# No global warming since 1850?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-global-warming-since-1850/528311
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [February 9, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-global-warming-since-1850/528311 "2010-02-09T18:43:44Z")
**Posts on this page:** 10
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-global-warming-since-1850/528311/1 "2010-02-09T18:43:44Z")
A coworker sent me this link after we had a short debate on global warming.
[quote=Right Wing Coworker]
[The](http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2010/01/no-global-warming-since-1850.html) most disturbing aspect of the whole Global Warming science debate is how raw temperature data is artificially adjusted, and how this modification seems to account for most or all of the reported warming. Well, it looks like we can now add a selection bias, too. Only a third of the available weather station thermometers seem to be used in the CRU data set (the one relied on by the UN IPCC).I see some simple errors here, like confusing weather for climate and assigning a conspiracy to peer reviewed journals, but I’m wondering about some of the other claims made in the blog. Were the weather stations truly cherry picked, as he claims?
---
### Author:  [@Anthony\_N](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anthony_N)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-global-warming-since-1850/528311/2 "2010-02-09T21:42:09Z")
Well, surface temperature stations are not the only way we measure global temperature. Satellite measurements also show a warming trend in during the 20th century.
Climate scientists understand that climate science has a great deal of uncertainty. The problem of global warming alarmism is that when the science gets reported in the mainstream media or used for political purposes, the amount of uncertainty gets left out and it becomes evidence and consensus.
What many skeptics are looking for is the data and programming code that goes into the temperature record so they can see exactly what adjustments are being made. Right now, there is too much “just trust our results” from climate scientists when there should be more openness and transparency. The policy decisions are too important to rest upon science that cannot be easily reproduced and verified.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-global-warming-since-1850/528311/3 "2010-02-09T21:54:16Z")
The CRU is just one out of several dozen agencies. This is like saying that because your neighbor Billy might not have actually raped his girlfriend, there is no such thing as rape.
Nothing in science matters until it has been independently replicated. There’s some chance that any one finding is inaccurate, but once you have dozens or hundreds of people having all come to the same result, then scientists begin to accept it as _probably_ true. But if you look at any one finding, especially if you look specifically for the one which had the poorest cites, was being backed by an organization with an agenda, had a member who was an alcoholic, etc. you’ll certainly be able to point out that it could and possibly is fully inaccurate. But that was always true, and it’s true of every single _individual_ finding. Ultimately, that’s a meaningless thing to point out though because there’s the other 100 possibly inaccurate studies that all came to more or less the same result and only 1 possibly inaccurate study which came to any other result.
> **[Cherry picking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking)**
>
> Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence, is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.
> The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to select only the ripest and healthiest fr...
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-global-warming-since-1850/528311/4 "2010-02-09T21:55:25Z")
> [@Anthony\_N](#):
>
> Well, surface temperature stations are not the only way we measure global temperature. Satellite measurements also show a warming trend in during the 20th century.
>
> Climate scientists understand that climate science has a great deal of uncertainty. The problem of global warming alarmism is that when the science gets reported in the mainstream media or used for political purposes, the amount of uncertainty gets left out and it becomes evidence and consensus.
>
> What many skeptics are looking for is the data and programming code that goes into the temperature record so they can see exactly what adjustments are being made. Right now, there is too much “just trust our results” from climate scientists when there should be more openness and transparency. The policy decisions are too important to rest upon science that cannot be easily reproduced and verified.
Well, it can and most of the data has been released. Remember, many “skeptics” are in reality even denying that this has taken place so they should be dismissed.
> **[RealClimate: Are the CRU data “suspect”? An objective assessment.](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/)**
>
> RealClimate: Kevin Wood, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington Eric Steig, Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington In the wake of the CRU e-mail hack, the suggestion that...
---
### Author:  [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2010, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-global-warming-since-1850/528311/5 "2010-02-09T23:05:35Z")
> [@](#):
>
> No global warming since 1850?
The retreating glaciers may beg to differ.
[ul]
[li][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat\_of\_glaciers\_since\_1850[/li][li]http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html[/li][li]http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2033[/li][li]http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0715glacierquakes.html[/li][li]http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0120/Mt.-Rainier-s-retreating-glaciers-are-making-a-mess[/li][li]http://www.nichols.edu/DEPARTMENTS/Glacier/glacier\_retreat.htm[/li][/ul]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dhttp://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dhttp://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2033%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dhttp://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0715glacierquakes.html%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dhttp://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0120/Mt.-Rainier-s-retreating-glaciers-are-making-a-mess%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dhttp://www.nichols.edu/DEPARTMENTS/Glacier/glacier_retreat.htm%5B/li%5D%5B/ul%5D)
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-global-warming-since-1850/528311/6 "2010-02-09T23:20:37Z")
> [@Duckster](#):
>
> The retreating glaciers may beg to differ.
> [ul]
> [li][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat\_of\_glaciers\_since\_1850[/li][li]http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html[/li][li]http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2033[/li][li]http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0715glacierquakes.html[/li][li]http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0120/Mt.-Rainier-s-retreating-glaciers-are-making-a-mess[/li][li]http://www.nichols.edu/DEPARTMENTS/Glacier/glacier\_retreat.htm[/li][/ul]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dhttp://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dhttp://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2033%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dhttp://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0715glacierquakes.html%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dhttp://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0120/Mt.-Rainier-s-retreating-glaciers-are-making-a-mess%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dhttp://www.nichols.edu/DEPARTMENTS/Glacier/glacier_retreat.htm%5B/li%5D%5B/ul%5D)
Add to that:
> [@](#):
>
> In 2004, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) Exit EPA Disclaimer was released. This report was produced by an international team of scientists at the request of the Arctic Council, an 8-nation intergovernmental forum including the United States. The ACIA concluded the following:
> Effects on the Climate System
>
> ```
> * Average temperatures in the Arctic have risen at almost twice the rate as temperatures in the rest of the world over the past few decades.
> * Widespread melting of glaciers and sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures present additional evidence of strong Arctic warming (see Figure 1).
> * The above trends are expected to continue during this century, resulting from ongoing increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (though greenhouse gases do not primarily originate from the Arctic).
> * Melting of Arctic glaciers is a contributing factor to sea-level rise around the world.
> * Warming is very likely to alter the release and uptake of greenhouse gases from soils, vegetation, and coastal oceans.
> * Ocean acidification will adversely affect marine calcifiers by making it more difficult for these organisms to form protective shells
> * Reduction in sea ice is very likely to have devastating consequences for polar bears, ice-dependent seals, and local people for whom these animals are a primary food source.
>
> ```
>
> \
>
> The conclusions of the ACIA report are further supported by evidence from remote sensing technologies. Satellites and U.S. and British Navy submarines have provided data on retreating Arctic sea ice and decreasing Arctic ice thickness. Satellite data show that the extent of Arctic sea ice has decreased by about three percent per decade. Figure 2 below shows trends in Arctic sea ice extent since the 1860s.
>
> SOURCE: [http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/polarregions.html](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/polarregions.html)
---
### Author:  [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-global-warming-since-1850/528311/7 "2010-02-10T01:42:00Z")
Here’s the problem. Most of the touted global warming science is bad science. For example: in one of the chart comparisons in An Inconvienent Truth, it actually shows CO2 movement slightly lagging BEHIND temperature change. That would seem to imply to me (common person making the _post hoc_ fallacy) that it is temperature change that affects CO2 not the other way around.
Add to that the fact that many of the public faces of GW (the same people that claim Al Gore has an Oscar - he doesn’t, it went to Davis Guggenhein) are idiots. The worst offender of greenhouse gas emission is China yet Al Gore tells me that the US needs to lead by example. Certainly worked for human rights. How are the Tibetans doing? Oh and what about the fact that Gore’s house wastes more energy that Bush’s or how much carbon was put into the atmosphere with the private planes flying to Helsinki? Danny Glover claims the earthquake in Haiti was caused by global warming (I think he may have meant the hurricanes which actually makes sense but it came out as the earthquake was caused by GW). Is it really hard to understand why no one takes them seriously?
I do believe that we are suffering from global warming but I also think it is unclear what is causing it. A natural cycle? Greenhouse gasses? The huge amount of asphalt, concrete and glass? Mother Earth hitting menopause (Get it? Hot flashes! Damn, I’m funny). I think that the best response to AGW (cause by humans), GW (not caused by humans) or “climate-change” (nature is getting ready to kill us all on Dec 21, 2012) was said by Mrs. Cad. She said, “Does it really matter if we’re causing it? We can still do things to help even if it’s not our fault.”
---
### Author:  [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2010, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-global-warming-since-1850/528311/8 "2010-02-10T02:15:28Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> Here’s the problem. Most of the touted global warming science is bad science.
You should probably back that up since none of the remainder of your post addresses the science.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-global-warming-since-1850/528311/9 "2010-02-10T02:16:09Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> Here’s the problem. Most of the touted global warming science is bad science. For example: in one of the chart comparisons in An Inconvienent Truth, it actually shows CO2 movement slightly lagging BEHIND temperature change. That would seem to imply to me (common person making the _post hoc_ fallacy) that it is temperature change that affects CO2 not the other way around.
That straw man again:
[http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/c/029130BFDC78FA33/17/hWJeqgG3Tl8](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/c/029130BFDC78FA33/17/hWJeqgG3Tl8)
> **[CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm)**
>
> \When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming...
> [@](#):
>
> What the science says…
>
> When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> Add to that the fact that many of the public faces of GW (the same people that claim Al Gore has an Oscar - he doesn’t, it went to Davis Guggenhein) are idiots. The worst offender of greenhouse gas emission is China yet Al Gore tells me that the US needs to lead by example. Certainly worked for human rights. How are the Tibetans doing? Oh and what about the fact that Gore’s house wastes more energy that Bush’s or how much carbon was put into the atmosphere with the private planes flying to Helsinki? Danny Glover claims the earthquake in Haiti was caused by global warming (I think he may have meant the hurricanes which actually makes sense but it came out as the earthquake was caused by GW). Is it really hard to understand why no one takes them seriously?
Not hard, but you are forgetting that the denier media is even harder to take seriously as the previous answer showed.
BTW this science reporter that also dissed Gore had to tell the deniers that they are now falling for conspiracy theories:
[ ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg)
Deniers are even less likely to be respected now.
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> I do believe that we are suffering from global warming but I also think it is unclear what is causing it. A natural cycle?
No.
> **[What relevance does past natural cycles have with recent global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm)**
>
> \The 1500 year cycles, known as Dansgaard-Oeschger events, are localized to the northern hemisphere and accompanied with cooling in the southern hemisphere. In contrast, current global warming is occuring in both hemispheres and particularly...
> [@](#):
>
> What the science says…
>
> The 1500 year cycles, known as Dansgaard-Oeschger events, are localized to the northern hemisphere and accompanied with cooling in the southern hemisphere. In contrast, current global warming is occuring in both hemispheres and particularly throughout the world’s oceans, indicating a significant energy imbalance.
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> Greenhouse gasses?
Yes.
> **[How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?](https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm)**
>
> \The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In...
> **[Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm)**
>
> \Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues...
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> The huge amount of asphalt, concrete and glass? Mother Earth hitting menopause (Get it? Hot flashes! Damn, I’m funny).
No.
You are not funny… 😉
More likely you are referring to the heat island effect,
The answer is still no.
> **[Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?](https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm)**
>
> While urban areas are undoubtedly warmer than surrounding rural areas, this has had little to no impact on warming trends.
> [@](#):
>
> What the science says…
>
> While urban areas are undoubtedly warmer than surrounding rural areas, this has had little to no impact on warming trends.
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> I think that the best response to AGW (cause by humans), GW (not caused by humans) or “climate-change” (nature is getting ready to kill us all on Dec 21, 2012) was said by Mrs. Cad. She said, “Does it really matter if we’re causing it? We can still do things to help even if it’s not our fault.”
> **[Positives and negatives of global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm)**
>
> \The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.\
> [@](#):
>
> What the science says…
>
> The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.
Yes, it does matter, and as George Bush (the Father) showed, The US can lead and influence the rest of the world to do the right thing like he and the USA did with CFC’s in the late 80’s.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-global-warming-since-1850/528311/10 "2010-02-10T02:17:39Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> Here’s the problem. Most of the touted global warming science is bad science. For example: in one of the chart comparisons in An Inconvienent Truth, it actually shows CO2 movement slightly lagging BEHIND temperature change. That would seem to imply to me (common person making the _post hoc_ fallacy) that it is temperature change that affects CO2 not the other way around.
Hint: _An Inconvenient Truth_ is not a peer reviewed scientific publication.
> [@](#):
>
> Add to that the fact that many of the public faces of GW (the same people that claim Al Gore has an Oscar - he doesn’t, it went to Davis Guggenhein) are idiots.
I think the important fact is that the movie got it - not that the Academy in any way resembles _Science_ or _Nature_ or the more specialized journals whose names I don’t know.
> [@](#):
>
> The worst offender of greenhouse gas emission is China yet Al Gore tells me that the US needs to lead by example. Certainly worked for human rights. How are the Tibetans doing? Oh and what about the fact that Gore’s house wastes more energy that Bush’s or how much carbon was put into the atmosphere with the private planes flying to Helsinki?
You think telling China to spend on greenhouse gas reduction when we do nothing is going to be very effective? And why don’t you compute to whatever number of decimal places it takes the additional emissions from whatever planes went to Copenhagen that wouldn’t have gone someplace else?
> [@](#):
>
> Danny Glover claims the earthquake in Haiti was caused by global warming (I think he may have meant the hurricanes which actually makes sense but it came out as the earthquake was caused by GW). Is it really hard to understand why no one takes them seriously?
When did Glover get a PhD in Geology or Meteorology? Tell you what, you ignore him and we’ll ignore the morons who say “it’s snowing, global warming can’t be happening!”
> [@](#):
>
> I do believe that we are suffering from global warming but I also think it is unclear what is causing it. A natural cycle? Greenhouse gasses? The huge amount of asphalt, concrete and glass? Mother Earth hitting menopause (Get it? Hot flashes! Damn, I’m funny). I think that the best response to AGW (cause by humans), GW (not caused by humans) or “climate-change” (nature is getting ready to kill us all on Dec 21, 2012) was said by Mrs. Cad. She said, “Does it really matter if we’re causing it? We can still do things to help even if it’s not our fault.”
Maybe it would be better if you let her post, eh? The problem is, if we are causing the problem, the remedy involves stopping or reducing whatever we are doing. If it actually was purely natural, the remedies would be different.