PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming: Interesting change in climate numbers from NASA


morphius
08-10-2007, 12:21 PM
My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again-- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.


An nice summary here: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html
...
Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)
...
I salute the work of Steven McIntyre, he has now made two major contributions to climate science.
1) Proving how the Mann "hockey stick" used in all Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was based on unsupportable data and methods.
2) Proving how yearly temperature anomalies for the USA are based on data that had been processed incorrectly.

Interesting stuff.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2007, 12:34 PM
Ya' know what else is interesting? I have a friend that just got back from a trip to Alaska with his family. They have those information centers and there are markings on the ground for a glacier that was receding. But the markers showed that it was slowing down in its melting. So he points it out to the man in the info center and like a robot he says "There is global warming."

The man is a doctor too. So he's no dummy. He has a patient who knows Al Gore who believes in Gore-gw and thinks Gore is brilliant. Has lots of dough. My friend told me that he gives thsi patient a hard time all the time about Gore and GW. So he told him about his last trip and eagerly this man asked: "So the glacier is melting faster right?" Nope.

Now ya' know what's scary....the UN is trying to make it illegal to say GW is not happening, as in crisis mode. Nice! My friend told me it's gotten to the point where meteorolgists are going to be stripped of their credentials if they don't tow the line.

morphius
08-10-2007, 12:50 PM
Ya' know what else is interesting? I have a friend that just got back from a trip to Alaska with his family. They have those information centers and there are markings on the ground for a glacier that was receding. But the markers showed that it was slowing down in its melting. So he points it out to the man in the info center and like a robot he says "There is global warming."

The man is a doctor too. So he's no dummy. He has a patient who knows Al Gore who believes in Gore-gw and thinks Gore is brilliant. Has lots of dough. My friend told me that he gives thsi patient a hard time all the time about Gore and GW. So he told him about his last trip and eagerly this man asked: "So the glacier is melting faster right?" Nope.

Now ya' know what's scary....the UN is trying to make it illegal to say GW is not happening, as in crisis mode. Nice! My friend told me it's gotten to the point where meteorolgists are going to be stripped of their credentials if they don't tow the line.
Some of the things I have always found interesting is how much Antarctica is brought up as if we have been studying it for centuries. Sure we can look at the ice, but how much is skewed by the fact that we can't tell anything about other years that the ice has melted. It isn't even until VERY recently that we could even notice that a big piece fell off.

Is it a good idea to stop burning fossil fuels, absolutely. Is it a good idea to worry about the climate, of course it is. Do humans destroy everything we touch, eh, not so much.

StcChief
08-10-2007, 12:52 PM
Just put an * next to the GW.

BS is BS.

Hog Farmer
08-10-2007, 01:00 PM
I was watching a show last night on the history channel or something like that and it showed how 7000 years ago all these glaciers melted and flooded north america and the resulting flood created what is now the great lakes. If the water in the great lakes were to be spread out across North America we would all be in water 9 feet deep. So the way I see it since we are running out of water in the Ogalalah aquifier we need a few GW episodes.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2007, 01:22 PM
I was watching a show last night on the history channel or something like that and it showed how 7000 years ago all these glaciers melted and flooded north america and the resulting flood created what is now the great lakes. If the water in the great lakes were to be spread out across North America we would all be in water 9 feet deep. So the way I see it since we are running out of water in the Ogalalah aquifier we need a few GW episodes.
Ya' know when I was in the Badlands in 2000, even that Information Center showed a huge flood a long time ago as well as thousands of extinct species.This is what my friend was pointing out, these Information Centers have contradictory information too. I've seen that too.

banyon
08-10-2007, 08:39 PM
Meanwhile, the North Pole has become so loose that Russia is claiming it for oil reserves when the entire area was inaccessible for as long as we have known it.

This is all about trends and not isolated incidents, but the 30's were hot and the recalculations definitely affect some of the figures in "Inconvenient Truth".

banyon
08-10-2007, 08:42 PM
Now ya' know what's scary....the UN is trying to make it illegal to say GW is not happening, as in crisis mode. Nice! My friend told me it's gotten to the point where meteorolgists are going to be stripped of their credentials if they don't tow the line.

What the f***? How does someone make such an outlandish statement? Do you have one shred of evidence to support this statement? When did the U.N. get authority to prosecute Americans in criminal actions?

irishjayhawk
08-10-2007, 08:52 PM
A Y2K bug. Come on.

Global Warming is happening because the science makes too much sense and is pretty well backed up. The question or debate is on, or should be, whether humans are causing it.

go bowe
08-10-2007, 08:55 PM
What the f***? How does someone make such an outlandish statement? Do you have one shred of evidence to support this statement? When did the U.N. get authority to prosecute Americans in criminal actions? oh, don't worry about poor pea brain...

most of the time she's just a little loony...

and other times her posts are downright kooky...

nevertheless, i enjoy watching her every now and then for laughs...

CHIEF4EVER
08-10-2007, 09:11 PM
Is the climate changing? Sure it is. It is measurable. Are HUMANS causing it? That is another question entirely. Whether we are causing it or not is irrelevant IMO. In our own self interest, we need to stop being so reliant on petroleum (especially from foreign sources) and polluting the air is NEVER a good thing. Leave out whether MMGW is a reality or not.....we are spewing way too many contaminants into our air and water and we need to be better stewards of what we have been given. JMHO.

tiptap
08-10-2007, 09:59 PM
The error exists but it has nothing to do with Y2K. A Y2K error would not have affected 1998 data. So what is taking place. Will loosely there have always been two distinct data sets from the Federal Government for US and US only temperatures. One set has always had 1932 warmer than 1998. But the distinction doesn't exceed margin of errors. In other words the two years are statistically the same. However there was an error with the data set that rewarded 1998 as warmer and in the correction 1932 gets the ribbon. But again the two are statistically the same. As far as the change for the 21st Century scores, will the claims of the article are not true. The averages of both data sets are used in the WORLD TEMPERATURE average. And it is that number that indicates the rise in WORLD temperature.

And I have argued all along that removing our dependence of oil and reducing our gluttony (not our standard of living) in consumption of carbon based energy sources serves us well beyond GW concerns.

tiptap
08-10-2007, 10:10 PM
I would add that the indication is that the arctic ice has retreated to it smallest extent since data has been collected. Now mine you, two measurements are made. One looks at the area of ice and excludes water between icy fingers and the other just looks at how far any ice reaches. So only one of them has has already reached this measurement. But ice will continue to melt until mid September. There is little doubt that by then both computations (one by the Dept. of Defense) will see the smallest arctic cap on record. Here is a physical response to more heat. Just like the physical evidence of rising oceans, longer and earlier growing seasons, etc etc. Where are the contrarian TRENDS?

morphius
08-10-2007, 10:38 PM
I would add that the indication is that the arctic ice has retreated to it smallest extent since data has been collected.

This bothers me just like the antarctic measurements, how long have we been collecting the data? I'm guessing less then 30 years.

I am also for getting away from oil ASAP.

Logical
08-10-2007, 10:53 PM
Is the climate changing? Sure it is. It is measurable. Are HUMANS causing it? That is another question entirely. Whether we are causing it or not is irrelevant IMO. In our own self interest, we need to stop being so reliant on petroleum (especially from foreign sources) and polluting the air is NEVER a good thing. Leave out whether MMGW is a reality or not.....we are spewing way too many contaminants into our air and water and we need to be better stewards of what we have been given. JMHO.

Possibly the post of yours I most agree with, well stated.:thumb:

CHIEF4EVER
08-10-2007, 11:06 PM
The error exists but it has nothing to do with Y2K. A Y2K error would not have affected 1998 data. So what is taking place. Will loosely there have always been two distinct data sets from the Federal Government for US and US only temperatures. One set has always had 1932 warmer than 1998. But the distinction doesn't exceed margin of errors. In other words the two years are statistically the same. However there was an error with the data set that rewarded 1998 as warmer and in the correction 1932 gets the ribbon. But again the two are statistically the same. As far as the change for the 21st Century scores, will the claims of the article are not true. The averages of both data sets are used in the WORLD TEMPERATURE average. And it is that number that indicates the rise in WORLD temperature.

And I have argued all along that removing our dependence of oil and reducing our gluttony (not our standard of living) in consumption of carbon based energy sources serves us well beyond GW concerns.

You do realize, of course, that there were long periods of global warming during the Roman and the Viking periods respectively. This ISN'T a new phenomenon. Not discounting it entirely but just making the point that before we go into full fledged panic mode, we need to do some more study as to whether or not it is a natural and cyclical occurence.

jAZ
08-10-2007, 11:07 PM
I'd hold off on taking this story as gospel.

My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org.

That site is complete offline.


NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place.

According to this Wikipedia entry, the data affected was only 2000-2007... NOT 1998 as is suggested here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre
Stephen McIntyre found an error in the surface temperature record kept by GISS.[6] GISS has acknowledged the error and incorporated a correction in their data set.[7] The error affects the surface temperature record from 2000 through 2007.

It's only Wikipedia... but the orginal article is just some blog. So I'd hold off for the full story.

jAZ
08-10-2007, 11:19 PM
... but the orginal article is just some blog.
Actually, the blog's author seems to be funded by the Marshall Institute a conservative policy think tank that is funded by ExxonMobile and a number of conservative foundations like the Richard Mellon Scaife foundation.

http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=98

Stephen McIntyre

Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36

Founded in 1984, The George Marshall Institute primarily focused on defense issues, advocating funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and Star Wars. GMI has since branched out and is one of the leading think tanks trying to debunk climate change.

GMI works on a range of issues, including civic environmentalism, climate change, national defense, bioterrorism, and missile defense. GMI publishes papers and holds "roundtables." Many of these roundtables have featured climate change skeptics such as Roger Bate, Willie Soon, Margo Thorning, and GMI's own Sallie Baliunas. In 1989, the Marshall Institute released a report arguing that "cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases." Although it was refuted by the IPCC, the report was used by the Bush Sr. Administration to argue for a more lenient climate change policy. GMI has since published numerous reports and articles attacking the Kyoto protocol and undermining the climate science. GMI is a former member of the Cooler Heads Coalition. GMI used to restrict its funding sources to private foundations and individual donars to avoid conflict of interest, but in the late nineties, then GMI President Jeffrey Salmon wrote, "when the Institute turned its attention to the science of global warming, it decided it would appeal successfully to industry for financial support." This fall, the Institute received its first-ever grant from a corporate foundation-- the Exxon Education Foundation. (http://web.archive.org/web/20020913050409/http://www.marshall.org/funding.htm) According to Media Transparency.org, the Institute received $5,757,803 since 1985 from conservative foundations including the Castle Rock Foundation (Coors), Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Carthage Foundation.

morphius
08-10-2007, 11:26 PM
Jaz - all you have to do is look at the NASA data to see that the 30's were hotter then the 90's.

jAZ
08-10-2007, 11:27 PM
Jaz - all you have to do is look at the NASA data to see that the 30's were hotter then the 90's.
What data source are you looking at. I couldn't make heads or tails of the link I saw on this on Digg.

morphius
08-10-2007, 11:31 PM
Their is a link to the NASA data right in the Blog of the RAW data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

jAZ
08-10-2007, 11:38 PM
Their is a link to the NASA data right in the Blog of the RAW data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
I saw that and the other link to what seemed to be the original data (both are at the bottom of the Wikipedia article I linked).

I can't translate that after 2 beers and a complete absence of any understanding of what I'm looking at there. How do you look at that data and "see that the 30's were hotter then the 90's"??? I'm not sure I've had enough beer to be confused about that part.

morphius
08-10-2007, 11:57 PM
Here is a quick way, the second number is the above or below average, basically, so just sum them up for each decade.

1930 0.16
1931 1.08
1932 0
1933 0.68
1934 1.25
1935 0.04
1936 0.21
1937 -0.13
1938 0.86
1939 0.85
SUM 5

1990 0.87
1991 0.69
1992 0.3
1993 -0.44
1994 0.46
1995 0.34
1996 -0.17
1997 0.03
1998 1.23
1999 0.93
SUM 4.24

irishjayhawk
08-11-2007, 12:13 AM
Here is a quick way, the second number is the above or below average, basically, so just sum them up for each decade.

1930 0.16
1931 1.08
1932 0
1933 0.68
1934 1.25
1935 0.04
1936 0.21
1937 -0.13
1938 0.86
1939 0.85
SUM 5

1990 0.87
1991 0.69
1992 0.3
1993 -0.44
1994 0.46
1995 0.34
1996 -0.17
1997 0.03
1998 1.23
1999 0.93
SUM 4.24

I have a question. Wouldn't the average then have to be higher since there were less decades and thus data to "average" than there is in the 90s?

Like

Decade 1: .4
Decade 2: .6
Decade 3: .3
Average: .43
Decade 4: .7
Decade 5: -.3
Decade 6: -.8
Decade 7: 1.24
Average: .31


Am I wrong in that logic?

morphius
08-11-2007, 12:18 AM
I have a question. Wouldn't the average then have to be higher since there were less decades and thus data to "average" than there is in the 90s?

Like

Decade 1: .4
Decade 2: .6
Decade 3: .3
Average: .43
Decade 4: .7
Decade 5: -.3
Decade 6: -.8
Decade 7: 1.24
Average: .31


Am I wrong in that logic?
I think the average is re-figured every year.

irishjayhawk
08-11-2007, 12:20 AM
I think the average is re-figured every year.

Wouldn't that still mean that the averages are off?

morphius
08-11-2007, 12:23 AM
Wouldn't that still mean that the averages are off?
not if they adjust all the numbers to match the "new" average.

jAZ
08-11-2007, 12:56 AM
What are the temperatures. This seems excessively and unnecessarily confusing (above, below the average).

99-degrees, 75-degrees...

Where the actual data?

Ultra Peanut
08-11-2007, 06:22 AM
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

1934 and all that
Filed under: Instrumental Record Climate Science— gavin @ 5:33 PM
Another week, another ado over nothing.

Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000. On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear.

This was duly done by Tuesday, an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis (which had been due in any case for the processing of the July numbers) was updated accordingly along with an acknowledgment to McIntyre and update of the methodology.

The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ēC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).

There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ēC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ēC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ēC vs. 1998 1.23ēC. None of these differences are statistically significant. Indeed in the 2001 paper describing the GISTEMP methodology (which was prior to this particularly error being introduced), it says:

The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.

More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2001-2006 (at 0.66 ēC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ēC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ēC). (The previous version - up to 2005 - can be seen here).

In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis). CRU has 1998 as the warmest year but there are differences in methodology, particularly concerning the Arctic (extrapolated in GISTEMP, not included in CRU) which is a big part of recent global warmth. No recent IPCC statements or conclusions are affected in the slightest.

Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends).

However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake. This lead to some truly death-defying leaping to conclusions when this issue hit the blogosphere. One of the worst examples (but there are others) was the 'Opinionator' at the New York Times (oh dear). He managed to confuse the global means with the continental US numbers, he made up a story about McIntyre having 'always puzzled about some gaps' (what?) , declared the the error had 'played havoc' with the numbers, and quoted another blogger saying that the 'astounding' numbers had been 'silently released'. None of these statements are true. Among other incorrect stories going around are that the mistake was due to a Y2K bug or that this had something to do with photographing weather stations. Again, simply false.

But hey, maybe the Arctic will get the memo.

tiptap
08-11-2007, 10:12 AM
You do realize, of course, that there were long periods of global warming during the Roman and the Viking periods respectively. This ISN'T a new phenomenon. Not discounting it entirely but just making the point that before we go into full fledged panic mode, we need to do some more study as to whether or not it is a natural and cyclical occurence.

Yes I am well aware that Greek and Roman and even earlier Mesopotamian or Egyptian times (along with the North Star not being Polaris but between two stars of the little dipper because of earth's wobble not seen today) were warmer than the AVERAGE temperatures for the 20th Century. The small slow movement toward colder temperatures gave rise to the investigation of whether the Interglacial Period of the Present ICE AGE might be waning. And the resulting media speculation of the 70's about the world cooling. It is against this background that the precipitous rise in temperatures has raised the concern that human activities could influence climate.

It has been my position since 9/11 that we were better served by spending the deficit in shoring up our borders and reinforcing our infrastructures rather than fighting in Iraq. And in the process move away from new infrastructures that subsidize burning of fossil fuels and toward renewable sources.

This will put downward pressure on oil prices and at the same time diminish the power of oil rich nations including Russia.

jAZ
08-11-2007, 11:52 AM
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
Looks like I might have been wrong in my justification for why I'd hold off on taking this story as gospel. At least slightly.

morphius
08-11-2007, 03:09 PM
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
I'd still be interested in how long we have been monitoring the arctic and anartic, "where we are seeing the biggest change", if it has been since the 70's, which I would assume as reasonable, then we are comparing one of the coldest decades to some of the warmer, which would seem to skew numbers. Throw in how many places we now measure, that we were not in the early 1900's.

banyon
08-11-2007, 03:48 PM
However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake.

Absolutely.

morphius
08-12-2007, 10:59 AM
Absolutely.

However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to ONLY human impact.

banyon
08-12-2007, 02:06 PM
However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to ONLY human impact.

For my part, I don't really care about the impact we have on GW, I'm a lot more concerned with the impact on us and what we can do about it.

morphius
08-12-2007, 05:07 PM
For my part, I don't really care about the impact we have on GW, I'm a lot more concerned with the impact on us and what we can do about it.
I'd prefer not to make the Earth unlivable, and I look forward to getting away from the oil companies, middle eastern and Venezuelan oil. Some day we will get things better.

Of course I'm a fan of electric cars, and possible diesel/bio-diesel hybrids.

Silock
08-13-2007, 03:35 AM
Look, I'm all for saving the environment and all that jazz, but there's no reason to go overboard with any measures designed to combat something that hasn't been proven we're the ones causing.

Saggysack
08-13-2007, 05:16 AM
Look, I'm all for saving the environment and all that jazz, but there's no reason to go overboard with any measures designed to combat something that hasn't been proven we're the ones causing.

Does it really matter if we are the ones causing it?

Let's say we haven't caused any of it. Do we just just let it happen without any course of action and hope for the best?

Silock
08-13-2007, 05:51 AM
Does it really matter if we are the ones causing it?

Let's say we haven't caused any of it. Do we just just let it happen without any course of action and hope for the best?

Yes, it matters if we're the ones causing it or not. If we caused it, then hopefully we could reverse it. If we didn't cause it, then anything we do would be an exercise in futility.

I'm all for saving the rainforests and finding alternatives to burning coal and oil -- fine and dandy with me. But there's no reason to go overboard about anything right now.

Saggysack
08-13-2007, 05:59 AM
Yes, it matters if we're the ones causing it or not. If we caused it, then hopefully we could reverse it. If we didn't cause it, then anything we do would be an exercise in futility.

I'm all for saving the rainforests and finding alternatives to burning coal and oil -- fine and dandy with me. But there's no reason to go overboard about anything right now.

Then why build earthquake resistant structures? We can't stop earthquakes from happening. Why clear brush in forests to prevent major forest fires then?

I think it is a silly stance to take that just because we might not be ones causing a problem that we should just sit by and watch it happen.

Silock
08-13-2007, 02:41 PM
Then why build earthquake resistant structures? We can't stop earthquakes from happening. Why clear brush in forests to prevent major forest fires then?

I think it is a silly stance to take that just because we might not be ones causing a problem that we should just sit by and watch it happen.

I never said we should do anything of the sort. But what's going on today is the equivalent of telling everyone to build a nuclear fallout shelter in their backyard just because someone, somewhere has a bomb.

banyon
08-13-2007, 02:45 PM
I never said we should do anything of the sort. But what's going on today is the equivalent of telling everyone to build a nuclear fallout shelter in their backyard just because someone, somewhere has a bomb.

Not really because we are in a position of ignorance about the extent of the imperilment as well. For your analogy to be apt, it would be "there is a situation somewhere in between somebody somewhere has a bomb, and 1000 mexicans with nukes in their backpacks are crossing the border in a month."

Silock
08-13-2007, 03:15 PM
Not really because we are in a position of ignorance about the extent of the imperilment as well. For your analogy to be apt, it would be "there is a situation somewhere in between somebody somewhere has a bomb, and 1000 mexicans with nukes in their backpacks are crossing the border in a month."

Either way, you get the idea :)