Seattle Times: "Below-freezing temperatures expected to last a week":
The potential record-breaking cold temperatures predicted to hit the Seattle area start today -- and now it looks like frigid temperatures might stick around for quite a while.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 14, 2008 09:24 AM | Email ThisThe Seattle area could be headed for the longest stretch of cold weather in nearly two decades, and one of the longest on record, said Jay Albrecht, a meteorologist for the National Weather Service.
You are not helping any of your arguments when you show such a complete lack of statistical knowledge suggesting a single event negates a trend.
It actually does more to harm your credibility on this and other topics than it does to advance your cause.
Simple (guess it needs to be) parallel: Ichiro goes hitless for 3 games. Guess he's a lousy hitter and the theory that he's a very good hitter is completely invalid.
Do yourself a favor and keep your idiocy out of your blogs. That is, if you care about convincing others to your way of thinking thorugh facts.
Posted by: Silly Stefan on December 14, 2008 09:25 AMGot it, gorebots?
Posted by: jimg on December 14, 2008 09:36 AMSo if the P-I is a pack of fools, it's OK for you to be fools, too? Works for me.
You lot are no more honest than Holocaust deniers. Weather does not equal climate, the earth is not flat, and it was not created in seven days.
Sorta like finding one Democrat that isn't corput (Assuming we could find one) doesn't mean the rest aren't?
Posted by: Andy Simon on December 14, 2008 10:21 AMBottom line: if the next 3 years show a decrease or no warming, then it can be said that the global climate change has recently shown cooling rather than warming and global warming is in the rear view mirror. As for right now, the jury is out.
Meanwhile the economy has not yet bottomed out, and in this time of deep recession it would be incredibly foolish to legislate carbon credits and carbon taxes for the benefit of the environmental frauds who are out to lobby governments all over the world - follow the money.
Posted by: KS on December 14, 2008 11:14 AMNo s**t Sherlock !
Posted by: KS on December 14, 2008 11:17 AM@10: No s**t... but apparently Stefan doesn't get it.
Posted by: demo kid on December 14, 2008 11:34 AMFrom there it was was pretty easy to find willing populist politicians to carry out their agenda of bringing our society back to the agrarian one they believe is better.
The natural conditions that brought about the rise in temperatures during the 80's and 90's stopped and we have had a reversal now for the past 10 years. Without them it is much harder to convince the great majority of people that the core Luddite beliefs are real.
This week's cold snap may be "just weather" as the screaming acolytes above rightly point out, but for the last several years such weather is becoming more and more common throughout the world.
That is what is defined as climate - long term trends in weather.
The adherents of the great AGW prophet Algore (May Gaia bless His Name) will not acknowledge the truth and are becoming more and more shrill as the weather and climate refuse to follow the script. Expect them to get even shriller when their erstwhile allies in the unions refuse to sacrifice their jobs to Gaia's altar in the next few years.
Before it gets better it will get much worse though. With Waxman and Obama running the economy we will see a cap and trade bill pass this coming year. What remains of the auto industry will collapse as will the energy sector. And expect taxes and costs (fuel and cars) to go nuts.
This mess will change the recession into a deep depression. Unions need working members to pay the salaries of their executives, so expect some reaction.
But all is not lost. This is what will be needed to reverse our direction. The once great middle class will switch direction and punish the Luddites with a generation of conservative, anti-warmist, governments.
The bad part of that will be the loss of trust in science, which has acquiesced to the AGW religion and allowed 200 years of progress to be sacrificed to the false gods of global warming.
Posted by: deadwood on December 14, 2008 11:38 AMAnd don't tell us that 'scientists have reached a consensus'. Science aint solved by democratic vote. The only consensus is that scientists agree that fat grants are available from politicians who already believe in global warming, and none are available to heretics who challenge the bribed studies.
But you true believers now have one of the few remaining chances to enjoy some cold weather, if your beliefs are right. So run outside and play before the permanent heat wave seizes control.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 14, 2008 11:49 AMDer. The Earth's been here 4.6 billion years and climate change has been going on the entire time.
Take it up with your fellow liberal alarmists who insist man is going to bring the end of days.
Posted by: jimg on December 14, 2008 12:08 PMYeah I believe in warming all right.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 14, 2008 12:17 PMTypical right-wing moron: junk science = science that doesn't support a right-wing view of the world.
@13: Those who take it on faith that global warming is inexorably in charge of CLIMATE, do tell us why the earth has gone through many cycles of climate both warmer and colder than the present, long before the Industrial Revolution. Give us some evidence.
"Faith" is someone who believes that things will stay the same, regardless of evidence otherwise. "Science" has suggested that global warming exists. In time, the paradigm may shift, and new theories may be proposed that explain the data. However, global warming deniers seem willing to wring whatever conclusions they like from data favorable to their cause, while completely disregarding everything else.
@15: Yet again, you've proven that conservatives just care about themselves, and would turn the entire planet into a blasted cinder to prove it. I mean, society "controls" me when I'm forced to drive on the right side of the road... does that mean that I should have the right to drive on the left if I feel like it?
Posted by: demo kid on December 14, 2008 12:24 PMBoy just like Cato I get to smack you too.
Can you PROVE that GW exists? Nope.. all of the trends that the UN panel uses is based on computer models that SO FAR have failed!
Anyone with even a small understanding of computers, knows that what ever info you put is what the system will put out! WOW like excell!
Let's see how about them high temps (nope) How about the oceans rising? (nope)
The best part of all, as a few good people go to these sites that measure ground temps, we lean that many are in areas that have a "huge" effect on temps. Like, say parking lots, top of buildings, next to air cond units... and on & on.
How has questioning 'global warming' "proven that conservatives just care about themselves, and would turn the entire planet into a blasted cinder to prove it." And whatever does questioning global warming have to do with driving?
Tens of thousands of scientists, including the founder of the Weather Channel also question and/or disagree with Algore's false (and highly profitable) religion.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 14, 2008 12:48 PM"I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly....As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 14, 2008 12:54 PMIt is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
Glad those quotation marks are there to reveal the fakery behind the label. There are numbers of real scientists who have real arguments against the politics-driven movement which demands elite control over human economics, in return for a mere promise of one degree's smaller temperature increase next century.
Given the disproportionate number of grants issued to those scientists who genuflect before that politics-driven movement, I'm betting on the skeptics for real information.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 14, 2008 01:03 PMThe orthodoxy has been that as a consequence of greenhouse gas emissions global temperatures will continue to increase. But what is really meant by global temperatures? According to James Hansen from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies even defining surface air temperature is not easy:
"I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question [of what is surface air temperature]. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location."
SORRY FOR THE LONG POST, But I think you get the point.
... For many on the left, environmentalism has become a religion, no real surprise there. But the reason for the need of some religion, any religion, to fill the spiritual void on the left is rarely discussed. This article will examine some of the implications, and complications, of the new green creed -- which is, in fact, an ancient creed. It was once called "paganism."
Even atheists are religious. They have a dogma (God does not exist) and they have a vast number of rituals. (Most of their rituals involve lawsuits over the use of the term "God.") They have multiple proselytizing websites. They even have a church. ...
Likewise environmentalism. Seen as a religion, environmentalism is Judaeo-Christianity turned on its Hegelian head. Traditionally religion posits an all-powerful God that saves a sinful humanity from itself through the intervention of a human clergy.
In environmentalism, an all-wise clergy, composed of government bureaucrats and "scientists," saves the planet from a sinful humanity. In the green religion human beings are both God and the devil. We are righteous when we act in conformity with the establishment's dogma -- and we are evil if we question it.
...The church of environmentalism has a long list of litanies and a parcel of penances for the faithful to perform as part of their daily ritual (cleverly termed "lifestyle"). ...
... The church even has indulgences. The worshippers call them "carbon credits." ...
... Most of the very early agrarian religions were centered on "worshipping" or otherwise influencing the climate. Their gods and their sacrifices were weather related. What really mattered to these folks was a successful harvest, for without a bounteous yield of crops the afterlife would come ... and come quickly. ...
... The only thing that differentiates the modern environmentalist from the ancient pagan is that the environmentalist believes that the government is the god who can fix the weather. ...
... Al Gore has famously claimed about global warming, "the debate in the scientific community is over." Al Gore may be many things to many people -- but he is not a scientist.
When a layman declares a scientific debate to be over, one of three things is possible:[iii] (1) the person is a prophet; (2) the person is ignorant and should be ignored by rational human beings; or (3) the person is insane and needs medical treatment.
It follows that someone who believes the layman's assertion is (1) a religious follower of the prophet, (2) someone whose need for a "moral" issue exceeds his or her capacity to reason, or (3) someone at least as delusional as the person making the claim.
AMEN to that.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2008 01:16 PMOne of the biggest lies about the left. Say Al Bore and Hollywood. They live in huge homes(ranches), fast cars, monster boats and yet tell all of us that were killing the earth.
I wonder, why hasn't the left gone after Brad Pit and his wife, Look at all these kids they have.
Mommy earth is dying don't you know. Talk about TWO faced.
Come on lefties, let's see your harsh words.
I hear nothing. LOL
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 14, 2008 01:26 PMDeadwood @ #12 makes some good comments; also Medic/Vet, Ragnar, and a few others (the moonbats really are in full cry on this, aren't they). Let's further stipulate that all else being close to equal, the higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature will be. But of course all else is NOT equal, not even close. While 10 years is still a small sample, as Deadwood perceptively pointed out the slow steady rise in world-wide temp started leveling off and has been statistically flat since 1998. If you care to follow details wattsupwiththat.com by Anthony Watts is a great place to start.
If anybody wants even more, there are 4 sites globally recognized and accepted as the leading sources of world-wide average temp data:
HadCRUT, GISS, UAH, and RSS. See:
hadobs.metoffice.com/
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/
www.remss.com/
By far the best objective scientific paper I have seen so far is a 43-page technical document put out by Deseret Power in Utah titled ''A Rational Look at Climate Change Concerns''. It is based in considerable part on the IPCC's OWN DATA. Just a couple snippets:
1.. The IPCC has reached a well-publicized conclusion that climate change will result in a 3 degree C temp increase by 2100. The actual forecast is a RANGE between 2 and 4.5 deg. C, with 3 deg. C being the ''most likely''. Most people still incorrectly assume that 3 deg. C is measured from now; or at least from only a short time ago. NOT SO: The IPCC-selected ''pre-industrial'' base year is 1750 (at the tail-end of the ''Little Ice Age'' in Europe), and as of 2008 a warming of 0.75 deg. C has already occurred. So even IF the IPCC was correct in all respects, we can expect a ''center-point'' additional rise of 2.25 deg. C by the end of the century; which is when the atmospheric CO2 concentration is projected to double at about 550 PPM.
2.. Here is the real kicker; that will absolutely drive the climate-change moonbats stark-raving nuts:
Using largely the IPCCs own data, the Deseret Power paper works out the technical equations and demonstrates that:
[a] Even if the entire U.S. electric power generation sector were COMPLETELY carbon-emission free (i.e.: All coal-fired and natural-gas plants emitted ZERO CO2) until 2100, the reduction in average global temp rise over the next 100 years would be (wait for it):
0.07 degrees C. THAT'S RIGHT: A reduction of only SEVEN-ONE-HUNDRETHS of one degree C.
[b] Take [a] above to it's ulitmate: Assume that ALL CO2 emissions from every carbon-emitting source in the entire United State was completely eliminated between now and 2100. The calculations in that case give us a reduction of:
0.21 degrees C.
Remember: The above are in comparison to the projected remaining 2.25 out of 3.0 degrees C. temp rise by 2100. So even IF 2..[a] and 2..[b] above were possible (of course not), if the rest of the world continues to happily emit CO2 (which China, India, and others are guaranteed to do for some time), we could (perhaps) reduce the world-wide temp rise by 2100 by about ONE part out of 30 (for just the power sector), or by about ONE part out of 10 (for all U.S. CO2 emissions).
3.. Proper graphing and analysis of world-wide temp versus CO2 concentrations over the last 650,000 years (note the IPCC data AGREES) shows that on the average the CO2 curve LAGS the temp curve by 800 years. To say over that long 650,000 year period that CO2 causes temp increases is like saying that lung cancer causes smoking.
SIDEBAR: Look up the Scholastic Reader scandal in this area (somebody should have gone to jail):
Instead of putting CO2 PPM and temp on different graphs to obscure the fact that temp has lead CO2 PPM like Al Gore did in his ''Inconvenient Truth'', the educational frauds at Scholastic Reader tried putting the data on the SAME graph (so far so good). BUT: That of course highlighted that temp increases have generally lead CO2 increases for the last many millenia. So what did the people at Scholastic Reader do ??.. They just INVERTED the graph legend, so that attentive kids would not notice that temp went up BEFORE CO2 most of the time. And what did the S.R. people say, when their deliberate lie was caught by Dr. Willie Soon of Harvard ??:
They didn't want their young readers to ''Get the wrong idea''. Like I said: They should be in jail; Joseph Gobbels and Stalin would be proud.
Anyway: This Deseret Power paper is packed with 43 pages of well-referenced facts, statistics, exposes, and objective scientific analysis like the above. Too bad it's only available in hard-copy (at least for now they decided to NOT make it available electronically). I gave one to my State Senator; and have enough for a few more Legislators and members of Congress. Unless they sell out, I believe they are still available for $5 a copy in boxes of 75, plus shipping and handling. Too bad we can't force every member of the Legislature and every member of Congress to not just read but study this entire document; before they push us off the climate-change cliff (and drive a whole bunch more industries overseas to cheap power; where they will emit a whole bunch more CO2 than here (but of course the moonbats don't want to be bothered by a long list of inconventient facts like that) ).
Oh; yeah: Back on Stephen's initial thread start:
You think it's gonna be cold over in Puget Sound ??:
Latest NWS point forecast for Winthrop for Monday night is 13 degrees F BELOW zero. Add wind chill and we're looking for 21 deg. F below zero.
But even that pales in comparison with the forecast for the old family homestead back in northern ND, where (as we used to say) the only thing between us and the North Pole is a barbed wire fence:
At least as of a little while ago NWS forecast for Monday night was 30 deg. BELOW zero F still air temp; add a strong north wind and looks like we'll be down to between 55-60 deg. below zero. chill factor.
SIDEBAR to people who have never been to cold country: You have NO IDEA what it feels like to be outside when the chill factor is is 55-60 deg. F below zero.
See www.crh.noaa.gov/bis/ if you don't believe me, and click up a point forecast for along the northern border.
1) What is the largest "Greenhouse Gas" by weight or volume?
2) Please explain: How could a gas which is a necessary byproduct of the chemical process
that is the basis of almost all life on Earth be a pollutant?
Chirping crickets?
In the middle of the day???
In WINTER??
Question 3: Do those same chirping crickets bear any responsibility for the pollutant referenced in question 2??
The UN used 1750 as a start date.
O-God I need a BIG DRINK!!!!
LOL.
Hey Rags, can you make it JD please. Tall one.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 14, 2008 01:39 PMRemoving snow from my driveway is a bear. )-:
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 14, 2008 01:52 PMAre you seriously stupid? I don't know how many times I need to explain this to you morons. Weather DOES NOT equal climate. This is just as incorrect as assuming that a heatwave is "caused" by global warming.
Climate = weather over time. In mathematical terms, climate is the integral of weather over a typical 5+ year timeframe.
Conversely, weather is the differential of climate over a short term (such as 1 week to 1 month).
Climate IS highly related to weather, and if the weather takes a change for the cooler (like it did this year), then the climate starts to trend downwards since the moving average now includes a cooler year.
Apparently you don't quite understand this relationship, so you feel the need to spout the completely erroneous "weather is NOT climate!" mantra of the Church of Algore (with Mann as high priest).
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 14, 2008 02:10 PMBurrrrr...
Posted by: Michele on December 14, 2008 02:11 PM"Global warming" began to fall apart as a religion when the adherents of 'anthropogenic' global warming had to change the label and start calling it 'climate change.' That's not how it started out, was it, folks?
Posted by: Michele on December 14, 2008 02:18 PM> Back on Stephen's initial thread start:
''Stefan'', not ''Stephan'', of course.
I knew that: Mentioning the old family homestead in ND is associated with my cousin Stephan, who farmed there for 35 years.
Sorry about the mental transposition.
DO, you have a LARGE bottle?
Need to stay warm ya know... Being it's global cooling these days.
Thanks, you made me laugh!
P.S. Has anyone noticed, it's been snowing in London! WOW
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 14, 2008 02:40 PMMore here: click
Posted by: Smoley on December 14, 2008 04:47 PMThe idea that we will cure the recession by subsidizing green collar jobs is economic madness. Our jobs will go to Inda and China because our electricity, natural gas and petroleum products will be too expensive to compete and the asians who take our jobs will laugh at us and say we are fools (and they will be right.)
Posted by: KW64 on December 14, 2008 05:42 PMugh
Posted by: Andrew Brown on December 14, 2008 06:08 PMA lake Monster???
You been drinking Obi-wan JD again. LOL
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 14, 2008 08:14 PM"The U.N. global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and Al Gore".
A U.S. Senate minority report comes out this week featuring over 650 dissenting international scientist voices, MANY CURRENT AND FORMER UN IPCC SCIENTISTS, WHO HAVE NOW TURNED AGAINST THE U.N.
Check out these damning quotes:
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in history..when people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." UN IPCC Japanese scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, awarding-winning Phd environmental physical chemist
"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. IT DOESN'T HAVE OPEN MINDS (my caps)...I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize HAS BEEN GIVEN ON SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS BY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT GEOLOGISTS." (my caps)-- Indian geologist Dr. Arun Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." --Geoffry Duffy, a prof in the dept. of Chemicals and Materials Engineering at U of Aukland, NZ
"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on"?--Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the Science Committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress. Currently at Uppsala U in Sweden.
"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense...the present alarm on climate change IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SOCIAL CONTROL (my caps)..It became an ideology, which is concerning." --Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, Founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast Group, and has over 150 published articles
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. EVERY SCIENTIST KNOWS THIS, BUT IT DOESN'T PAY TO SAY SO (my caps)...Global warming, as a poltical vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot."--Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, Vice-Chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology research, Chubu Univ. in Japan
"The (global warming) scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds."--Award-winning paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires, and Head of the Paleontology Dept. at University of La Plata.
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization NOR RECEIVING ANY FUNDING, I CAN SPEAK QUITE FRANKLY (my caps)...As a scientist I remain skeptical."--Atmospheric Scientist Joanne Simpson, formerly with NASA and who has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."
"Settled" science? Oh, I don't think so. Not by a long shot. These highly qualifed scientists aren't buying it. The wheels are coming off the religion of global warming....
The simple experiment that anyone can do is to go to a place where the ocean is warm. Say Hawaii. Wade in to the water at noon with a thermometer. Check the water temp. Then take the thermometer out of the water, dry off the thermometer and check the air temp. Now do the same at midnight.
The ocean temperature will not have changed, yet the air temperature will most likely have dropped significantly. Why? Because the specific heat (or heat capacity) of air is about four times less than that of water, and the volume of the atmosphere is about .084 that of the earth's oceans. The Pacific Ocean is very hard to change given its immense size. It literally dwarfs the volume of earth's atmosphere.
Also note that humid air stays warmer at night than dry air. Why? Because it contains water, and water's ability to retain heat is four times greater than air.
CO2 is a tiny component, of the atmosphere, which is in turn a tiny component with respect to specific heat capacity compared with the oceans.
The oceans, and the Sun that warms them are THE drivers of our climate, not CO2 and not man. This is the reality. AGW folks will deny all of this to sell their political agenda. But, year in and year out over the next several years it will get colder, just like it has for the last eight years. We can look at the ocean temps, and the lack of sun spots indicating a solar minimum, and at history to know what is coming. It's getting colder, not warmer.
The lies can only continue for so long before everyone stops believing their BS.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 14, 2008 09:38 PMStefan has already said in many a post that a single event does not dissprove global warming. He does these posts to bring you out of the woodwork so that you will ridicule his picking a single event in an attempt to show the hypocrisy that you on the left use every spring and summer when a single weather event (such as the trees blloming earlier than normal or a single say of record heat) claim proves the existence of global warming....LOL they all fell for it once again. Keep it up Stefan I love it!
Posted by: TrueSoldier on December 14, 2008 10:13 PMHow long can those with a vested political and/or financial interest continue to push the ''climate crises'' drug, before enough of the general public wakes up, goes cold-turkey, turns on the pushers, and puts the brakes on the runaway train of ill-advised and destructive ''climage change'' legislation at both the State and Federal level ??
Hopefully before too much permanent damage is done.
In any case: We are as Jeff B. also alluded to starting to see some pretty specific near-term data points looming, that will be hard for the AGW pushers to hide if they happen. Just a couple:
1.. Al Gore is now recorded on videotape predicting that the entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years. Clock is running, and time will expire by 2014.
SIDEBAR: See again wattsupwiththat.com home page, for yet another just-posted major piece titled ''Global Sea Ice Trend Since 1979 - surprising''.
2.. Even though it is still a fairly small sample, if the downward trend of world-wide temps continues essentially uninterrupted for another 5 years on top of the 10 years that have already elapsed since temps and CO2 PPM diverged in 1998, then this question will become harder and harder for the AGW faithful to ignore:
''If 15 years of temp and CO2 divergence is not enough to cause a fundamental review of ''climate change'' perspectives, then exactly how many years IS long enough ??''.
HINT: No way the answer is 100 years; not even 40.
Meanwhile:
Solar cycle 24 is still getting off to a very delayed start. 3rd one this year. IIRC it's a long time since that happened.
Yup: Looks like another long, cold winter is on the way. . . .
The science behind global warming is notoriously weak. Much has been made of computer models that predict disaster in the years ahead. Computer models are only as good as the data that is fed into it and how closely the model corresponds to the facts in the real world. Time and again much data has been exposed as flawed, for example the latest temperature data from Siberia. And how well the models correspond to reality is anybody's guess since our knowledge of climate science is inexact to say the least. The predictions of the warmists have been little better than chance. A glacier may recede in one part of the world and may advance elsewhere. The Artic ice may diminish slightly but increase in the Antarctic. The temperature may rise in one part of the world and fall in another part. The warming and cooling of the earth, the rise and fall of the oceans and variation in CO2 levels have occurred for eons without the intervention of man.
The claim that the science of global warming has been "settled" is one of the hallmarks of the politicization of science which should send a chill down the spine of any genuine scientist. The actions of James Hansen and Heidi Cullen are indistinguishable from those tame scientists of Stalin's Soviet Russia that called the imprisonment of scientists that disapproved of the official state science of Lysenko. The Global Warming pseudoscience is overwhelming supported by the left and the environmental movement as a power grab of the likes which we have never seen. With Obama as President the anti-industrial revolution is about to begin.
I try to be polite but I'm certainly not afraid to call a liberal a liberal. I am sure as heck not upset if someone calls me a conservative. I've been called a "religious zealot" more than once on this very blog. I take it in stride but liberals are different, and very thin skinned at least in my observation. I had a long political discussion recently with an old liberal friend. It was friendly for the most part but when he got frustrated suddenly he began raging about "the shrinking polar ice caps". Once you get to that point it's kind of difficult to have any sort of reasonable discussion.
And don't ever say, "I told you at the time you were full of crap". They might snap.
The next step would be to dress the group in formal tuxedos and gowns, and to engage the services of several polished black Hummers.
And the next would be for the group to alert the media (mainstream AND Pajamas), and to drive in a caravan through a snowstorm to the residence of one Albert Gore, and, cameras rolling, to solemnly nail said parchment to his front door in the manner of Martin Luther. And then to hold a press conference and explain their 95 scientific theses to the world at large.
The MSM and other leftie organs like the UN would immediately excommunicate them. But ve haff vays of bringing ze news to ze people by other means. And so ve may brink enlightenments and rejuvenations to the browbeaten multitudes, and end the monopoly of the corrupt sermons by the MSM, the IPCC, the grant-bribed 'scientists' and the Sierra Club.
Not ever.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 15, 2008 10:01 AMIf you are old enough Acid Brain, and I imagine that you are not, you might remember a world where people heated their homes with coal, or wood. Look at old photos of almost city and you might notice a pall of smoke hanging over the scene.
Now cities are heated via either oil, natural gas, or hydroelectric power,(which leftists oppose despite the twin benefits of irrigation and power generation).
Grow up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 15, 2008 11:27 AM
What does it take to ignore ten years of global cooling, sharply declining temperatures the last couple of years, a record-setting lack of sunspots, the flipping of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation into its cool mode, the failure of computer models to predict real climate, the predictable warming and cooling climates for the past 500 years, etc.?
Answer? Gullible lefty trolls like Demo Kid, Ivan, Acid, Cato, etc.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 15, 2008 12:27 PMI don't need to be any older to have seen solid fuel heating and cooking, my aunt and uncle had a coal stove in their 1900s farm house into the late 1980s. Those old coal and wood stoves were huge quality of life improvements in their day.
Hydroelectric power is great as long as it's not built stupidly like too much of it is. There is no contemporary technological reason to destroy fisheries to generate power, and the damaged ecosystems need to be restored for their caloric value, nevermind sentimental reasons. Same for nukes, gas, and coal. Just because these solutions were good tech for the time they were built doesn't mean they are good tech for all time. There is just no compelling reason not to improve with each generation. I don't think my older relatives ever looked back wistfully when they switched to cleaner and more efficient technologies (though they laughed about it a lot), why should we? I'm sure getting rid of that old stove and boiler was expensive, but they didn't want it back once it was replaced.
We take a lot of innovations for granted now, and those changes have been fought and ridiculed every step of the way by people who fear change and those who have a financial stake in things not changing. What is happening today is an extension of the same social phenomenon, it's only partisan because a few powerful fools do whatever they can to make sure it gets reduced to that. It is a sad thing that voices of conservative leadership in this arena dangle so far out on the fringes of reason. It is even more sad that they are still influencing this conversation.
Posted by: Acid Brain on December 15, 2008 12:55 PMGuess who's all over their site. Posting like the fool that he is. Yes friends David M from FL.
Every 2 post is him. This nut must store up his writings for weeks and then spew at once.
What a child.
PS, he's a big LIB to.
PS... Acid fool. Many of these dams were built by who?
FDR, your hero!
Thanks Al. You always are good for some fat ...er, tremendous chuckles.
Scientists Denounce AP For Hysterical Global Warming Article
The answer is really quite simple--just follow the money! - Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, U.S.
AP freaking out over global "warming" apocalypse
Uh...oooooooooo-kay then. The world is cooling because it is...warming? That's like saying that Michael Moore [or Al!] is thinning because he's getting fatter.
Warmist hysteria intensifies as temperatures plunge (updated)
Fortunately, as the overheated predictions of both alarmists like Borenstein and agenda-driven agencies like the IPCC fail to meet observed cold reality, this hoax may finally be singing its swan-song.
Colder Weather Proves the Earth is Warming!
He starts off with the counter-factual assertion that recent years have been the hottest, proceeds to quote experts (including Al Gore) predicting imminent disaster, and caps it all off with the completely unsubstantiated contention that colder weather, too, proves that global warming is underway. What can his editor possibly be thinking to let this kind of obvious stupidity into print?
Environmental "Chicken Littles" have come home to roost at the AP
Amazing thing, that Global Warming. When the Earth warms, it's Global Warming. When the Earth cools, it's Global Warming. Place your bets on Global Warming, and you'll come out a winner every time.
Want to see a half million square kilometers of Arctic ice disappear overnight?
Despite all their promise, green companies are awash in red ink.
Alternative energy ventures have received a lot of great press, heavy investment and lip service from politicians in the last couple of years, but many of the nascent green industry's balance sheets are beginning to bleed red.
To be so ignorant as to be unable to comprehend the vast benefits of those dams is beyond me.
If you go far enough to the left you wander into the territory many of the trolls here inhabit. The absolute fear of any sort of progress.
These simpletons can't even comprehend that the metal from the cars they drive or the bus they take came from (gasp!) a mine! The plastic from the keyboard they spew their leftist tripe came from (gasp!) oil!
My suggestion for these pathetic dimwits? Do what your nutjob parents did and go live in a commune somewhere. You'll soon enough long for the benefits of what us evil capitalists have given you.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 15, 2008 01:33 PMOnly 156 electric cars were sold from January to October, compared with 374 for the same period last year...
... There are about 1,100 all-electric cars currently on British roads -- 0.004 per cent of the total. Most are owned by Londoners and are quadricycles, not fully type-approved cars.
Quadricycles.
Is that like a riding mower... but with a roof?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 15, 2008 02:09 PMPerhaps doing a bit of critical thinking about how it is possible at all to have a ring through your nose might be in order. Hint, you dumb lefties...The metal in the ring had to be mined using big nasty machines, then it had to be trucked or flown using evil petroleum products to wherever it was smelted down using more evil petroleum products. Finally it was formed into that stupid ring you have in your nose and transported...using even more evil petroleum products to the oh so politically correct little shop on capitol hill where you got it stuck into your nose.
Thinking about all that might just be too much for most for you trolls. The truth hurts.
I agree entirely. Those poor goofies on the left haven't got the slightest clue how things work in the real world.
Most of them haven't had to work outside of academia, journalism, or the legal profession. It isn't exactly a big surprise that nearly every Democratic politician is a lawyer. These people haven't a clue about commerce, or business. The country wasn't built on the backs of attorneys. It was built on the backs of those "evil capitalists" that actually did things.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 15, 2008 02:41 PMOh and what is Caroline's profession? I'll leave it to the readers to guess.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 15, 2008 02:51 PMIt's obvious that the amazing ecological damage we all are doing can't be repaired through renewables alone, nor do I or any other reasonable person imply it can be. Renewables are a part of a whole, not a replacement. The idea that nukes, coal, gas, and hydro can't and shouldn't be done cleaner and better is not just wrong it's silly. All of them should be used to the best of our abilities. Further, efficiencies need to be taken to the extreme (eg. Energy Star). Who the heck wants to pay the bills for old technology except for collectors? No brainer.
So, if you think you can prevail with simple sticks and stones, feel free to repeat history instead of live for the future. Me, I'll just go back to the stove to point out that there's a simple reason you need to filter and vent exhaust when you burn things - if you let it concentrate in the house it will make you sick or kill you. And Nature is one big kitchen, dontcha know.
Posted by: Acid Brain on December 15, 2008 03:03 PMI do have to say though that I enjoy it when they go looney.
It's certainly confirming.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 15, 2008 03:13 PMWe don't have to make this stuff up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 15, 2008 03:19 PMI'll just let that speak for itself. Does anything more need to be said?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 15, 2008 04:10 PM"though if were solely a partisan thing it would probably be more expedient to dispatch quaint obstructive notions."
Nobody actually talks like that in the real world.
Do they?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 15, 2008 04:38 PM... He is a college instructor in one of the nation's largest higher education systems. She is a real estate broker in one of the nation's most turbulent markets.
He will be lucky to clear ...
Read it yourself... it's an interesting comparison and quite an illustrative tale.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 15, 2008 04:46 PMLiberals love to look down their noses at anyone who isn't part of their ivy league "we always vacation in europe" snotty lifestyle.
They can't stand the "little people" such as plumbers, construction workers, or the people that wait on them when they go out for sushi.
I have to say just from personal experience that liberals in general are not particularly pleasant, tend to be tightwads, and are lousy tippers.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 15, 2008 05:05 PMThe stupid part is that the AP and others are saying that this is proof of global warming. Before you ask how long people are going to believe it, consider the last election, as well as the popularity of professional wrestling.
Never under estimate the gullibility of the general public.
Posted by: Handy Randy on December 15, 2008 05:36 PMThat way these crooks have it covered whether we have a new ice age, or an onset of desert climate.
Yes the population is very gullible, and the liberal media and educational complex loves it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 15, 2008 05:45 PMThe public education system has done its job for the left - it has turned out enough young adults who do not understand critical thinking to advance the progressive leftist agenda - thanks to the despicable progressive narcissists who run the NEA. That is why America is now has fallen to the lower third of developed countries when it comes to science and math - the public education system sucks with a vengence. Thanks for screwing yourselves along with the rest of us.
Posted by: KS on December 15, 2008 09:30 PMI think it's funny when people say Algores movie proves anything because I think just about all if not every single assertion he makes in the movie has been proven false or at least unproven. Not only that, but SO MUCH of Inconvienient Truth is out and out lies it's astonishing that anyone is so uninformed as to quote it as any kind of serious source.
What I find worrisome about the global warming hoax is that as data comes out indicating we are actually in a cooling phase, and people like Gore are out there making millions selling carbon credits, (which would be worthless in a global cooling scenario), the cooling data will be ignored and the world leaders will keep skipping down the warming trail to our peril. As the GW alarmists have rigged it, there is no data that will be attributed to anything BUT WARMING! If it gets cold, it's global warming. If it gets warmer, it's warming. If nothing changes, it's still warming but it's being "masked" by something else...bla bla bla. Gimmie a break! This is just a bunch of people who are INVESTED in warming and nothing short of another ICE AGE is going to convince them otherwise. And no matter how many times they say "the debate is over, the data is unquestionable" that will just make them and their motives more suspect.
There will always be those who want to sign away their rights for any wild idea that comes along. I wish those people would GO TO A COUNTRY that believes like they do and leave my rights alone.
Posted by: scott on December 15, 2008 09:44 PMhttp://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/arctic-sea-ice-47121205
Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace
"The record melting of Arctic sea ice observed this summer and fall led to record-low levels of ice in both September and October, but a record-setting pace of re-freezing in November, according to the NASA Earth Observatory. Some 58,000 square miles of ice formed per day for 10 days in late October and early November, a new record."
Posted by: John Bailo on December 15, 2008 11:09 PMit is going to prove very confusing to the global warming industry when this issue can no longer be about George W. Bush.
A nuclear power renaissance is going on outside our borders, pioneered by companies that never were or are no longer American.
If anyone is in denial, it's those who still believe in global warming.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 16, 2008 11:35 AM
These things are central underpinnings of their religion.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 16, 2008 03:24 PMWhich they brag NOT to have.
Liberals are so confusing... and confused.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 17, 2008 12:00 AMhttp://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx
Wouldn't it be funny if CNN started moving to the right? If they were interested in making money they would. But if Ted Turner (how could someone so successful be so dumb?) has anything to do with CNN, it's hopeless.
Posted by: scott on December 18, 2008 10:41 PM