The researchers cautioned that although they had analyzed more than a decade of data, it was still a relatively short time frame. Natural ups and downs that appear in climate data make detecting long-term trends challenging. Further study is needed, they said.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-322
You’re disputing that a decade is not long enough to get a solid trend from noisy climate data? Really?
As is always the case, the press has already picked up on their admittedly unsupportable conclusions.
the press has already picked up on their admittedly unsupportable conclusions
That’s not what this post is about, is it? If it is, you should probably change the page title, since that’s not what it says. Nor does the brunette swimming in cash seem relevant.
One the one hand you appear to agree that more research is needed, but on the other, you’re saying that continuing the research is just another grant grubbing tactic.
Pick a hand.
Some people are better at reading between the lines than others.
Make a high profile alarming press release, and then in fine print declare your premise to be unsupportable. Standard AGW fare.
Pick a hand.
Well a decade was enough time for Jimmy Hansen to drop the coming ice age, and then start pushing global warming before Congress.
But you’re right. That was climate science. Completely different animal. No rules or sense need apply.
What “coming ice age”?