Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 60657 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#35038 Apr 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You guys are so funny. Do you even see the irony in your post? FairGame copies and pastes Tamino's blog ...EDITED.... his name, does he have any peer-reviewed papers, because I really don't know anything about him.
But seriously, I am asking a question that you all seem to want to avoid, but I'm not asking it to offend anyone. I really want to know if you can find variability in less than 300-year intervals in Marcott's work, as Tamino said, then why did Marcott say you couldn't?
I guess you'd better go elsewhere and ask, then. These minutiae of the warming discussion seem to me the sort of thing we routinely see from Deniers, trying to bog the discussion down in one specific, detailed discussion point as a way of discrediting "experts" they don't want to acknowledge.

Maybe you could tell us ignorant folk why "variability in less than 300-year intervals" is so important to the discussion, Kristy?
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35039 Apr 10, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you'd better go elsewhere and ask, then. These minutiae of the warming discussion seem to me the sort of thing we routinely see from Deniers, trying to bog the discussion down in one specific, detailed discussion point as a way of discrediting "experts" they don't want to acknowledge.
Maybe you could tell us ignorant folk why "variability in less than 300-year intervals" is so important to the discussion, Kristy?
Well Tamino seems to think it is. But if you are making a reconstruction of past temperatures and then comparing them to the present, 300 year intervals does make a difference. How can you claim that there was no increased warmth in any of those 300-year intervals compared to today? If you took the last 300 years and stated those individual 300 years had no variability, then you wouldn't be able to see the warming in the 20th century.
Chrichton was correct

Columbus, OH

#35040 Apr 10, 2013
The only thing "speeding up" is the nonsense of global warming. Isn't it amazing how 1% of the people get away with imposing their will on the uninformed masses? If there is "global warming", it is a natural phenomenon. If there is global cooling, it is a natural phenomenon. Since the Hollywood types, who are not exactly research scientists, are considered experts, those who follow them should read Michael Chrichton's thoughts on this matter. He basically stated that the Earth was here before humankind, it will be here long after humans no longer exist, and the time humans spend on our planet will be a blip. The Earth goes on.... "You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity!" But, of course, the global warming fringe (ooooops, they changed to climate change when too many assertions were disproven) have masterful scientists like Al Gore and Hollywood starlets to help with their message! Chrichton was not a scientist either, he just possessed something that the kooks do not: common sense and an open mind.

Note: if the 1% kook fringe who may try to message me... don't waste your time. You will not change me! Instead, I post wherever possible to encourage the uninformed or misinformed to for their own opinions from good research and literature.

Now... off to Twitter to correct some kooks over there and let 107,000 followers know the truth as well!!
Chrichton was correct

Columbus, OH

#35041 Apr 10, 2013
Oh... two more things: there is as much or as much green vegetation on earth now as there was 100 years ago. There may be less forest, but there is just as much green vegetation. Green vegetation, no matter what the form, consumes CO2.

And, I have to toss this in after reading some previous posts. I drive a VERY large truck and always will; I need to for my hunting and fishing trips! Yes, I hunt, I fish, and my contributions for licenses and permits ensures that game animal populations continue to thrive, in spite of junk science that suggests otherwise.

I discovered this post by total accident while surfing Topix, which I rarely look at, for news items from north-central Ohio. A shame I won't see further posts.

Now... back to Twitter!!

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#35042 Apr 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Tamino seems to think it is. But if you are making a reconstruction of past temperatures and then comparing them to the present, 300 year intervals does make a difference. How can you claim that there was no increased warmth in any of those 300-year intervals compared to today? If you took the last 300 years and stated those individual 300 years had no variability, then you wouldn't be able to see the warming in the 20th century.
The question isn't whether the last 300 years has shown warming, but whether humans are responsible for at least a significant portion of it. In fact the last 150 years in particular, since the onset of the Industrial Age, has shown accelerated warming - which leads to the thought that humans are having an effect.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#35043 Apr 10, 2013
Chrichton was correct wrote:
The only thing "speeding up" is the nonsense of global warming. Isn't it amazing how 1% of the people get away with imposing their will on the uninformed masses? If there is "global warming", it is a natural phenomenon. If there is global cooling, it is a natural phenomenon. Since the Hollywood types, who are not exactly research scientists, are considered experts, those who follow them should read Michael Chrichton's thoughts on this matter. He basically stated that the Earth was here before humankind, it will be here long after humans no longer exist, and the time humans spend on our planet will be a blip. The Earth goes on.... "You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity!" But, of course, the global warming fringe (ooooops, they changed to climate change when too many assertions were disproven) have masterful scientists like Al Gore and Hollywood starlets to help with their message! Chrichton was not a scientist either, he just possessed something that the kooks do not: common sense and an open mind.
Note: if the 1% kook fringe who may try to message me... don't waste your time. You will not change me! Instead, I post wherever possible to encourage the uninformed or misinformed to for their own opinions from good research and literature.
Now... off to Twitter to correct some kooks over there and let 107,000 followers know the truth as well!!
Crichton (CORRECT spelling - LOL) was a writer with some interest in science. He wasn't a climate scientist and turned into a Denier at the end of his life, much to his discredit.

Kooks like you think only in terms of celebrities like Crichton or Gore, and don't give a damn about real science. You're a joke.

Dismissed.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35044 Apr 10, 2013
Chrichton was correct wrote:
Oh... two more things: there is as much or as much green vegetation on earth now as there was 100 years ago. There may be less forest, but there is just as much green vegetation. Green vegetation, no matter what the form, consumes CO2.
And, I have to toss this in after reading some previous posts. I drive a VERY large truck and always will; I need to for my hunting and fishing trips! Yes, I hunt, I fish, and my contributions for licenses and permits ensures that game animal populations continue to thrive, in spite of junk science that suggests otherwise.
I discovered this post by total accident while surfing Topix, which I rarely look at, for news items from north-central Ohio. A shame I won't see further posts.
Now... back to Twitter!!
Exactly as I posted, you take your position not driven by science but the desire to keep driving that big truck without feeling guilty about it. You might be reminded of the science that proved smoking was harmful to your health. In the beginning the tobacco lobby started using smoking doctors in advertising disputing the claims. It took 40 + yrs to have smoking banned almost everywhere now in most developed countries. Unfortunately the climate can't wait that long, so discovering you were wrong in 40 yrs time is way too late.
If you really value your fishing and wilderness then making claims about the planet still being green is debatable. Chopping down trees to clear land for fields of grass for livestock to feed on is not locking in the carbon the way a forest does. The stock eats the grass as fuel and carbon is back into the atmosphere again.
With a forest the carbon is locked into the timber, so while grass can produce oxygen its net effect is nowhere near that of a forest.
If you break that down to households with their own little patch of grass amongst the concrete & bitumen , the mere fact of grooming that grass would wipe any gains of having the grass in the first place. So no, the planet is not as green as it always was.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35045 Apr 10, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
The question isn't whether the last 300 years has shown warming, but whether humans are responsible for at least a significant portion of it. In fact the last 150 years in particular, since the onset of the Industrial Age, has shown accelerated warming - which leads to the thought that humans are having an effect.
I appreciate the civility of your post!! It's nice to actually see dialogue.

1. The theory of AGW is that as CO2 rises, temperature rise.
2. That the 20th century increase in temperatures is unprecedented.
3. That CO2 is the main driver of the climate and that man is mostly responsible for the increase in the temperatures due to the burning of fossil fuels.
4. That climate modeling is able to predict what will happen in the future.

This is what the debate is about. So when we talk about the past temperatures, it is important in the debate as part of the theory is that 20th century warming is unprecedented and when we see CO2 continuing to increase but temperatures staying flat for 17 years, then that needs to be investigated more thoroughly. I find it interesting that so many people believe in consensus science, as science is all about being skeptical. How can we ever progress if we don't let those scientists who are skeptical speak out without fear of being smeared? For example, when I posted about Dyson's views on global warming and climate models, one of the others on this board was trying to portray him as someone with crazy ideas who doesn't have a grasp on the science of biology. There are many scientists now questioning the Earth's cooling ability and they are saying that the models aren't reliable. So we have far to go in this science, it's really just in its infancy, far from settled.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35047 Apr 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>

1. The theory of AGW is that as CO2 rises, temperature rise.
2. That the 20th century increase in temperatures is unprecedented.
3. That CO2 is the main driver of the climate and that man is mostly responsible for the increase in the temperatures due to the burning of fossil fuels.
4. That climate modeling is able to predict what will happen in the future.
This is what the debate is about. So when we talk about the past temperatures, it is important in the debate as part of the theory is that 20th century warming is unprecedented and when we see CO2 continuing to increase but temperatures staying flat for 17 years, then that needs to be investigated more thoroughly. I find it interesting that so many people believe in consensus science, as science is all about being skeptical. How can we ever progress if we don't let those scientists who are skeptical speak out without fear of being smeared? For example, when I posted about Dyson's views on global warming and climate models, one of the others on this board was trying to portray him as someone with crazy ideas who doesn't have a grasp on the science of biology. There are many scientists now questioning the Earth's cooling ability and they are saying that the models aren't reliable. So we have far to go in this science, it's really just in its infancy, far from settled.
No, no, no, again no.

Once again you post nonsense and demand debate. You are not qualified for a debate in science. There are posters here who can but you are definitely NOT one of them.

Why don't you just go practise oncology!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35048 Apr 10, 2013
Seymour Laxon's work led to the first detailed map of the Arctic gravity field.

My friend Seymour Laxon, who has died aged 49 after sustaining a head injury during a fall, was an internationally respected Earth scientist. Seymour used satellites to observe the polar ice caps and the focus of his research was sea ice, a key factor in understanding the global climate since it acts as a barrier to heat and moisture exchange between the ocean and the atmosphere.

Seymour was the only child of Veronica, a psychology lecturer, and Bill, a civil engineer and pioneer of computer-aided design. Inheriting his father's interest in computers, as a teenager Seymour was one of the generation who cut their teeth programming the first home computers in the early 1980s.

He studied physics and astronomy at University College London, where his neat and structured lecture notes showed a clear and well-organised mind at work. It was no surprise when he went on to undertake a PhD at UCL's Mullard Space Science Laboratory in Surrey. There, he met his partner of 19 years Fiona Strawbridge.

Seymour's scientific breakthrough was to distinguish the ice surface from the water surface in satellite radar altimeter measurements of ice-covered oceans. This led to the first detailed map of the Arctic gravity field, revealing new tectonic features beneath the seafloor, and water circulation beneath the ice. His work helped give the European Space Agency the confidence to build CryoSat, a satellite dedicated to observing the Earth's ice-covered regions, launched in 2010.

Seymour taught at UCL's department of space and climate physics, before moving to the department of Earth sciences, where he was director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling. He was awarded his chair in climate physics in 2012.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2013/fe...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35049 Apr 10, 2013
A cyclist killed in a crash in central London was a talented scientist doing research on global warming, her employer has said.

Dr Katharine Giles, a lecturer at University College London (UCL), was on her way to work when she collided with a tipper truck in Victoria on Monday.

She had travelled to the Arctic and the Antarctic to study the sea ice.

Dr Giles had a "bright future" and was "ready to provide the next generation of leadership" in the field, UCL said.

Dr Giles had taken on new commitments at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at UCL following the accidental death of her colleague Seymour Laxon earlier this year.

A statement from the head of the earth sciences department, Prof Phil Meredith, said: "Coming so soon after the accidental death of Katharine's own closest colleague, Seymour Laxon, we are all left with a sense of the outrageous unfairness with which some of our best colleagues have been taken from us.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-2...
Obama-Hoodwinked -YOU

Minneapolis, MN

#35050 Apr 10, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
A cyclist killed in a crash in central London was a talented scientist doing research on global warming, her employer has said.
Dr Katharine Giles, a lecturer at University College London (UCL), was on her way to work when she collided with a tipper truck in Victoria on Monday.
She had travelled to the Arctic and the Antarctic to study the sea ice.
Dr Giles had a "bright future" and was "ready to provide the next generation of leadership" in the field, UCL said.
Dr Giles had taken on new commitments at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at UCL following the accidental death of her colleague Seymour Laxon earlier this year.
A statement from the head of the earth sciences department, Prof Phil Meredith, said: "Coming so soon after the accidental death of Katharine's own closest colleague, Seymour Laxon, we are all left with a sense of the outrageous unfairness with which some of our best colleagues have been taken from us.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-2...
A bright young female cyclist was run over in downtown Minneapolis last week also. It was dark and she had no mandated lights or helmet. The driver of the motor vehicle was a drunk illegal Mexican.

Thanks Obama for bringing all the wonderfull lawfull illegals to the USA, blood on his hands.

Physical law doles out death and injury to bikers, both motor and motor free.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#35051 Apr 10, 2013
More evidence of a gathering initiative to reclaim the “conserve” in “conservatism”. This week, former Reagan Secretary of State George Schultz cowrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal arguing the merits of a price on carbon – to begin reflecting something dimly approximating the actual costs to society of fossil fuel dependence.

“Clearly, a revenue-neutral carbon tax would benefit all Americans by eliminating the need for costly energy subsidies while promoting a level playing field for energy producers,” wrote Schultz and Becker in the Journal.

Schultz and Becker invoked the conservative argument that fossil fuel energy producers should not receive any special privileges and should pay the full cost of their actions. In this case, that would mean paying for the social costs imposed on public health and the climate from emitting carbon dioxide.

-Daily Caller

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35052 Apr 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate the civility of your post!! It's nice to actually see dialogue.
1. The theory of AGW is that as CO2 rises, temperature rise.
2. That the 20th century increase in temperatures is unprecedented.
3. That CO2 is the main driver of the climate and that man is mostly responsible for the increase in the temperatures due to the burning of fossil fuels.
4. That climate modeling is able to predict what will happen in the future.
This is what the debate is about. So when we talk about the past temperatures, it is important in the debate as part of the theory is that 20th century warming is unprecedented and when we see CO2 continuing to increase but temperatures staying flat for 17 years, then that needs to be investigated more thoroughly. I find it interesting that so many people believe in consensus science, as science is all about being skeptical. How can we ever progress if we don't let those scientists who are skeptical speak out without fear of being smeared? For example, when I posted about Dyson's views on global warming and climate models, one of the others on this board was trying to portray him as someone with crazy ideas who doesn't have a grasp on the science of biology. There are many scientists now questioning the Earth's cooling ability and they are saying that the models aren't reliable. So we have far to go in this science, it's really just in its infancy, far from settled.
Global warming- it's not about the hockey stick.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35053 Apr 10, 2013
twisty kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate the civility of your post!! It's nice to actually see dialogue.
1. The theory of AGW is that as CO2 rises, temperature rise.
2. That the 20th century increase in temperatures is unprecedented.
3. That CO2 is the main driver of the climate and that man is mostly responsible for the increase in the temperatures due to the burning of fossil fuels.
4. That climate modeling is able to predict what will happen in the future.
This is what the debate is about. So when we talk about the past temperatures, it is important in the debate as part of the theory is that 20th century warming is unprecedented and when we see CO2 continuing to increase but temperatures staying flat for 17 years, then that needs to be investigated more thoroughly. I find it interesting that so many people believe in consensus science, as science is all about being skeptical. How can we ever progress if we don't let those scientists who are skeptical speak out without fear of being smeared? For example, when I posted about Dyson's views on global warming and climate models, one of the others on this board was trying to portray him as someone with crazy ideas who doesn't have a grasp on the science of biology. There are many scientists now questioning the Earth's cooling ability and they are saying that the models aren't reliable. So we have far to go in this science, it's really just in its infancy, far from settled.
Who is "smearing", twisty?

Who was so frightened by the graph below that she attacked the author as "deceptive" and "a con artist"- baseless slander?

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/sha...

You lie and slander and then expect a nice civil dialogue?

Who is the sceptical scientist you flaunt? A 90 year old man who hasn't studied climate science for 30 years.

When he did, the group he was part of came to the conclusion that:

"...human activities, notably deforestation and burning of fossil fuels, were contributing to pronounced changes in the global climate."

That's right: the consensus for 30 years has been that human activity is causing global warming.

All deniers can do is quote a few sceptics whose ideas go against the evidence.

Which is why twisty kristy aka krusty the clown is not here for a polite debate.

She is here to throw muck.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35054 Apr 10, 2013
Good research brings out the best in good people and the worst in bad people. I applaud Drs Marcott and Shakun and their supervisors for impeccable behaviour in the face of the vicious onslaught of lies and defamation from the usual crowd of science deniers, including some science-denying scientists.

.....

In my view, the astounding and disgusting reaction from deniers like Pielke Jr and others is because they cannot fault the science so they set out to misrepresent it, either deliberately or because they don't have the wit or will to digest it. The Marcott et al paper and the supplementary material is eloquently written and easy to read. The FAQ is perhaps even clearer so that most laypeople should understand it easily.

The fact deniers can't fault the science means they can do nothing but misrepresent the research or flop back to their fallback position - climate science is a hoax being perpetrated by scientists all around the world, governments of all political persuasions everywhere, the mainstream media and the informed public - and can be traced back nearly two centuries, from modern climatology back through Plass and Reveille and Broecker and Callendar and Arrhenius all the way back to Fourier and Tyndall (if not to Aristotle).

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/dismissive...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35055 Apr 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Global warming- it's not about the hockey stick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =uHhLcoPT9KMXX
Good post, but i'm afraid when most of the deniers get their science from Fox news which uses comment to discredit theories rather than science itself then its a lost cause. To those guys its all about highlighting one trip on a thousand mile journey to try and debunk facts that should be overwhelming. O'Reilly might be a lone voice on a network that associates environmental protection as a leftist concept, so it has no value. That is until its gone!
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#35056 Apr 11, 2013
Diethelm and McKee have identified five characteristics of denialists:[9]

The identification of perceived conspiracies (including belief of corrupted peer review and inversionism)[10]
The use of fake experts (often with the smearing of real experts)
Selecting or cherry picking sources: picking the weakest papers or only ones that are contrary. Particularly worrisome is looking at only a single study, particularly in medicine, as one study rarely conclusively proves something.[11] Others note that this includes anecdotal evidence[2] and quote mining.[12]
Demanding impossible standards for research
Use of fallacy, including misrepresentation and false analogy.[13] Informally, this can include a witch's brew of half-truths, sob stories.[14], and/or spin to try to force the public to ignore an important issue.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35058 Apr 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Good research brings out the best in good people and the worst in bad people. I applaud Drs Marcott and Shakun and their supervisors for impeccable behaviour in the face of the vicious onslaught of lies and defamation from the usual crowd of science deniers, including some science-denying scientists.
.....
In my view, the astounding and disgusting reaction from deniers like Pielke Jr and others is because they cannot fault the science so they set out to misrepresent it, either deliberately or because they don't have the wit or will to digest it. The Marcott et al paper and the supplementary material is eloquently written and easy to read. The FAQ is perhaps even clearer so that most laypeople should understand it easily.
The fact deniers can't fault the science means they can do nothing but misrepresent the research or flop back to their fallback position - climate science is a hoax being perpetrated by scientists all around the world, governments of all political persuasions everywhere, the mainstream media and the informed public - and can be traced back nearly two centuries, from modern climatology back through Plass and Reveille and Broecker and Callendar and Arrhenius all the way back to Fourier and Tyndall (if not to Aristotle).
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/dismissive...
Well thank you for proving my point that the press release was deceptive. You post a blog where the blogger states this:

“In my view, the astounding and disgusting reaction from deniers like Pielke Jr and others is because they cannot fault the science so they set out to misrepresent it, either deliberately or because they don't have the wit or will to digest it. The Marcott et al paper and the supplementary material is eloquently written and easy to read. The FAQ is perhaps even clearer so that most laypeople should understand it easily.”

And he states this:

“However, Anthony Watts (in his seventeenth protest article) and the Auditor demonstrate that even after all this time and all their protests they still haven't even read the paper, claiming that Marcott et al "finally concede" something that was STATED AT THE OUTSET IN THE PAPER ITSELF (page 1198).”

EXACTLY….So if it is in the paper as this blogger says, then WHY DOES THEIR PRESS RELEASE STATE THIS:

"But when you combine data from sites around the world, you can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear sense of the Earth's global temperature history." What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit--until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.

According to the blogger on page 1198 of their paper and according to their FAQ, they cannot make any conclusions about the 20th century portion of their paleotemperature stack as it is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of their conclusions.

That is what the Pielke paper was about; it was about the press release versus what is in the paper or FAQ. It’s no wonder this blogger didn’t want to link to Pielke’s site, because the blogger omits the fact that Pielke was talking about the press release and the media and the subsequent quotes from the scientists involved in the paper. Not once did any of these scientists who were interviewed tell us that the 20th century is not the basis of any of their conclusions even though IT WAS IN THEIR PAPER AND FAQ.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35059 Apr 11, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well thank you for proving my point that the press release was deceptive. You post a blog where the blogger states this:
“In my view, the astounding and disgusting reaction from deniers like Pielke Jr and others is because they cannot fault the science so they set out to misrepresent it, either deliberately or because they don't have the wit or will to digest it. The Marcott et al paper and the supplementary material is eloquently written and easy to read. The FAQ is perhaps even clearer so that most laypeople should understand it easily.”
And he states this:
“However, Anthony Watts (in his seventeenth protest article) and the Auditor demonstrate that even after all this time and all their protests they still haven't even read the paper, claiming that Marcott et al "finally concede" something that was STATED AT THE OUTSET IN THE PAPER ITSELF (page 1198).”
EXACTLY….So if it is in the paper as this blogger says, then WHY DOES THEIR PRESS RELEASE STATE THIS:
"But when you combine data from sites around the world, you can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear sense of the Earth's global temperature history." What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit--until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.
According to the blogger on page 1198 of their paper and according to their FAQ, they cannot make any conclusions about the 20th century portion of their paleotemperature stack as it is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of their conclusions.
That is what the Pielke paper was about; it was about the press release versus what is in the paper or FAQ. It’s no wonder this blogger didn’t want to link to Pielke’s site, because the blogger omits the fact that Pielke was talking about the press release and the media and the subsequent quotes from the scientists involved in the paper. Not once did any of these scientists who were interviewed tell us that the 20th century is not the basis of any of their conclusions even though IT WAS IN THEIR PAPER AND FAQ.
It's very simple.

The paper is about holocene temperatures.

The press release is about how holocene temperatures compare to modern temperatures.

No deception there.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min FYVM 1,403,356
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 hr zef 311,487
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 8 hr TWP 72,037
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 11 hr Ize Found 70,826
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 17 hr OMTE 20,386
PZC meeting on firearms store Jul 21 Dogmother 2
Elliot Zweig, MD - West Hartford CT Jul 20 Walter Dejanec 1

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages