation

60 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I'm not sure if we are responsible for global warming. I hear somewhere that our solar system is moving through 12 spaces. Astronomers call these sines. I think currently we are in the age of pisces and soon to enter in the age of aquarius. Which means the water bringer. So what if we are moving in a warmer part of space which would account for the ice caps on mars melting and our own ice caps melting as well. And this is why this space we are moving through was named the water bringer or the age of aquarius by the ancients or astrologers. Maybe as per this there is another flood that supposed to take place. Also as far as our contribution. I don't rule it out. I wont even argue the temps on thermometers. Any one can lie on a report. All I got to observe is siting in traffic and seeing all those waves of heat rise from all those cars. My cars motors temp gage goes to what 180. If I touch my hood it is very warm. If I touch the motor after just one hour run it will burn me. It takes a car about 2 to 4 hours to cool. So we got 300 million people with cars. Hmmmmmmmmm. No one thinks that that could significantly warm the air around us. And this is just the us. Now we can compare the us to lets say the europe union which is all the countries in europe or asia or japan. And to say that us emition is any worse or better than any other country in the world now that is just impossible. We mostly use the same combustion motors. So lets agree on something the whole world to lesser or greater degree is responsible for global warming. And wether or not one country should be hit more or less by these wether desasters its so without compation for your fellow humans. We are all in this and we are all responsible for our own demise. And it might be closer than any of you might think. All I see is that about one month ago the temp my cars thing read 80 next day the car ambient read 44 next day 65 next day 59 next day 89 next day 60. We are traveling 50 degree in a day. That is one third of going from 0 to 200. Which I beleve is happening on mars what is it exactly +200 in the sun and -200 in the shades. If you guys think its harsh to go from 80 to 44 wait till we start going from 0 to 100. And this might become reality but guess what we wont even notice. Because we got something to sell. To make our car payment or morgadge. We got to buy that latest computer graphics card or just be busy counting our money while we burn to death or freeze what ever comes first. But hey don't be bothered with dooms day. Enjoy your life. Do nothing just live your life while you can. Global warming its just a theory. No one proved it. Its a lie. You look and make up your mind is it real or not. When was the last time you remember the temps changing so much in just one day? I remember it taking a week to go just 10 degree and now we got 89 to 44 in one day or till night fall. I don't have to be an expert to say shut. Thats bad!!! But dont worry. Go back to playing video games. Is all good.

How are we going to stop global warming when cant even stop starvation or extreme poverty. Get a clue humans have no control over anything. Lets stop being arrogant.

People that think climate change is real, ask yourself are the people pushing for all this change have a vast monetary gain if laws change in their favor? Its all about money. Do your really believe Al gore deserves a noble peace prize? Look at how much money is being dumped into the research for global warming then look at the amount that is going against debunking it. A lot of money is being offered in grants to prove its real. Dont you think politics has polluted science? Maybe just a bit eh. Nothing wrong with encouraging people to change there habits but its way beyond that. 1.2 trillion in new taxes the dems tried to pass. Personally they have been trying to break the economic back of the US for a long time, and im not just talking about the dems, the republicans are at fault as well .

Ha, I love how all the global warming proponents think they're experts on the subject because they can quote information they learned from wikipedia.

I do think we need cleaner forms of energy, and alternate forms of energy if we're talking gas, but not because I think any of what we do is leading to global warming.

But hell, if global warming is real, bring it on. I'm sick and tired of walking to my classes in winter here in WI when wind-chills are 20 or 30 below zero.

-Spenser

(stifler6478 said @ #1)
But hell, if global warming is real, bring it on. I'm sick and tired of walking to my classes in winter here in WI when wind-chills are 20 or 30 below zero.

-Spenser

Heh, perhaps, but tell that to the people in outback Australia and 40 degree temperatures, on a good day. I'm sure they'll disagree :p

But seriously...20 or 30 below 0...ouch

Wow... Even if global "cooling" did happen; global warming would follow shortly.. The polar caps reflect much of the suns energy back into space..
LESS ice to reflect means more absorption of heat by the ocean and that = global warming.

Things we can do to limit CO2 and become energy independent.
Build 300 new nuclear power plants.
Promote solar, wind, tide, and other renewable sources of energy.
Phase out coal fired and natural gas power plants, natural gas can be much more efficiently used to power vehicles and mass transit. Coal will be needed eventually to be used as synthetic fuel. We are capable of dealing with the energy crisis and reducing greenhouse gases, whether you believe in global climate change (I don't) we still need to make these changes, for our long term economic viability.

So let me ask those skeptics who believe it's all hype. For the sake of your children, are you willing to risk being wrong? If it only takes a few changes to help ensure the future, isn't it worth the inconvenience?

I, for one, don't know what to believe but even if there's only a small chance that I can have a positive impact, I'm going to take it.

(Glen said @ #12)
So let me ask those skeptics who believe it's all hype. For the sake of your children, are you willing to risk being wrong? If it only takes a few changes to help ensure the future, isn't it worth the inconvenience?

I, for one, don't know what to believe but even if there's only a small chance that I can have a positive impact, I'm going to take it.

My 18 month old will be MUCH better of if our country (USA) doesn't buy onto this BS. No question. Unfortunately it is looking like the lemmings are the majority.

(Glen said @ #12)
So let me ask those skeptics who believe it's all hype. For the sake of your children, are you willing to risk being wrong?..

Would you be willing to sign a statement saying that your children can be locked up in a single-cell, for life, if the 'prophets of doom' are wrong within xx number of years? No, of course not, because like the other loons, you know you can always revert to "it's coming a little later than we thought...." and this can go on and on and on.

(SniperX said @ #12.3)

Would you be willing to sign a statement saying that your children can be locked up in a single-cell, for life, if the 'prophets of doom' are wrong within xx number of years? No, of course not, because like the other loons, you know you can always revert to "it's coming a little later than we thought...." and this can go on and on and on.

All I can say to that is "Wow!" You compare making a few simple changes in our lifestyle, just a few inconveniences, to being fanatical and locking my kids away? I give up.

I don't, and never have bought into the "man made" global warming BS.
In a couple of years, everyone will be talking about global cooling. The ice melts in one part of the world and everyone
panics. They just conveniently forget to tell you about the amount of ice that has grown in another part of the world.
The temperature hasn't changed in the last few years. There is this little thing called the SUN which has been HOTTER
the past few years. I remember back in the mid 70's everyone was panicking about the next ice age.
This "man made" global warming is just another in a continuing process of socialist and anti capitalist trying to turn back
progress, and make "everyone equal".
As was said by a wise man....freeze to death in the dark, you environmentalist bas**rds.

Who cares if "global warming" is real or not. Pollution is real. Smog is real. Both suck. Because they suck we should try and eliminate. It can really be that simple. Trying to argue for global warming is fruitless in my humble opinion. Argue that pollution sucks. Who is going to disagree with that? No one. It can really be that simple.

(Shadrack said @ #9)
Who cares if "global warming" is real or not. Pollution is real. Smog is real. Both suck. Because they suck we should try and eliminate. It can really be that simple. Trying to argue for global warming is fruitless in my humble opinion. Argue that pollution sucks. Who is going to disagree with that? No one. It can really be that simple.


I love this argument. Ok it may not be true so what, dont you think some of the things would be good for us all.

Start off with a huge lie and end with a wink and a nod. First Lets clear the air about global warming first then get back to pollution and environmental impact. Lets not keep pushing some bulls**t agenda .

(Shadrack said @ #9)
Who cares if "global warming" is real or not...

I do! My taxes keep going up in its name, my quality of life is constantly reduced by measures taken in its name, and I am inconvenienced more and more in its name. So yes, I damn-well care if it's real, because, if as many of us suspect, we're being conned by Governments that are too weak and pathetic to stand up and say no to these loony lobbyists who want to see us all wearing the hair-shirt of sufferance, we should be demanding answers to some very serious questions.

Lastly, I find it rich listening to arguments over the Internet about "global warming", or "climate change" (or whatever else they are calling it this week) when such a platform would not be available were it not for the pollution-inducing industrial revolution. The fact is that without industry, the loons wouldn't be able to get their message across so readily and so freely. Now that would be a cause worth fighting for!

The problem with the numbers are where are they from?

The suns output is at the highest point ever, and solar activity is at a high, why would it not count?

AlGore is a liar, and that has been verified. He faked the Charts related to temp and CO2, (he cut out about 100+ years to make the chart fit). There are more then 96 false facts in his movie.

Few numbers/Facts, CO2 is not a pollutant, never was
We only create less then 1% of the CO2 and related green house gases.

How can we be the cause if we make so little?

And who is this from? There are still people around who believe that the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. This is also like those who try to deny that evolution is real as well and show the same sort of "facts" that you're using. They are called "good" facts because they can be easily manipulated as opposed to "True" facts which can't be so easily manipulated. The best lie is a half truth.

this has absolutely nothing to do with Al Gore anyway.

The facts are these:

Regardless of whether global climate change is taking place or not, a very substantial sum of money should be spent both limiting and preparing ourselves from its effects. To not do this would be catastrophic - some financial hardship now is significantly easier to bear than all the serious effects caused by a significant change in climate world-wide. The evidence, whilst difficult to verify beyond doubt, is evident and scattered enough to provoke some action.

(macf13nd said @ #8.2)
Regardless of whether global climate change is taking place or not, a very substantial sum of money should be spent both limiting and preparing ourselves from its effects. To not do this would be catastrophic - some financial hardship now is significantly easier to bear than all the serious effects caused by a significant change in climate world-wide. The evidence, whilst difficult to verify beyond doubt, is evident and scattered enough to provoke some action.

How much does it cost to stop mother nature? In the grand scheme of things humans have a VERY small effect on climate change.

(thejohnnyq said @ #7)
Global Warming hype is CRAP.

humans produce less then 1/2 of 1% of the green house gases, so how the heel can be be the cause?

Golbal Warming truths ( http://inconvenienttruth.us/ )

If you read the facts, then the real debate can begin.


Wow, I really have to rely on a website which openly calls Al Gore, Al 'liar' Gore. It must be true!

For a more balanced look, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming ... the sheer number of varied editors and sources helps give it a better converage.

(Kirkburn said @ #7.1)

Wow, I really have to rely on a website which openly calls Al Gore, Al 'liar' Gore. It must be true!

For a more balanced look, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming ... the sheer number of varied editors and sources helps give it a better converage.

It would be illogical to ignore a source of information simply because it makes a claim that you do not agree with. If they were to state that 2 + 2 = 4, would you find that statement doubtful simply because they called Al Gore a liar? If you do not, it is absurd to state that any other mathematical or scientific information they provide is necessarily wrong because they made a single statement expressing their own opinions.

(Shining Arcanine said @ #7.2)
It would be illogical to ignore a source of information simply because it makes a claim that you do not agree with. If they were to state that 2 + 2 = 4, would you find that statement doubtful simply because they called Al Gore a liar? If you do not, it is absurd to state that any other mathematical or scientific information they provide is necessarily wrong because they made a single statement expressing their own opinions.

I did not say I disagreed with it; however, the the site fairly obviously sets a combative and partisan tone, and not one of considered realism.

That is why it is not a good idea to use it as a source.

(Kirkburn said @ #7.1)
Wow, I really have to rely on a website which openly calls Al Gore, Al 'liar' Gore. It must be true!

For a more balanced look, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming ... the sheer number of varied editors and sources helps give it a better converage.

Al Gore was found to have lied in British Court....

Official British Court Finds 11 Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Labels It As Political Propaganda

Check on google.

Just 1 source.

There is hundreds...

(stevember said @ #7.5)

Al Gore was found to have lied in British Court....

Official British Court Finds 11 Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Labels It As Political Propaganda

Check on google.

Just 1 source.

There is hundreds...

when one adds his/her personal life into what supposed to be an informative film about global warming, the film becomes nothing but trash.

al gore is just a hippie in a suit

when one adds his/her personal life into what supposed to be an informative film about global warming, the film becomes nothing but trash.

al gore is just a hippie in a suit


Ad hominem

(Kirkburn said @ #7.1)
Wow, I really have to rely on a website which openly calls Al Gore, Al 'liar' Gore. It must be true!

For a more balanced look, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming ... the sheer number of varied editors and sources helps give it a better converage.

Yeah we should we all trust a Wiki that is edited 10 times per day every day by hundreds of editors that are mostly unknown that use names like joeblo264 and such. I will pass. Thanks anyways for the tip. :)

If you click the history link at that wiki you will see what I am talking about.

(ermax said @ #7.8)

Yeah we should we all trust a Wiki that is edited 10 times per day every day by hundreds of editors that are mostly unknown that use names like joeblo264 and such. I will pass. Thanks anyways for the tip. :)

If you click the history link at that wiki you will see what I am talking about.

Yes, isn't it so much more convenient to rely on data published by some person, in some journal, reviewed by some committee, made up of other people.

Which, in the real world, is no more accurate than anything put into Wikipedia.

If we took small steps... geothermal heating and cooling, mandating hybrids with alternative fuel sources, solar and wind more affordable to the masses, it would go along way to making our environment cleaner and less polluted.

Even if, and I say if, global warming isn't true, doing the 4 things above will really help to lower pollution, which would make all of our lives better.

I have a feeling that global warming is going to end up being the next big conspiracy theory.
With so much contrasting data and people saying different things, its hard to know what to believe.

As we all know the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. And personally, I believe that the effect humans are having on global warming is not as significant as we make it out to be. I think most of what's happening now is just the natural cycle of the earth.

(BigCheese said @ #5)
I have a feeling that global warming is going to end up being the next big conspiracy theory.
With so much contrasting data and people saying different things, its hard to know what to believe.

As we all know the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. And personally, I believe that the effect humans are having on global warming is not as significant as we make it out to be. I think most of what's happening now is just the natural cycle of the earth.


Conspiracies generally require some kind of architect. There is none for global warming, just thousands of scientists saying the same thing.

(Kirkburn said @ #5.1)
There is none for global warming, just thousands of scientists saying the same thing.

Not all scientists are saying the same thing. Please point me to a list of 1000 climatologists that say the same thing. For that matter, point me to a list of 1000 climatologists that voice an opinion on either side. Most of the so called "scientists" aren't climatologists. Most of them aren't qualified to give an opinion on this topic. An anthropologist could give their uneducated "guess" on the topic and because they are a "scientist" people add them to the list.

Global warming - you surely mean climate change? The reality is that humans are having a dramatic effect on the environment and producing an incredible amount of pollution and CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases). We are mining carbon despoits (oil, coal, etc) that have been locked away for billions of years and consuming them in an unsustainable manner to further economic interests, a situation that is getting dramatically worse with India and China going through immense industrialisation.

Regardless of statistics it is common sense that we should minimise our pollution and CO2 output, as well as ensuring the sustainability of our resources. It is absolutely unacceptable to put making profit above the long term interests of the human race. It's not even as if capitalism and environmentalism are mutually exclusive. Heck, we're not actually talking about long term interests... it takes less than 10yrs for something as dramatic as the loss of the gulf stream.

Why would a greedy rich man/women care about any other people? Hell, he/she got only one life and isn't going to live 1 million years or something, so he/she is enjoying life without even carrying about what he/she leaves behind to his kids, nephews and so on.

(caesar said @ #4.1)
Why would a greedy rich man/women care about any other people? Hell, he/she got only one life and isn't going to live 1 million years or something, so he/she is enjoying life without even carrying about what he/she leaves behind to his kids, nephews and so on.

The seems to be America as a whole. The thing is that you're seeing payback now.

(theyarecomingforyou said @ #4)
Global warming - you surely mean climate change? The reality is that humans are having a dramatic effect on the environment and producing an incredible amount of pollution and CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases).

The environment, yes, the atmosphere, no. Widespread logging can have dramatic effects on the environment. Dumping gasoline into rivers can have dramatic effects on the environment. Emitting gases that react with ozone can have dramatic effects on the environment. Emitting green house gases has next to no effect on the environment.

I looked up the past and present levels of carbon dioxide. Prior to the industrial revolution, they were at 280 parts per million. Now they are 360 parts per million. log(present concentration/past concentration) = ~1.09. Prior to the industrial revolution, that calculation would have given 0. Presently, it gives 1. Anyone who knows chemistry would know that the difference between 0 and 1 is minuscule as far as things go on a logarithmetic scale, because it is possible to get much higher. In this case, the upper limit is ~6.55. When that number reaches 3, I expect that carbon dioxide will be plentiful enough in the atmosphere that it will be possible for us to filter it out for the purpose of synthesizing more oil to burn (using energy from nuclear power plants). Of course, it took us about 300 years to get where we are today. Going from 1 to 3 will take approximately 30,000 more years (probably more as parts per billion is defined as a ratio and I did this computation without taking that into account), and by that point, people will no longer drive cars, burn coal for energy or use any other technology that we use. Just look how far we have come in the past 30,000 years and just imagine how far we will be in another 30,000 years.

(Shining Arcanine said @ #4.3)
The environment, yes, the atmosphere, no. Widespread logging can have dramatic effects on the environment. Dumping gasoline into rivers can have dramatic effects on the environment. Emitting gases that react with ozone can have dramatic effects on the environment. Emitting green house gases has next to no effect on the environment.

My point was about our impact as a race. We should be limiting ALL emissions and environmental damage - that includes logging, chemical dumps AND CO2 emissions. And it is ridiculous to say that green house gases have "next to no effect on the environment" when report after report finds the opposite to be true - the few reports that don't having close ties to industries that are causing the damage / would be hurt by restrictions. Our CO2 emissions might have a devestating effect or next to none but either way we shouldn't be polluting and we should be doing as much as possible to minimise our impact... it's stupid to assume the best case scenario and not face up to social responsibilities just because companies want to make a few extra dollars for their shareholders.

While I haven't read the article, I've heard many people remarking about global cooling without understanding the implications behind it. I'd like to briefly clarify some of that here.

If there were a rise in overall global temperatures, eventually the ice in the arctic zones would begin to melt. When the ice melts it takes the form of cold water, and would then flow to the south. With enough ice melting you would end up with a substantial amount of cold water flowing down toward Europe. This has the potential to alter the current ocean currents slightly (those currents have been described as a "conveyor belt that goes around the world") but more importantly it would drastically reduce temperatures along Europe. The most extreme prediction is that it would put Europe into a localized ice age. I would expect that the rest of the world would be somewhat cooled as the water spread, but Europe would get the most extreme alterations.

That's the theory behind global cooling, and the irony is that global warming is still behind it. Whether it's a frozen Europe or a world of incredibly high temperatures we would like to avoid that.

The final reminder I'd like people to consider is that your own back yard is not a good indicator of world temperatures. I've heard many people claiming about how "it's colder than usual this year - global warming is a lie" without realizing that there can be an overall rise in temperatures around the world and there can still be localized trends that go against that. Global warming has also been cited as the reason for more extreme forms of weather, but that's another topic of discussion.

We're seeing a bit of that now on the Atlantic coast of Canada as well with the colder fresh water from the pole pushing the Gulf Stream further south and this moderates our climate here. All weather on Earth is driven by heat, even the cold weather.

Some just don't understand what it means by average. The average temperature during the last Ice Age was around 9 degrees C lower when compared to now.

U.S is the most polluting country on the entire world yet they don't seem to be hit by any problems, while others like Europe gets something it doesn't deserve. Ain't that a bitch?

(caesar said @ #2.2)
U.S is the most polluting country on the entire world yet they don't seem to be hit by any problems, while others like Europe gets something it doesn't deserve. Ain't that a bitch? :wacko:

The US emits very little pollution in comparison to China.

(Shining Arcanine said @ #2.3)
The US emits very little pollution in comparison to China.

But not on a per capital basis which is the only fair way to count it. i.e. The USA has around 5% of the world's population and produces a third of its pollution, it also consumes over a third of its resources as well. Don't try to play with numbers.

This is poor the propaganda of Bush administration: We don't have to pollute less, look at China!

There is no logic to this. If you claim that you are more developed, take the responsibility for that!

The US is a big country so who are you comparing the US to? Is it fair to compare the US to Germany or any other European country when Germany is the size of Texas. If you look at most European countries you would see the same disproportion in the figures if you put them on a fair scale but I guess it's more fun to bash America.

(matt4pack said @ #2.6)
The US is a big country so who are you comparing the US to? Is it fair to compare the US to Germany or any other European country when Germany is the size of Texas. If you look at most European countries you would see the same disproportion in the figures if you put them on a fair scale but I guess it's more fun to bash America.

That is why I had said that the only fair way to count it is on a per capita basis. BTW, The USA and China are about the same in land area while the US has around 300 million people, China has over 1.3 billion people.

(ricknl said @ #2.5)
This is poor the propaganda of Bush administration: We don't have to pollute less, look at China!

Yeah, look at China's internet compared to America's.

The corporate monopolies and lobbyists have raped this country. They've sold us out and they mislead Americans for personal gain. The damage Al Qaeda did is nothing in comparison to this.

(toadeater said @ #2.8)

Yeah, look at China's internet compared to America's.

The corporate monopolies and lobbyists have raped this country. They've sold us out and they mislead Americans for personal gain. The damage Al Qaeda did is nothing in comparison to this.

Don't compare US to China. I am sure none of us would want to live in China just because their government supplies cheap high speed internet. As it is China's bandwidth is only high within China. Try to access any sites out side of China and you will have some massive bottle necks.

Also, where has your life been worse due to corporations? Please don't say oil companies because it is the terrorists limiting supply and global demand that are driving up fuel costs. We need to start drilling and start building breeder reactors. Oh wait.. Corporations would be involved with that and would make to much profit. Yeah we should keep things how they are now.

(Ledgem said @ #2)
...I'd like to briefly clarify some of that here....

Erm, as much as uneducated types are grateful for the 'clarification' that you so kindly provided, you omitted to tell what exactly qualifies you (over any other "bedroom environmentalist") to do so.

All I read was yet another theory describing how we're all doomed. Every generation has to have its threat of impending doom of course...

(caesar said @ #2.2)
U.S is the most polluting country on the entire world yet they don't seem to be hit by any problems, while others like Europe gets something it doesn't deserve. Ain't that a bitch? :wacko:

I am so sick and tired of people blaming US for all thier problems. I for one, have not seen one shred of evidence that proves that humans cause "Global Warming".

Can anyone provide the answers to the following questions:

1. If Global Warming is caused by humans, then why are the ice caps on Mars melting? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

2. What is the ideal temp. of the Earth?

3. What is the current cycle of the Sun?

All GW is an attempt to hurt Capitalism and to try convince the population to pay taxes in order to fight "Global Warming".


Oh...and one last thing...if it wasn't for the USA, we would all be speaking German right now.

(Krieg said @ #2.11)
Oh...and one last thing...if it wasn't for the USA, we would all be speaking German right now.


You ignorant pr$ck. Sounds like an uneducated American response to what was world wars.
You almost sounded half intelligent until this low blow comment.

You can key my car, and pour water in my gas tank when your done reading up on your history.

Neither. Until the Bush administration is out of office and stops interfering with scientific results for ideological/economic reasons it is hard to accept any result of the data.