As Chris pointed out yesterday, you can have fun with baselines. Why choose 1990 as the baseline for analyzing Kyoto performance rather from than the actual signing of the treaty in 1997 or, if you’re worried about the evil polluting anti-Kyoto US President, from his election to office?

Here’s another example, from the scientist who knows the most about Greenland in the world, in response to a date chosen by Al Gore:

Petr Chylek of the department of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia notes that Gore in his movie “suggests the Greenland melt area increased considerably between 1992 and 2005.”
But, Chylek points out, “1992 was exceptionally cold in Greenland” and that “if Gore had chosen for comparison the year 1991, one in which the melt area was 1% higher than in 2005, he would have to conclude that the ice sheet melt area is shrinking and that perhaps a new Ice Age is just around the corner.”
Another inconvenient truth…