More inaccurate reporting - and especially more bogus global warming lies..

To refute some silliness I saw elsewhere....
Here's evidence that sometimes, the proofs offered as the STRONGEST PROOF of global warming are often the silliest, weakest, and most ridiculously false and bogus!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/science/earth/26norfolk.html?_r=1&ref=earth

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/explaining-norfolks-creeping-tides/?ref=leslie_kaufman


--this ridiculous article claiming that sea levels are rising is 100% bogus -- kinda like a lot of the climate data and claims!!
It's biggest worries refer to are a few puddles that form at high tides...no real damage, nothing more than a minor inconvenience.
"it was difficult to drive" on the coastal roads with the puddles -- is the total of the complaints I could find in the article!

BUT--- the very same writer hours later wrote another column where she points out that it MIGHT NOT be rising tides at all -- but it might be sinking ground responsible here!!
..and she readily admits that is the case..including placing the 80 year estimate for sea level rise at about 1 inch...not 14 inches as she seemed to state in the article you cited.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/explaining-norfolks-creeping-tides/?ref=leslie_kaufman

This guy responded by showing how incredibly false, dishonest, and biased Kaufman's article about Norfolk was...twisting and hiding facts to make her predetermined point...
..and just goes to show how far some with an agenda will go to bend the facts and prove their predetermined point...
http://greenhellblog.com/2010/11/26/nytimes-lets-facts-intrude-on-alarmist-narrative/


And let it be known.....
--this particular writer, Leslie Kaufman, of the NY Times, is their "Green" and "environmental" blogger ..and NOT a reporter or a journalist in the true sense of journalism -- she's a biased opinion writer just like you and me!!
....so although that in itself doesn't discount her opinions, it certainly clarifies that virtually every single contribution she has to the NY Times is a "save the earth" and "here's comes global catastrophe" kind of article!! She is a FAR, FAR left, radical environmentalist......so I am glad you selected her to make your point!!
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/author/leslie-kaufman/


But... HERE'S WHY EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THE TEMPERATURE DATA ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING -- THAT IT IS FALSE AND MISLEADING AND THEY KNOW IT!!
..the determinations of what the global temperatures are...
have recently been based on a relatively small number of individual samplings...
Many of the global temp monitoring stations have been closed and are not used, and guess which ones are "selectively" now deleted from the data...it is largely the ones that are more remote, and at higher elevations and higher latitudes..thus the very people who claim to be "scientific" have forged their own chosen biased data.

"There was a major disappearance of recording stations in the late 1980’s – early 1990’s"
"..it illustrates that the disappearance of so many stations may have introduced an upward temperature bias.

..urbanization, which causes locally increased temperatures regardless of the external environmental influences....(and constitute) ..a significant number of stations with improper site characteristics, especially in urban areas."

The measuring stations are now predominately located in areas of more population and urban areas along coasts and at lower latitudes and altitudes, thus selectively gathering more data from places obviously known to have higher temperatures...then using that data and comparing it to when the temperatures were collected differently and in the other locations.

Check the average temp graph when plotted against the disappearance of the stations in the graph that's here
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache:3wNCYEPI1pwJ:http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm+%22temperatures%22+and+%22canada%22+and+%22recording+stations%22&ct=clnk



so -- if the experts arbitrarily pick the data they want to use to prove global warming, it that any different than what you just condemned, and which "someone versed in science would know"....
So, in the end, it's which bias you want to accept, isn't it.......?

"Blizzard Socks Midwest With 20 Inches of Snow"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/11/national/main7141575.shtml

"This will probably be one of the top 5 or 6 snowfalls on record for the Twin Cities metro area"
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/111708249.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciatkEP7DhUsl