Well, no. Not really. Turns out the trend reported by several sources as "cooling" was a statistical analysis trick. Seems if you're careful about which data set you pick to use for trend analysis, you can get the result you're looking for. When you do your statistics properly, you get a different story. Discuss.
Any scientist being entirely honest would say "depends" when asked as to whether there's been a warming or cooling trend. 1934 remains the warmest year on record, which isn't surprising considering that the Great Plains were basically a desert.
Uhh only in the US, the warmest year for the globe was 2006. And the dust-bowl was very much a man-made phenomenon
Who cares? 100 or so years of observation is not adequate to really understand, let alone predict, climate changes.
Hot, cold, either way you'll still get my Jeep and my styrofoam plates when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Because the upward trend which we are on does not mean that every year will be slightly warming than the one proceeding. And that 'upward trend' means both the possible anthropogenic caused trend, and the long-term warming trend that we are on regardless of human activity.
That depends on which data is more accurate. NASA say 2005 was hottest. You really should read the article from the OP.
Which is why the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age tend to be downplayed so much by global warming advocates, right?
Uh evidence from around the world (i.e. not just from Europe) shows that the MWP occured only in the north atlantic and only affected western europe directly. Other places close by were affected by it, but the souther hemisphere didnt get it at all.
"If you measure from 1935, there's a pronounced warming trend." "If you measure from 1980, there's a prounounced warming trend." "If you measure from 1998, well, that's completely invalid."
I submit humanity should adopt the Gunny Highway Plan for reacting to climate change: "Improvise, adapt, overcome"
You really ought to think about that. After all, I'm not one of the ones calling for legislation or making demands. I'm still in a "we need information" outlook. Unfortunately the outlook doesn't look very good, because all the global warming nuts have made discussion on the subject very difficult. The North Atlantic and Europe are pretty large chunks of the globe. And since there's been tree core data corresponding with both the Medieval Warp Period and the Little Ice Age in North America, that's another pretty large chuck of the globe. Acting like that somehow doesn't matter or "count" is being pretty intellectually dishonest. Ice core samples and sea bed samples from the Antarctic region disagree with you.
What about the mass extinction of the worlds flora and fauna that is taking place. Should we just 'adapt' to a world that is less diverse and much more devoid of life or shouldn't we just reduce the stunningly giant footprint of death we are presently stamping on the planet with?
Please. Climate change is a fact. It's all the crap in the media that's bullshit. Bread and circuses that has happened since the printing press was invented.
