NASA: 2006 continues heatwave records

Thought it was a little warmer than usual this summer? Well that's because it was. NASA is reporting out today that 2006 will most likely be the 5th hottest year on record since we began recording global temperature in the 1880's.

The five warmest years on record in descending order are 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006.

The UK's Met Office is reporting that England recorded its warmest average annual temperature, 51.5 degrees Fahrenheit, since the Central England Temperature series began in 1659. The records set this year support various studies that “showed links between human behavior and the warming trend,” said David Parker, a climate scientist at Britain’s Met Office.


DeSmog's profile of me is all true, as far as it goes. I am a cognitive scientist, not a climate scientist. My field is the logic of science, especially climate science, and I understand the debate far better than any climate scientist.

I do basic research on the logic of complex issues and reasoning, but I do not publish in academic journals because I use my tools in my consulting work. See my A

s for pay, I sought out my electric power industry clients to do my studies and would like to do more. But I do not have my opinions because they pay me, quite the opposite. DeSmog has it's innuendo backwards, as usual for greens. T

hey also missed my two important studies for the American Petroleum Institute. I wrote about 1000 articles for Electricity Daily.

My heroes are the coal burners.

I have been fighting the green wave since 1970, and I am finally winning. Our civilization is still based on fire and that is not going to change any time soon. The greens have overreached themselves at last. Enjoy the show. David Wojick

first off let us start to seperate a few fundamental things.

Quote of David Wojick:”My field is the logic of science, especially climate science”
But this is wrong, infact:”Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh (1974). Specializing in Mathematical Logic and Conceptual Analysis.”

Quote of David Wojick:”I am a cognitive scientist”.
The term cognition (Latin: cognoscere, “to know”) is used in several loosely related ways to refer to a faculty for the human-like processing of information, applying knowledge and changing preferences.

The next is how do you base your individual asumption that you know “better” about “climate science”, when you not a climate scientist.

Anyway lets face the facts now, should we?

Here is the reason why people like Mr David Wojick exist and why they do what they do.
Watch this movie than you will understand:
And here is the fact sheet of Mr “Logic of complex issues”.

Hi David, I find this quote of yours disturbing; “My heroes are the coal burners. I have been fighting the green wave since 1970, and I am finally winning. Our civilization is still based on fire and that is not going to change any time soon. The greens have overreached themselves at last. Enjoy the show”

Your motives seem less than scientific and based more on an emotional and personal vendetta that you have against the “greens”. If you want to be taken seriously as a respected scientist, leave the WWF smack down talk to bloggers like me who aren’t claiming to be scientists. (In fact, regarding your lack of credentials in climate science as well as a lack of peer reviewed publications - I naively thought that these would be some of the top criteria in writing a letter to our Prime Minister regarding climate science. Clearly I was incorrect in that assumption).

Because as you have reassuringly pointed out – “My field is the logic of science, especially climate science, and I understand the debate far better than any climate scientist.” Phew! I’ll take your word for it here David, because that’s all I’ve got to go on right now.

But it does make me reflect on my own list of credentials. My field, coincidentally is in the “logic of logic”. Yes – you may not be familiar with it, and no, I don’t have a degree or anything and I haven’t written anything that other accredited “logicists” have reviewed but I know that won’t bother you.

You can just take my word for it! (I feel like maybe we might get along after all!) One lingering little thing that does still bother me (our new friendship aside) is that the last time I checked, science wasn't about winning and losing - it was about facts. Something that neither your credentials, your non-peer reviewed publications nor your reasoning possess.

A question for David Wojick. Note the news item below on Paul Crutzen's proposals for planetary-wide spraying of suiphur in the atmosphere to counteract global warming. If climate change is a hyped-up threat, why are proposals of such mind-boggling desperation being proposed by Nobel Prize winning scientists, and not only proposed, but as is plausibly alleged, also already implemented on a global scale. Note that at the bottom of the news item we see for the first time what looks like the beginnings of consent from Greenpeace for Crutzen's proposed sulphur-spraying scheme.

ENN FULL STORY Scientist Says New Data Backs Sulphur Climate Plan December 15, 2006 — By Ari Rabinovitch, Reuters TEL AVIV – Nobel Prize laureate Paul Crutzen says he has new data supporting his controversial theory that injecting the common pollutant sulphur into the atmosphere would cancel out the greenhouse effect. Though such a project could not be implemented for at least 10 years, the data is aimed at appeasing critics of the idea he first championed in the scientific journal Climatic Change in August. The Dutch meteorologist showed what he calls the positive cooling effect of adding a layer of sulphates to the atmosphere at a global warming conference at the Porter School for Environmental Studies in Tel Aviv. He said new, detailed calculations carried out since August showed the project would indeed lower global temperatures. “Our calculations using the best models available have shown that injecting 1 million tonnes of sulphur a year would cool down the climate so the greenhouse effect is wiped out,” Crutzen told Reuters.

An added layer of sulphates in the stratosphere, some 10 miles (16 km) above the earth, would reflect sunlight into space and reduce solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, Crutzen said. He said he envisioned giant cannons or balloons dispersing the sulphur to offset the build-up of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, largely released by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and vehicles. The world has struggled for decades to reduce sulphur pollution, a component of acid rain that kills forests and fish, mainly through tighter controls on burning coal. “We are now entering a very intensive period of model calculations and following that we will conduct small experiments to test the sulphur oxidation mechanisms that we calculated,” Crutzen said.

NO LONGER TABOO Crutzen said he planned to publish the new findings in a few months' time in one of the major scientific journals. The idea of using sulphur to combat global warming – which most scientists say will bring more floods, desertification, heatwaves and rising sea levels – is not new. Scientists noticed that large volcanic eruptions had similar effects and the 1991 eruption on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines lowered temperatures around the world for two years. For decades the theory was dismissed as dangerous until Crutzen, who won the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for research on ozone, published his paper. “Until August this was a taboo issue. But the paper I published really set off some movement in this area. It never hit the level of seriousness which it has taken in the past months. It may have had to do with the Nobel Prize, but I hope that's not all,” Crutzen said.

Some critics say the project is too risky and will have negative effects on the earth's water supply and increase acid rain. Crutzen said it was necessary to study the negative consequences, but he did not expect a rise in acid rain because the amount of sulphur injected would be a small percentage of the sulphates polluting the lower atmosphere today. Some environmental groups, wary of geo-engineering projects, say the idea should at least be looked at.

“The fact that the top experts in the field are saying it's necessary shows it's a sad state of affairs,” said Steve Sawyer, a policy adviser for Greenpeace International. “This idea should be examined and as a last resort it can buy us a few decades,” Sawyer said.

You forget the evil laugh at the end David. There is one significant difference here: You look for points that support your ideology and call it science. Climate scientists conduct research to try to find out what’s going on in the world’s climate. It’s you who have it backwards. You know nothing of science David Wojick and you never will.