February 09, 2007
Global Warming Update

Two days after Ron Sims announced his plan to "invest the money needed to adapt to less snow in the mountains", UW Atmospheric Science Professor Cliff Mass tells KUOW that the snowpack this year is "slightly above normal".

Elsewhere around the warming globe -- unseasonably cold weather in Vietnam and New Zealand and unusually heavy snowfall in Britain. Here in the U.S.:

Colder-than-normal weather prevailed virtually nationwide, holding weekly readings at least 10 degrees F below normal across much of the nation's mid-section and as much as 20 degrees F below normal on the deeply snow-covered central High Plains.
Record snowfall in Denver, Cincinnati, New Mexico , and a rare 12 feet of snow in upstate New York.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 09, 2007 03:51 PM | Email This
Comments
1. So come clean, Stefan. Tell us where you did your post-graduate work in atmospheric science. Rather than cherry-picking anecdotes for our amusement, tell us unequivocally whether you think manmade climate change is real or not. Just yes or no will do. I, for one, would like to know whether you're justing having a laugh or whether you belong in the looney bin.

Posted by: Eric on February 9, 2007 03:33 PM
2. The fact that the Earth is warming does not mean it will never be cold or snow again.

Posted by: CandrewB on February 9, 2007 03:39 PM
3. From Eric @ #1: "tell us unequivocally whether you think manmade climate change is real or not. Just yes or no will do. I, for one, would like to know whether you're justing having a laugh or whether you belong in the looney bin."

Isn't this the quintessential microcosm of the global warming "debate" Pose a slanted question, try and control the answer by narrowly defining the responses, then if disagreement is still found, immediately demonize the respondent rather than rationally discuss or civilly debate the issue.

Posted by: ajopalm on February 9, 2007 03:40 PM
4. @3 Oh, I thought it was cherry picking evidence and distoring science. My bad.

Posted by: Eric on February 9, 2007 03:42 PM
5. I was watching a program on the National Geographic channel on global warming. The models they used to show climate change were quite interesting.

In there model, the oceans will warm and cause the geo-thermal gulf stream to change and melt the ice caps. This would introduce more fresh water into the ocean which would then freeze and cause an ice age in the northern regions of the world. This would cause a shift in the jet stream which would cause devastating hot house temps around the equator and south.

But then they also showed a model where the jet stream changes to the north and causes all the ice caps to melt and raise ocean levels 18". This would cause a drought in the northern areas and the south would be uninhabitable.

In other words, if it gets cooler in the north, they were right. If it gets warmer in the north, they were right.

For the first time in history, the weather man will be right no matter what he says.

Posted by: Ken on February 9, 2007 03:42 PM
6. Eric @ #4 "Oh, I thought it was cherry picking evidence and distoring science. My bad."

It most definitely is. But you can change. There's still time to reform your ways if you have an ounce of integrity.

Posted by: ajopalm on February 9, 2007 03:45 PM
7. ajopalm,
So whaddya say? Is it real or not?

Posted by: Eric on February 9, 2007 03:48 PM
8. I seem to remember Hurricane Katrina being blamed on "global warming".

It's great that we are having a very cold winter that allows us to turn the tables and tweak people on the left with the same kind of stuff they inundate us with every day. And boy, they don't like it a bit!

By the way, if Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and John Edwards actually believed in "man-made global warming" they would change their lifestyles as an example. They know "man-made global warming" is nothing but an agenda driven political farce.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 9, 2007 04:13 PM
9. I don't know Eric. I have a belief in a higher power (to be PC, you know) and that higher power has things under control. Don't you go playing Higher Power now, you know.

Posted by: swatter on February 9, 2007 04:14 PM
10. I love it. Anybody who doesn't buy into the "political" science of Global Thermal Annihilation belongs in the "Looney bin".

It is fun to watch the rag tag collection of political scientists, star reporters who've never completed any science classes, zealous environmentalists, and libs spin this crisis out of control. I really love how the left has come unhinged and are now demanding the suspension of the first amendment for critics (Crisis Deniers). The unfortunately mainstream crackpots want to end the use of the scientific method and instead rely on consensus. Yeah, right science by voting. Hey, I vote we overturn the laws of gravity. Floating would be cool...

Yeah Stephen is having fun with it. The anecdotal evidence he is showing on the record cold temps does not refute the "science". Just like the anecdotal evidence about glaciers and polar bears doesn't prove it.

Speaking of anecdotal evidence, what happend to all the climatologists that were predicting the worst huricane season ever in 2006? When the theory didn't pan out they all disappeared.

Once again for the slow learners. Yes most scientists believe the climate is modestly heating up. Many scientists believe there is a correlation to greenhouse gases and warming, but correlation does not equal causation. There is not 'consensus' on the cause, or even the importance of a warming climate.

The flat earthers pushing the agenda of global worrying have fallen in love with the theory that the planet is doomed and it was caused by the damn SUV. Regardless of how much data they are shown their confidence in the theory is unshaken.


Rather than a sky is falling political debate, I would love to see true science done. I would love to see a true root cause analysis and look at all possible contributors to warming. Not just a blind acceptance of the politically expedient theory of man caused warming. I would also like to see true science on climate cycles. Is this a short term (in the life of the planet) cycle or the start of a long term trend.

I have always considered myself to be a Teddy Roosevelt style conservationist. I agree we should do more to fight polution. The fraudlant debate on warming though does no good. It turns many people who agree with fighting polution away because of the sillieness and extremism of the left.

Posted by: Serf in the land of Queen Christine on February 9, 2007 04:25 PM
11. This is the same scam the Socialists ran in the 1980's with CFCs and the ozone hole. It's been over a decade since CFCs were banned in the US and the hole is still there and in fact the hole has gotten bigger. Huh... leftist propagandist wrong, go figure.

The left also complained about global warming in the 1980s... they said Florida was sinking into the sea. Huh, I just went there a couple months ago and it's still above water. Huh... believe lying Socialist Propagandists or believe my own eyes.

Posted by: Marc on February 9, 2007 04:27 PM
12. The reason the left likes global warming so much is that they are convinced that man has and is polluting the planet and is ruining mother nature's great creation. They have found in global warming the method to stop us from all this nasty progress and pollution. They don't need to understand the science. They get a nice warm fuzzy feeling just knowing they are doing something to save the planet.

Posted by: BornRight on February 9, 2007 04:46 PM
13. These conservatives are so happy to proclaim their own ignorance about science, the climate, pollution, etc. as an excuse for their inaction (which is not really inaction because they wish to increase polluting the Earth for the sake of economic growth).

Conservatives who insist that humans play no role in climate change are equivalent to ...

fundamentalists who insist that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. or ...

flat-earthers who insist that the world is really flat, regardless of the evidence contrary. or ...

Christians who insist that the Bible is infallible (so long as they remain devoutly ignorant of the Bible's errors).

Look, conservatives, Exxon-Mobil has already come out and said that global warming is occurring & humans are responsible.

The argument is over. You lost.

So you are not climate fundamentalists and capitalist jihadists (against nature). You don't have the truth and you don't want to examine the evidence and you would rather remain ignorant.

Hey ... what's the weather like in Seattle? Stefan is a weatherman, he's not a climatologist.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 9, 2007 04:49 PM
14. Oh, for an edit button:

* So you are not climate fundamentalists and capitalist jihadists (against nature).

Should read:

* So you are now climate fundamentalists and capitalist jihadists (against nature).

Posted by: David Mathews on February 9, 2007 04:55 PM
15. @ #13
"Look, conservatives, Exxon-Mobil has already come out and said that global warming is occurring & humans are responsible. "

Did you also want to note that Exxon-mobil was sent a warning by liberal senators that if they didn't stop funding research that contradicted man-made global warning they would be subject to senate hearings?

Did you also want to note that Oregon is in the process of firing their head climatologist because he dared to state that he did not believe that global warming was directly caused by man?

Did you want to address why Mars and Pluto are both going through a global warming phase? I don't think our Voyager mission caused it to warm up all of a sudden.

I just happen to think that that big ball of fire up in the sky has a little more to do with it. Sunspots go through warming and cooling cycles normally every 11-years. In the last 3 cycles the sun did not go through it's normal cooling phase. So did we cause some kind of imbalance on the sun?

Lastly, the largest contributor of greenhouse gasses is methane or more directly caused by the farting of cows. So maybe we should all stop eating beef and kill all the cows to reduce greenhouse gas.

Posted by: Ken on February 9, 2007 05:00 PM
16. So you are now climate fundamentalists and capitalist jihadists (against nature).


Sign me up. $$Moollah$$ akabar

Posted by: Serf in the land of Queen Christine on February 9, 2007 05:00 PM
17. Hello Ken,

I am astonished that you are asking all these questions when it appears that your intellectual leader has proven his point by looking out his window and seeing snow:

If it is snowing in Seattle, global warming is a myth!

What's the weather like in your neighborhood, Ken?

I will tell you my weather: So far this winter, I have used my air conditioner a lot more often than I have used my heater.

Such is life in Florida.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 9, 2007 05:24 PM
18. Eric@1, good luck getting Stefan to answer that question. I have asked it repeatedly and his silence is deafening. Personally I think he's just having a laugh, since most of his other opinions -- even those I disagree with -- have some logic to them. (But that doesn't prove that your alternative explanation isn't true, too.)

Posted by: Bruce on February 9, 2007 06:13 PM
19. Global warming is real! And it's man-made. I know this because a bunch of scientists who rely on government grants to fund their lattes and fill their Tahoes say so. I mean, without Man-made Global Warming, all their studies on the effect of Global Warming wouldn't be needed, now would they? So there. So what if most actual climatologists are still on the fence about the man-made part at least? What do they know. They'll get funded anyhow, even without preying on taxpayer's feelings of fear and guilt. Global Warming is real -- and it's caused by all the hot air coming from Global Warming Alarmists.

Posted by: Starboardhelm on February 9, 2007 06:23 PM
20. I have a continuing e-mail correspondence relationship with the U.W's. Dr. Cliff Mass. In case you didn't know this, Mass's climate models, the fanciest on the planet, indicate that the effect of "Global Warming" in Puget Sound will be a colder and wetter climate.

I've been skeptical of climate modelling since 1970 when I took my first atmospheric science science class at the U.W.

In those days my friends in the department, my prof and the teaching assistants waved their hands in the air about the late lingering snow at and above the arctic circle. The theory was that this pattern was caused by human made aerosol pollution and that a new ice age was certain. They had one thing right. An ice age would be a disaster for the planet. They knew the warm periods were beneficial for man, beast and plants.

Those were the early days of climate modelling and the proponets attitudes can be excused based on lousy interpretation of data. Excused except that now the same crowd has jumped on the other extreme for the sake of grantwhoring.

Back in 1970 it seems researchers knew that 13,000 years ago the northern half of North America was underneath many thousands of feet of glacial ice. It zeroed out every micrometer of that part of the biosphere. No salmon. No nothing except the creation of a thick blanket of barren glacial gravel.

Jump ahead to 2006-7. We have two back to back record years of snowpack in the Cascades. Don't know about the semantics of Mass's "slightly above average" other than, as usual, he's trying hard to keep his research grants and relevance alive in spite of contrary first hand impression level evidence. Oddly, it seems to support his breakthrough prediction for Puget Sound climate.

But that's not climate. We all know the difference between weather and climate, correct?

No we don't. No one does. We can't even take the earth's temperature on February 9th 2007. I have dramatically different microclimates in my own yard in North Seattle. Spread that over Puget Sound, then the earth. I've had 42 hard frosts this fall and winter. Seattle has had 6.

But get this. Seattle weather stats are not taken in Seattle. They are taken at Sea-Tac.

I asked Cliff Mass how his models take into account temperature and preciptation data taken from one place in 1900 and another in 1935 and a third after 1944. He said he doesn't use temperature or precipitaion data when plugging in the values for the mile long equations used in his climate models. Huh?

Cliff also admits that the trend of the climate will continue regardless of what man does to mitigate it, but points out that it couldn't hurt to make an effort. Couldn't hurt his funding efforts that is. WILL hurt our wallets.

The often cited proof that global warming is real goes something like this: the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists support it. The figure is something around 2,000 scientists have signed a petition of support. Some of them dentists. Fact is there are far more than 2,000 climate scientists, geophysicists and pleistoscene geologists who have signed an alternate petition.

There is one consensus. Little can be done, and most every dollar spent on climate mitigation might as well be spent on projects with a cost benefit ratio that is not infinitely zero benefit and incredibly expensive cost.

Harper's published a cost estimate to comply with the Kyoto Protocol: $500 billion annually.

If complying with Kyoto results in fuel efficiency that won't be bad, but the marketplace is going to take us there without ridiculous varieties of legislation and regulation anyway.

Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 9, 2007 07:22 PM
21. I do suspect that the earth will warm to the point where it is uninhabitable by humans. I assume if you believe the same scientists, then prior to human beings, the earth was a good 20 degrees or so warmer, just hot enough for dinosaurs and the like. When the meteor hit and blasted billions of tons of fine dust and particles into the sky blocking out the sun and creating an ice age, it has taken many years for the particulate matter to precipate out of the sky.

I am in agreement with quite a few environmentalists, the best way to stop global warming is to increase polution.

Posted by: Doug on February 9, 2007 07:28 PM
22. Hello Bart,

> I've had 42 hard frosts this fall and winter. Seattle has had 6.

Oh. That settles it. Global warming is a myth.

Thanks for settling this issue.

If Mt. Ranier erupted tomorrow what impact would it have on your weather?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 9, 2007 07:45 PM
23. Well, I see Bart got a little under Dave M's skin with his facts. Only thing DM could really attach his venom to was the one anecdotal statement Bart made. Never mind the empirical data, never mind the historial climatological data. None of that matters because David's penchant for photography and his religious fervor make him so much more an expert than a trained scientist. Time for bed now, David.

Posted by: katomar on February 9, 2007 08:01 PM
24. But Doug, the Earth is only 13,000ish years old...

Posted by: CandrewB on February 9, 2007 08:10 PM
25. Hello katomar,

> Never mind the empirical data, never mind the historial climatological data.

What is evident is that conservatives are particularly allergic to empirical and historical climatological data. These conservatives would rather have humans keep on polluting the world rather than make the sacrifices necessary to avoid a catastrophe:

"It has not entered our consciousness that if the planet suffers, we suffer, and that we have nowhere else to go. We have lost sight of ourselves as being a part of nature and that destroying the natural world means we destroy ourselves. We have reduced nature, and by extension ourselves, to an exploitable resource.

"Our global civilisation looks artificial, resting on industrial and financial systems in the singular pursuit of profit. ...

"The Koran says:

"Corruption has appeared in both land and sea
Because of what people's own hands have brought about
So that they may taste something of what they have done
So that hopefully they will turn back
(30:40)

"But will we?"
'Rampant' society upsets natural order by Fazlun Khalid

Americans won't make any sacrifices. Americans are morbidly obese and suffering from an insatiable appetite for more of everything, and the Americans will not stop until they have thoroughly bankrupted the United States of America and destroyed the entire world.

Americans are busy destroying America's future. Americans are altogether more dangerous than the terrorists.


Posted by: David Mathews on February 9, 2007 08:13 PM
26. Hello Everyone,

For those unfamiliar with the bleak future of humankind, I have some bad news for you straight out of the Bible:

"When the Lamb broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, 'Come.' I looked and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth."
(Revelation 6:7-8)

Don't worry, though, because the Free Market, Science & Technology are sufficiently powerful to save humankind from God's judgment. God will look down from Heaven and say, "These primates have become more powerful than We."

God will find this experience most humbling. God isn't often defeated by His creation, but humankind has finally attained true godhood with our science & technology & free-market capitalism. God cannot humble us. Nature cannot stop us.

Once humans get done conquering the Earth we will climb the stars to Heaven itself. God Himself is too weak to stop us. Humans have become the gods of the Earth. Humans have become God.

The Earth is Heaven and Homo sapiens are the Earth's God. Aren't we the best? Things cannot help but get better all of the time.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 9, 2007 08:30 PM
27. When are those that scream bloody murder about the bogus "Separation of Church and State" going to keep their church of "Human Induced Climate Change" and it's deity AlGore to themselves?

Chanting about the evils of western society during worship to Climate Nonsense Network does not count as rational in my book. When are you self-flagellating guilt-trips going to understand that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS that warming (or cooling, 1974 Time) is man made, thus it is not a scientific fact. It doesn't take Einstein to understand that CO2 at 0.03% is a miniscule factor in heat retention compared to water vapor, and that the human component (other than breathing) is further dwarfed by terrestrial sources, and that the sun's periodic activity has magnitudes greater effect.

Keep your sermons on the subject to your own pulpit; don't try to change MY standard of living to that of Mexico (exempt from Kyoto); and try to get a hobby (David Mathews, Bruce, Eric et al) for your psychotic rants grow tiresome.

Oh, and Mr. Sims, this religion is NOT the 'defining issue of the 21st Century'; Global Jihadi Terror is, and you should stick to local issues that you know something about, like land-grabs, stolen-elections, tax-hikes and needle-exchanges.

Posted by: Ben Doverferon on February 9, 2007 08:51 PM
28. A postscript.

The term "greenhouses gases" is a complete phony moniker and should be dumped. Anyone who uses that term should include [sic] after mentioning it.

A greenhouse warms its interior by stilling airflow and trapping solar warmth.

It does not warm by endless re-reflection of longer and longer wavelengths at the glass-air interface.

The namesake of the phenomenon is not even correct.

And don't forget that the most important greenhouse "gas" is not even a gas. It is water "VAPOR". Water vapor accounts for at least 85% of the trapping of solar warmth.

And one more thing. Solar radiation, the source of all global warming, has varied by 15% during the pleistocene. Climate models don't incorporate that variable because until within the last two years there has been no method to track it in pre-history.

Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 9, 2007 09:18 PM
29. Yes, and Smoking doesn't cause cancer. Look at all those people who live to their 90s and smoke.

It's all a world wide conspiracy to destroy the American Tobacco Farmer! Thank you all! Your great scientific knowledge has open my eyes.

Posted by: JDB on February 9, 2007 09:41 PM
30. It's so sad to hear these enviros pining for mass extinction. Why don't you go first and spare your selves the horror of a couple degrees temperature rise? Those of us left behind will tend to your graves, your houses and your BMWs.

Posted by: Bill K. on February 9, 2007 11:05 PM
31. Hello Ben,

> Keep your sermons on the subject to your own pulpit; don't try to change MY standard of living to that of Mexico (exempt from Kyoto); and try to get a hobby (David Mathews, Bruce, Eric et al) for your psychotic rants grow tiresome.

Don't try to change MY standard of living to that of Mexico?

Americans are driven to lunacy by their selfishness, greed, and gluttony. What Ben fails to realize is that America's standard of living is not an entitlement. God has never guaranteed that Americans will remain fat & happy shoppers for the rest of eternity.

If Ben wants to avoid attaining Mexico's standard of living, he ought to devote some attention to America's staggering national debt and dual deficits (federal budget and trade).

Believe me, when that mountain of debt comes crashing down on Americans the American people will be lucky if they have Mexico's standard of living.

The present generation of Americans is unwilling to make any sacrifices for the sake of their own children and grandchildren. These Americans are wealthy at the expense of future generations of Americans.

Ben, do you love your grandchildren? Do you really want to leave a mess which will afflict them and all future generations of humankind for a thousand years?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 10, 2007 04:51 AM
32. Hello Bart,

> The term "greenhouses gases" is a complete phony moniker and should be dumped. Anyone who uses that term should include [sic] after mentioning it.

That's comforting. What's the weather like today, Bart? Is it warmer than yesterday?

I have a prediction for you, Bart: Over the next several months your neighborhood is going to warm up and get a little hot. But it is not global warming.

What is it, then?

Well, of course, it is called "Summer"!

Please keep us informed of your local weather conditions in order to confirm this scientific prediction. Thanks.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 10, 2007 04:56 AM
33. Bart,
Thanks a lot for posting all that information. I've been wondering for some time now how much humans are responsible for global warming. One number I could never find was the actual percent increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that is put there by humans. Is there an measurement of, not the amount we produce, but the amount we increase the percent of these gases in the atmosphere?

The other question is have climate scientists ever performed some type of lab experiment that can help confirm their computer modelling extrapolations, or is it based purely on equations used in their models?

Posted by: ba on February 10, 2007 07:15 AM
34. Hello ba,

> Thanks a lot for posting all that information. I've been wondering for some time now how much humans are responsible for global warming. One number I could never find was the actual percent increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that is put there by humans. Is there an measurement of, not the amount we produce, but the amount we increase the percent of these gases in the atmosphere?

> The other question is have climate scientists ever performed some type of lab experiment that can help confirm their computer modelling extrapolations, or is it based purely on equations used in their models?

Do we really need more evidence that the conservatives are ignorant, scientifically-illterate people regarding climate science?

Where is today's weather report? Won't someone in Seattle tell me how cold it is today?

I am waiting to hear some evidence that Seattle is warming. I predict that Seattle is going to warm over the next several months!

I call this theory "Seattle Warming" and believe that there is already substantial evidence (from past years) that it happens every year.

What's the temperature of Seattle today?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 10, 2007 07:46 AM
35. DM -

In your blind rush to argue, to argue anything (and everything) you missed Bart's point with the hardfrost stats.

Read slowly and think about this: he was not offering anecdotal evidence against "global warming" - he was demonstrating the complexity of climate data - down to "micro-climates" and the different data you can get from areas that very close geographically.

When you blow past the plain meaning of a post and blather on about your mis-reading you just sound like an idiot. You should be embarassed and offer an apology - but I'm guessing you won't.

I read your posts with an open mind and try to understand them - it's a courtesy you might extend to others as well.

Posted by: Stan on February 10, 2007 08:58 AM
36. He doesn't have an open mind, Stan. When his arguments collapse he simply goes to the liberal/moonbat playbook and resorts to insults:

"Do we really need more evidence that the conservatives are ignorant, scientifically-illterate people regarding climate science?"

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2007 09:35 AM
37. ERIC@1:

So come clean, Eric. Tell us where you did your post-graduate work in atmospheric science. Rather than cherry-picking anecdotes for our amusement, tell us unequivocally whether you think manmade climate change is real or not. Just yes or no will do. I, for one, would like to know whether you're justing having a laugh or whether you belong in the looney bin

Posted by: pbj on February 10, 2007 01:14 PM
38. ERIC,

Did you even STUDY science in college (other than "Poliotical Science")???

PLease provide us with your science degrees. List the major and any minorsaduated, date attended, gr and the institution which granted your degree.

Posted by: pbj on February 10, 2007 01:20 PM
39. You know the liberals really have something with this new "science" they have invented where you "predict" all possible outcomes and declare you are right about the "science" and use that to push your political agenda. So let me introduce my "Correlated Relationship of Atmoshperic Politics" a unifying theory of liberal politics and enviromental climate change.


The theory starts with the fact that liberals cannot get elected by espousing what they truly believe, so they must mask their intentions to the public and electorate in order to gain power to enact those liberal policies that would fail at the ballot box.

Research evidence has shown that liberals are ignorant, foul mouthed and hungry for power. They have little hope of convincing voters to vote for their anti-capitalist, anti-American agenda . Under CRAP theory, it is inevitable that living standard of Americans will head southward as the "solutions" to the global warming theory are implemented.


And of course every correct theory must be able to make accurate predictions. PBJ's Correlated Relationship of Atmoshperic Politics also has predicitons that offer "evidence" that this theory is in fact true. Prediction #1: The more media hype given to the liberal global warming theory, the more monies will flow into "research" grants to academic institutions, a liberal bastion. Prediction #2: The more media hype given to ignorant liberals with no scientific background whatsoever (such as Al Gore) who espouse the liberal global warming theory, the more "credible" such non-credible politicians will seem. The fact that such politicians as Al Gore once stood with Tobacco Farmers and told them he was "once of them" and a few years later used the the death of his sister from smoking to ingratiate himself with the crowd at the 1996 Democrat convention will be soon forgotten. No one will ever ask Al Gore where he did his post graduate work in atmospheric science. Prediction #3: Internationally, fake agreements such as Kyoto will be created and the US will be urged to sign on. Drastic measures that curb economic prosperity will be proposed in the name of preventing climat echange. Of course, as with KYOTO, none of the non US signatories will meet or even come close to meeting their obligations under the treaty but the US will be the only nation in which this will be an issue.

You will know the CRAP theory is true and accurate as it predicts the sun will shine somewhere in the world at least once a day, night will fall somewhere in the world at least once a day, somehwere in the world it will be hotter that somewhere else in the world, somewhere in the world it will be colder than somewhere else in the world and liberals will always lie, cheat or steal to grab power.

Posted by: pbj on February 10, 2007 01:48 PM
40. Here's a great article that explains, for those who don't already understand, why "Global Warming equals Socialism" It also helps to explain why lefties get mad as hell when we dare to question what they are attempting to portray as unquestioned scientific fact.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/6/155027.shtml

"Global warming" is nothing more than a dream come true for the left. As the article explains;

"For decades, environmentalism has been the Left's best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small.

"It's for Mother Earth! It's for the children! It's for the whales!"

As I mentioned earlier Gore, Hillary, Edwards and the rest of the left wing aristocracy don't really believe in "man-made global warming" for an instant. Otherwise they'd live in smaller homes, drive hybrids, and drastically cut down on thier air travel.


Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2007 02:00 PM
41. During the nineties, those who participated IPCC process who did not agree were winnowed out or their veiws expunged from the final "policy maker" versions of IPCC documents.

These same researchers, climatologists all, remain skeptical , not of whether we are experiencing a warming period, but of the mechanism behind it.

A model does NOT constitute proof as we are being told by our illustrious betters in the UN, Congress, Olympia, and King County. A computer model simply applies mathmatical approximations of assumptions. If thses assumptions are good, and if the mathmatical approximations are reasonably close to observed reality, then the model is considered to be a good one.

Every climate model I have had an oportunity to look at relies on the assumption (not proof) that the global increase in carbon dioxide concentrationsince the 18050's is the single most important factor for the average temperature differences observed between then and now in the Northern Hemisphere.

In some ways this assumption is not unreasonable. We see similar relationships elsewhere when we compare trends in one measurable phenomenon to trends in another. We know for example that incidents of lung cancer are higher in cigarette smokers than in non-smokers - and have reasonably concluded that smoking leads to lung cancer.

What we need to remember though is that this type of correlation between the trends of different measurements is not always a result of one causing the other as is assumed with the current version of global warming theory.

We don't know that aren't either, but we are not looking into other postential triggers. Why bother when there is a consensus.

Since the mid-1990's the vast majority of government funding into climate change has been funnelled into what might be called "What If" studies rather toward research that can actually support the prevailing theory.

This might be prudent if there was good supporting evidence, but without the supporting evidence, all this does is create certainty in the underlying theory when such certainty has no actual certainty.

It might even be a valid approach if the there were any real potential of catestrophic disruption of the planet. Only the worst of the "What If" scenarios predicts anything more drastic that a few degree difference in global average temperature over the next 100 years. Certainly nothing humanity, and most species, have not dealt with during the previous six such climate shifts over the last 1 million years.

I recently read the draft report on the scientific basis for the IPCC 2007 report to policy makers (the recent UN document giving 90%-plus certainty that man is causing global warming). Without getting into specifics (I doubt more than a couple readers would understand scientific standards), I can say that I was very dissappointed in how they summarily dismissed all contradictory evidence to their initial assumption of a causal relationship between human generated CO2 and warming.

I'm sure DM will find something in my post to criticise, but who cares. I neither crave his accepetance, believe he understands more than what his political betters feed him, or think even the truth matters to him much anyway.

Let me finish this with a reminder that:

1. There is evidence that the average global temperature, particularly in Siberia and in urbanized areas of North America and Europe, has risen by about 1.5 degrees since 1850.

2. There is a positive correlation between the temperature trend in (1) and measurments of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

3. There is consensus of of climate scientists about truth of statements (1) and (2).

4. There is a consensus among some UN appointed scientists, some US Federal and State government funded scientists (a few of whom are actually climate scientists, but most of whom are trained in some other field), a lot of self serving enviromental activists, and Democratic Party loyalists that (1) is casued by (2).

Posted by: deadwood on February 10, 2007 02:16 PM
42. pbj#39: "Research evidence has shown that liberals are ignorant, foul mouthed and hungry for power."

"Liberal: a power worshipper without power." --George Orwell.

And you KNOW how much liberals love to play the Orwell card.

Posted by: YourLifeIsMyFault on February 10, 2007 03:23 PM
43. Hello Stan,

> Read slowly and think about this: he was not offering anecdotal evidence against "global warming" - he was demonstrating the complexity of climate data - down to "micro-climates" and the different data you can get from areas that very close geographically.

Well, the climate certainly is complicated.

If that is what he was saying, I do agree. Wise man, there, noticing that the climate varies from one place to another.

But none of this information is relevant to the subject of climate change. The weather in Seattle is not relevant to the subject of climate change.

So what's the weather like in Seattle today? Down here in Florida it has cooled a little. Not cool enough for the heater, though.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 10, 2007 04:02 PM
44. Hello deadwood,

> I'm sure DM will find something in my post to criticise, but who cares. I neither crave his accepetance, believe he understands more than what his political betters feed him, or think even the truth matters to him much anyway.

The truth matters to me a whole bunch:

"I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."
(John 14:6)

Now was there anything in your comments that you wanted to argue about?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 10, 2007 04:08 PM
45. One does have to wonder, since David seems to enjoy the luxury of being able to post extraordinarily lengthy comments virtually around the clock. Is he being paid to do this?

If he is, what a waste of money.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2007 05:43 PM
46. deadwood,
You make me proud that in some tiny way (even reading your posts) that I'm associated with you. Data-driven, well-reasoned and 99% dogma-free. There can be solutions, IF there are acutally problems and IF the entire (pun intended) ecosystem of causality is considered.

Um David...in reference to every post you've graced us with on this topic, I'll share an equally ridiculous quote from an incredibly stupid movie...you should be able to relate.

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Go in peace...Serve AlGore...

Posted by: k2 on February 10, 2007 11:27 PM
47. Hello k2,

I cannot take the attempted insults of someone who praises deadwood seriously.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 11, 2007 04:42 AM
48. DM - I am curious, what are your scientific qualifications that allow you to be such a stalwart advocate of global warming? Do you have firsthand background and training in some scientific discipline to justify challenging others, or are you just a very persistent parrot?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 11, 2007 11:29 AM
49. Hello SouthernRoots,

> DM - I am curious, what are your scientific qualifications that allow you to be such a stalwart advocate of global warming? Do you have firsthand background and training in some scientific discipline to justify challenging others, or are you just a very persistent parrot?

I am an interested observer.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 11, 2007 05:44 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?