No Socialism.com: Nasa Backtracks on 1998 Warmest Year Claim
I remember during the 1970's there was a consensus among scientists that stress and spicy foods caused Ulcers. Then came along Australian Pathologist Robin Warren and Dr. Barry Marshall, who claimed in a medical conference that they've discovered that it was actually caused by a bacteria, H. Pylori. They were laughed at and ostracize by the Medical Community, the broad consensus at the time was that Bacterium couldn't possibly survive, much less thrive, in the acidic nature of the stomach.
Today, there are even articles like this one, claiming that it's not true, they were never Ostracized, but I know what I remember, and I remember seeing a conference on TV with Dr. Marshall speaking and the Audience erupting in Laughter. I remember my Doctor Laughing about it, when I pointed out the research on this, and him saying, that's just foolishness.

Warren and Marshall first wrote about this in 1981, and it wasn't until 17 years later that their conclusions finally became main stream. In 2005, they won a Nobel in Medicine for their discovery. Today we have Prilosec to help us combat this problem, thanks to their pioneering work.

I tell you about this to show you the lengths that the Scientific Community takes on defending the "Status Quo". Just like any other human organization, no one wants to admit that they are mistaken and no one wants to admit that someone else might be right.

Now we have the great consensus of Global Warming and NASA backtracking on claims that 1998 was the warmest year on record.
First let me tell you what I find disturbing on this. This story has been out since August of 2007, almost a year, and you don't hear a peep from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the Weather Channel or the granddaddy of News Monopolies, the Associated Press. The second thing that I find disturbing is how the Global Warming Alarmists are always talking about the fact that the studies on Anthropogenic Global Warming have all been peer reviewed for errors and if there was a problem, one of the thousands upon thousands of scientists would find and catch any errors.

Continued after Our sponsor

Identity Theft Shield

It took a School Boy to catch the Errors. After he found the errors in NASA's data, they were forced to restate their claims. And what did they have to restate?

1. The Hottest year on record was 1934, Not 1998
2. The THIRD Hottest year on record was 1921, not 1998
3. 3 of the top 5 hottest years, occurred before 1940
4. 6 ot the 10 hottest years occured before greenhouse gasses started to be emmitted into the Atopsphere!

So it's any wonder that there are so many skeptics out there? When is The Independent going to backtrack on all the stories they've done. Or ABC news, or CNN, why are they not out there telling this story as fervently as they were telling us about Global Warming? When are charts like these,

going to be revised? These charts have been rendered meaningless without the new data, yet every single Global Warming Alarmist site, still has these, as if they're still relevant!

The biggest problem with the media in general is that they think we're stupid. They think we don't know about the Medieval Warming Period and how it was actually warmer back then then it is today, or so says Harvard, but hey, who the heck are those right wing wackos right?

The big networks think that we don't know about the Little Ice age, and how the earth started warming, naturally, without any interference from us, so that by the end of the 1700's it was pretty much over. But it didn't stop warming there.

The Thames River used to freeze over every few years. It froze in 1408, 1435, 1506, 1514, 1537, 1565, 1595, 1608, 1621, 1635, 1649, 1655, 1663, 1666, 1677, 1684, 1695, 1709, 1716, 1740, 1768, 1776, 1785, 1788, 1795, and finally, the very last time was in 1814. Obviously, the earth started warming too much for it to freeze over after 1814. We also know that the earth still didn't stop warming then either, because the Hudson in N.Y. continued to Freeze up every year from 1855 all the way through to 1875 obviously, it's too warm today for that to happen, so the Hudson no longer freezes, yet our industrial revolution didn't start in earnest until the 1930's.

The whole point of this story that we have a story of Global Warming that is based on supposed facts that no longer exist. Will the scientific community wait 17 years to act on this new data, just as the Medical community waited because they didn't want to believe in the data at hand? Has Man Made Global Warming become such a "Religion" that no amount of facts can dislodge it from our media outlets? When will we start seeing the new "Revised" charts on all the Networks Blogs and so on?

With our policies on Food, Oil, Energy and a myriad of other decisions being based upon Global Warming, we should be looking at every aspect of this issue very carefully and very closely before we act.
Digg

Do you have a link to show that 1934 is the hottest year, not 1998?

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

I find it funny that so-called climatologists rely on weather station data like this. Don't they realize that urbanization has occurred around most weather stations, skewing the data?

Two points:

The best thing about science is that it can and usually does correct itself. I am pleased that there IS this sort of vigorous debate in the scientific community. Certainly, I take issue with the common assertion that science is some sort of "religion": while there obviopusly is convention, standards and even dogmatism, science, unlike religion is very, very malleable. Not exacly decreed from upon high by some unreviewable, unquestionable force.

Second point is that I don't really understand the rather violent reaction people are having to this whole thing. Some folks seem absolutely, desperately determined to "disprove" global warming, and I and confused as to why this is such a hot-buttion issue.

The only things I have come up with is that a.) these people hate being made to feel responsible and accountable for anything, b.) they are at risk of being fiscally impacted by environmental restrictions, or c.) they just simply hate all science and see GW as something they can easily attack. Maybe the idea that the Earth doesn't give a toss if we are here or not bothers them, or are upset that God hasn't intervened, and take it out on the science...?

My take is that even if global warming isn't man-caused, it still makes a whole lot of sense to take actions now and act as if it were. Surely taking care of the environment isn't a BAD thing, is it? Spewing coal dust into our air, or making vehicles with no regulations on emissions isn't exactly smart, you know?

So, why all the angry fuss about this decimal point or that data sampling? Petty.

__________________
There is no sig. There never was a sig. The sig is a lie.

Its a hot issue because the Al Gore types that promote the global warming baloney present a bureaucratic solution that a) won’t work and b) punishes achievers. All the while flying around in personal jets, owning huge homes and making side deals on carbon credits.

I myself prefer to err on the side of caution and promote energy solutions that would reduce so-called greenhouse gases: nuclear power and exploitation of natural gas, both opposed by the Al Gore types.

Exploitation of natural gas still results in CO2 emissions.

Nuclear is definitely better.

Hell I would rather live 3 miles from a Nuclear power plant than 3 miles from a coal fired plant.

Either'd work for me..... I just saw the post as yet another silly deal where one small data point "invalidates" an entire science.

But, I agree that now is not the time for jumping on the first suggestion for "solving" this.

__________________
There is no sig. There never was a sig. The sig is a lie.

Natural gas deposits are under extreme pressure, and when they leak out of the ground they are something like 20 times worse a greenhouse gas then the CO2 released if the gas is captured and burned. Large gas bubbles are also the cause of lost boats and planes in certain areas.

this article has been cut and pasted in its entirety from another site.

well, not quite in its entirety. you missed out the list of replies and comments at the bottom of the original article, the ones that point out how the whole argument is rubbish. the part that shows how there was never any attempt to hide anything or misrepresent anything and that the ultimate conclusions following this "revelation" are that climate change is just as real as ever.

the part at the beginning about doctors, ulcers and H Pylorii is an interesting attempt at diversion. true science changes only slowly, and only when the change can be well validated and confirmed. scientists would look silly if they jumped instantly on every fashion, but notice how the medical community has now completely shifted its position.

this is very comparable to the scientific communities position on climate change. it has been a concept for many decades. the greenhouse effect has been in our conciousness for a long time, and scientists were reluctant to give it any credence because they had insufficient information and the did not want to look silly for getting mislead by bad data. now the data is mounting, the evidence is convincing and the scientific community is in agreement (broadly) about the reality of climate change.

sorry, but if you want to compare climate change to ulcers, the residual climate skeptics are in the same boat as the doctors today who still say H Pylorii does not exist.

The climatologists have likely taken into account the urbanization effect.

__________________