George Will’s Climate Change Column, Part 3

Science • Views: 7,782

Time for the next round in the controversy over George Will’s recent column for the Washington Post on climate change, and results reported/disputed by the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center. Here’s the relevant section from Will’s new column:

As for the anonymous scientists’ unspecified claims about the column’s supposedly myriad inaccuracies: The column contained many factual assertions but only one has been challenged. The challenge is mistaken.

Citing data from the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, as interpreted on Jan. 1 by Daily Tech, a technology and science news blog, the column said that since September “the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began.” According to the center, global sea ice levels at the end of 2008 were “near or slightly lower than” those of 1979. The center generally does not make its statistics available, but in a Jan. 12 statement the center confirmed that global sea ice levels were within a difference of less than 3 percent of the 1980 level.

So the column accurately reported what the center had reported. But on Feb. 15, the Sunday the column appeared, the center, then receiving many e-mail inquiries, issued a statement saying “we do not know where George Will is getting his information.” The answer was: From the center, via Daily Tech. Consult the center’s Web site where, on Jan. 12, the center posted the confirmation of the data that this column subsequently reported accurately.

Carl Zimmer responds at his Discover blog The Loom: Unchecked Ice: A Saga in Five Chapters.

In his column today for the Washington Post, he has returned to global warming, and to his own previous column on the subject.

“The column contained many factual assertions but only one has been challenged,” he claimed. “The challenge is mistaken.”

The challenge he’s referring to is about the ice. Will does not mention the many other challenges that have been laid out. But let’s leave them aside. Life is short. What does Will have to say now about the ice?

He now says his previous column was “citing data from the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, as interpreted on Jan. 1 by Daily Tech, a technology and science news blog.”

Citing data as interpreted by a blog… That’s some fine reporting. Neither George Will nor his employees did any more research than look at a blog. Now, blogs can be wonderful, but would it have been really so hard for Will and Co. to drop a note to the scientists themselves to do their own research? Pick up the phone? Apparently not.

Will then uses that same January statement from the scientists in response to that blog post as evidence that he was right.

But on Feb. 15, the Sunday the column appeared, the center, then receiving many e-mail inquiries, issued a statement saying ‘we do not know where George Will is getting his information.’ The answer was: From the center, via Daily Tech. Consult the center’s Web site where, on Jan. 12, the center posted the confirmation of the data () that this column subsequently reported accurately.

See anything missing here? How about the fact that by the time Will published his column, there was a lot less ice than there was 30 years ago? How about the point made in that same statement Will prizes so greatly that global ice is a red herring?

There’s more, because the incorrect satellite data pointed out by many LGF readers has since been cross-checked with other sources, correlated, and corrected.

Jump to bottom

243 comments
1 Hengineer  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:10:54pm

Oh so this is Obama’s Change

2 Golem Akbar  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:12:40pm

Proof that even smart people can be taken in.

3 dentate  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:13:49pm

Where there’s a Will there’s a way…but it involves some pretty tortured logic.

4 Peacekeeper  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:14:19pm

Wait
Citing data as interpreted by a blog… That’s some fine reporting
Aguy with a blog slams blogs?

5 DaddyG  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:14:54pm

Someone get Al Gore on the line - what we really need to know is what effect the fluctuating ice levels will have on the carbon credit market!

/

6 Hengineer  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:15:21pm

Shermer was interesting to read: Why people believe weird things, he discusses why intelligent people would believe weird things like UFO’s and such. Funny how you could apply some of what he discusses in that book right here.

7 UFO TOFU  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:15:36pm

I wish this linked to the actual report.
Japanese scientists: Global Warming isn’t man-made.

8 bolivar  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:16:11pm

Geez wish I had gotten in on the carbon credit bonanza. That Al Gore what a capitilist pig he is - oh he is not - coulda fooled me.

9 Hengineer  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:16:49pm

re: #8 bolivar

Geez wish I had gotten in on the carbon credit bonanza. That Al Gore what a capitilist pig he is - oh he is not - coulda fooled me.

I love how he packaged his Video Powerpoint slide presentation as if its a bootleg copy of itself, and still charged $19.95

10 Racer X  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:17:03pm

OK, my head is about to explode here. Someone break it down for me - are we going to all die from heat stroke or what?

11 Wishing  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:17:48pm

re: #10 Racer X

OK, my head is about to explode here. Someone break it down for me - are we going to all die from heat stroke or what?

If you are Japanese, you have nothing to fear.

12 bolivar  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:17:55pm

re: #9 Hengineer

I love how he packaged his Video Powerpoint slide presentation as if its a bootleg copy of itself, and still charged $19.95

Ol Al is such a kidder, and the most boring speaker I think I have ever heard - even more so than W. Al could bore a nun and that is quite an accomplishment.

13 Peacekeeper  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:18:16pm

What does it mean? I admit it-I don’t get it.

14 Hengineer  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:19:07pm

re: #12 bolivar

Ol Al is such a kidder, and the most boring speaker I think I have ever heard - even more so than W. Al could bore a nun and that is quite an accomplishment.

Hell he could’ve sold the DVD for $5 and still made a profit.

Al Gore is a purebred capitalist and he knows just how to get money out of those lefties!

15 Yashmak  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:19:19pm

So as usual, we’re left not actually knowing what the hell is really going on w/r/t global warming and its effects.

This all makes my head hurt.

16 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:19:57pm

re: #7 UFO TOFU

I wish this linked to the actual report.
Japanese scientists: Global Warming isn’t man-made.

I wish they had a link to the report. I would’ve liked to have seen it.

17 Wishing  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:19:59pm

re: #15 Yashmak

So as usual, we’re left not actually knowing what the hell is really going on w/r/t global warming and its effects.

This all makes my head hurt.

Maybe try some sunscreen?
/

18 fish  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:20:10pm

re: #13 Peacekeeper

What does it mean? I admit it-I don’t get it.

I am in the same boat here.

19 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:20:27pm

I’m tired of the politicizing of science. From the left, from the right. It’s just making matters worse by adding unnecessary motivations and the subsequent questioning of those motives leads to a tainting of the data. No wonder people have a hard time understanding the truth- everyone’s busy obfuscating for political reasons.

20 bryantms  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:20:33pm

This quote:

Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S.
Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, asnoted in the Daily Tech article.

still appears on the University’s website. This is what Will was referring to. Sure, he found it on the DailyTech blog as he states here:

Citing data from the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, as interpreted on Jan. 1 by Daily Tech, a technology and science news blog

IMO, he’s simply giving credit to both sources.

21 Hengineer  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:21:18pm

re: #19 Sharmuta

I’m tired of the politicizing of science. From the left, from the right. It’s just making matters worse by adding unnecessary motivations and the subsequent questioning of those motives leads to a tainting of the data. No wonder people have a hard time understanding the truth- everyone’s busy obfuscating for political reasons.

And all for how much political grant money you receive.

22 Glaucon  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:21:22pm

Am I the only one having trouble following this scandal?

As far as I can tell, Will accurately quoted a blog, which accurately quoted the U.of Ill. research center.

23 Racer X  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:21:46pm

Seriously - pretend I’m stupid (fine, don’t pretend) - Is there a significant change in the sea ice level last month versus 1979?

24 bryantms  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:22:16pm

re: #22 Glaucon

My thoughts exactly.

25 Shr_Nfr  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:22:33pm

Nope, no sunspots today either. The one wimpy one from the current cycle that we had a couple of days ago has gone away now.

26 Wishing  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:22:33pm

Not sure how reliable this is: Global warming..NOT!

27 Racer X  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:22:41pm

re: #19 Sharmuta

I’m tired of the politicizing of science. From the left, from the right. It’s just making matters worse by adding unnecessary motivations and the subsequent questioning of those motives leads to a tainting of the data. No wonder people have a hard time understanding the truth- everyone’s busy obfuscating for political reasons.

A Million updings!

28 albusteve  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:22:44pm

re: #23 Racer X

Seriously - pretend I’m stupid (fine, don’t pretend) - Is there a significant change in the sea ice level last month versus 1979?

yes and no…
next question?

29 livefreeor die  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:23:05pm

Given all the protests against the One’s policies today, I expect the level of steam coming out of the White House is melting some ice.

30 bryantms  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:23:17pm

There’s way too much confusion over something that probably shouldn’t be an argument in the first place. Will was reading a science blog that cited an actual paper from the University’s website. He was citing them both, if not in his first article than most assuredly in his second.

31 VioletTiger  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:23:32pm

re: #13 Peacekeeper

What does it mean? I admit it-I don’t get it.

My interpretation is that Mr Wills tried to make a point against global warming by citing data that showed the amount of sea ice was about the same as it was in 1980. However, he failed to do thorough fact checking ane people were able to call him on it. The ice was actually less than he stated.

Credibility is going to be very important on this issue. I hope that we get more honest data from both sides, because so far the ‘science’ had been suspect.

32 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:23:48pm

re: #7 UFO TOFU

I wish this linked to the actual report.
Japanese scientists: Global Warming isn’t man-made.

OK, I think I found a translation of the report. I will keep searching for the original, but here it is for now:

Japan’s boffins: Global warming isn’t man-made

The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan’s native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document - the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you’ll find some of the key findings - but first, a summary.

Quite interesting, IMHO.

33 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:24:36pm

re: #19 Sharmuta

I’m tired of the politicizing of science. From the left, from the right. It’s just making matters worse by adding unnecessary motivations and the subsequent questioning of those motives leads to a tainting of the data. No wonder people have a hard time understanding the truth- everyone’s busy obfuscating for political reasons.

I blame Al Gore.

34 Shr_Nfr  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:24:51pm

re: #23 Racer X

I doubt it. But its harder to say what the true extent of the ice was in 1979. I suppose folks could hunt through the old SCAMS (SCAnning Microwave Spectrometer) dataset to get an apples to apples comparison with the present MSU dataset, but I doubt anyone will.

35 UFO TOFU  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:25:11pm

re: #32 Honorary Yooper

Nice. Thanks, I’m reading it now.

36 bryantms  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:26:55pm

re: #33 Sharmuta

Winning an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for PowerPoint presentations…nice.

37 Wishing  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:27:42pm

DOW -78

38 Wishing  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:28:44pm

re: #36 bryantms

Winning an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for PowerPoint presentations…nice.

He needed the money to pay the light bill, dontcha know!

39 VioletTiger  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:29:20pm

re: #34 Shr_Nfr

I doubt it. But its harder to say what the true extent of the ice was in 1979. I suppose folks could hunt through the old SCAMS (SCAnning Microwave Spectrometer) dataset to get an apples to apples comparison with the present MSU dataset, but I doubt anyone will.


There is so much ‘data’ on this issue that comes from extrapolations, fudge factors and estimates, it is hard to call it data at all.

40 Racer X  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:29:37pm

re: #34 Shr_Nfr

I doubt it. But its harder to say what the true extent of the ice was in 1979. I suppose folks could hunt through the old SCAMS (SCAnning Microwave Spectrometer) dataset to get an apples to apples comparison with the present MSU dataset, but I doubt anyone will.

See, thats the whole thing isn’t it? Global Warming has become so politicized that you can get whatever data you want.

Bigger picture - should the doom and gloomers who follow alGore be correct, it would take drastic changes by the entire planet to make any impact at all.

You can drive a Prius and buy a bunch of Carbon Offset Credits to make yourself feel good, but your ass is gonna get warm (or cold) no matter what.

41 bryantms  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:29:38pm

re: #38 Wishing

He needed the money to pay the light bill, dontcha know!

The Minnesotan accent made that awesome!

42 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:29:39pm

Environment
Forests
American taste for soft toilet roll ‘worse than driving Hummers’
Extra-soft, quilted and multi-ply toilet roll made from virgin forest causes more damage than gas-guzzlers, fast food or McMansions, say campaigners

guardian.co.uk

The hell with global warming, keep you dam dirty hands away from my ass!

43 avanti  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:30:41pm

re: #7 UFO TOFU

I wish this linked to the actual report.
Japanese scientists: Global Warming isn’t man-made.

Shocking, energy scientists are AGW skeptics.

44 Golem Akbar  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:31:10pm

re: #11 Wishing

If you are Japanese, you have nothing to fear.

/Maybe we should turn Japanese?

45 DaddyG  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:31:10pm

re: #42 Nevergiveup

Environment
Forests
American taste for soft toilet roll ‘worse than driving Hummers’
Extra-soft, quilted and multi-ply toilet roll made from virgin forest causes more damage than gas-guzzlers, fast food or McMansions, say campaigners

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk…]

The hell with global warming, keep you dam dirty hands away from my ass!

That does it - I will be civil but I heretofore refuse to shake hands with any environmentalist.

46 kf  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:31:23pm

There’s a lot of disinformation/distortions floating around from even the best intentioned “realists”/”deniers” (depending on your point of view). George Will seems to be distorting somewhat, and it’s a bit disappointing.

I would highly recommend that those interested in a scientific analysis of the situation to listen to lectures given by Dr. John Christy or Dr. Roy Spencer (both at the University of Alabama - Huntsville…should be able to find them on Youtube). They believe that the globe warmed in the past century, and at least part of it was anthropogenic (really, this is the “scientific” truth), but they are at odds with Hansen/Gore with regards to climate models (specifically vis a vis “feedbacks”), catastrophic climate projections and the idea that all or most of the warming can be attributed to humans.

The better informed EVERYONE is on the subject, the better informed our policy can be. I think the road we’re going down with Gore/Hansen driving the car could lead to some catastrophically bad results. They are salesmen/advocates. Hansen has long since ceased being a scientist.

47 Racer X  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:32:24pm

re: #42 Nevergiveup

The hell with global warming, keep your dam dirty hands away from my ass!

Rotating title?

48 Killian Bundy  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:32:39pm

re: #42 Nevergiveup

Environment
Forests
American taste for soft toilet roll ‘worse than driving Hummers

Youtube Video

/it’s a damn shame

49 livefreeor die  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:33:28pm

I was wondering-does Gore charge for his speeches warning about global warming? If this he’s so worried about it and it’s such a threat to everyone in the world (and he’s already wealthy) and he knows how to stop it, don’t you think he would just give them for free?

50 J.S.  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:33:37pm

I think Carl Zimmer makes an excellent point about how “opinion pieces” which (one would think) are “fact checked” are not fact checked at all. (For years a similar problem has been the case with respect to virtually any controversial topic — from the war in Iraq, to the George Bush administration, to environmental issues, etc. — if a reader unfortunately wanders off into the swamp of the “opinion pieces”, all facts are suddenly subject to alteration without warning. I really don’t think it use to be this way…but, over time, this problem seems to be growing worse….now “opinion pieces” carry about as much credibility as a “letter to the editor” written by the local elementary school drop-out.)

51 Kragar  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:33:43pm

3 hours on the phone arguing a point because dipshits in management never bother to read the contract which spelled it all. Millions of dollars a month contract on the table and the guys dicussing it never even heard of the documentation that governs how its supposed to work.

Fucking pathetic.

52 livefreeor die  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:34:27pm

re: #51 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

3 hours on the phone arguing a point because dipshits in management never bother to read the contract which spelled it all. Millions of dollars a month contract on the table and the guys dicussing it never even heard of the documentation that governs how its supposed to work.

Fucking pathetic.

Sounds like we’ve got some potential Congress critters there.

53 DaddyG  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:34:27pm

re: #48 Killian Bundy



/it’s a damn shame

Old school version:

Youtube Video

54 bulwrk  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:34:58pm

re: #43 avanti

Shocking, energy scientists are AGW skeptics.

Really its time to stop beating that old dead horse it ain’t going nowhere.

55 Racer X  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:34:58pm

re: #48 Killian Bundy

Oh no, I am NOT watching that video of a bunch of hippies sobbing over a dead tree.

I only have a limited number of brain cells left!

56 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:35:15pm
57 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:35:19pm

I was doing the search for an entriely different article, and came across this:

Climate Change: Statement of Dr. William Happer before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

We have been in a period of global warming over the past 200 years, but there have been several periods, like the last ten years, when the warming has ceased, and there have even been periods of substantial cooling, as from 1940 to 1970. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s surface to warm. The key question is: will the net effect of the warming, and any other effects of the CO2, be good or bad for humanity?

It struck me as interesting.

58 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:35:48pm

Al Gore…. Creationist?

59 Racer X  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:36:08pm

re: #51 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

3 hours on the phone arguing a point because dipshits in management never bother to read the contract which spelled it all. Millions of dollars a month contract on the table and the guys dicussing it never even heard of the documentation that governs how its supposed to work.

Fucking pathetic.

That was you on the conference call?

*high five*

60 albusteve  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:37:10pm

re: #53 DaddyG

Old school version:


[Video]

that was really awful….don’t ever do that again or you will be arrested

61 fish  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:37:14pm

re: #42 Nevergiveup

Environment
Forests
American taste for soft toilet roll ‘worse than driving Hummers’
Extra-soft, quilted and multi-ply toilet roll made from virgin forest causes more damage than gas-guzzlers, fast food or McMansions, say campaigners

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk…]

The hell with global warming, keep you dam dirty hands away from my ass!

OK We just need the Three Seashells from Demolition Man

62 DaddyG  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:37:27pm

re: #56 taxfreekiller


It is a loon liberal commie ponzie scheme.

The stimulus thread is a few pages back.

/

63 turn  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:37:57pm

re: #51 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

3 hours on the phone arguing a point because dipshits in management never bother to read the contract which spelled it all. Millions of dollars a month contract on the table and the guys dicussing it never even heard of the documentation that governs how its supposed to work.

Fucking pathetic.

A lot like the congress and the “stimulus” package, no?

64 kingkenrod  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:37:58pm
but in a Jan. 12 statement the center confirmed that global sea ice levels were within a difference of less than 3 percent of the 1980 level.


3% is a lot of ice, George.

But George Will wasn’t THAT wrong in his original column. The northern hemisphere has lost a lot of ice, especially last summer. But the southern hemisphere has gained about 1/2 as much ice as the north has lost. The Oct numbers from 1979 are equal to the Oct numbers of 2008. The big difference came early in the year and in summer.

The amount of energy being spent to discredit Will is very telling. This is more about politics than who is more right or whether Will was purposely misleading. Obviously, the scientists are more right because they have the facts, but they also have much to lose from being discredited themselves in the press, and for AGW to be discredited in general. This isn’t just about correcting the record as it is about attacking Will and the Post for not researching adequately - i.e. making them pay a price for being wrong so that others will not be so quick to rush into criticizing AGW.

65 wrenchwench  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:38:13pm

re: #58 Sharmuta

Al Gore…. Creationist?

Al Gore…Panderer.

66 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:38:49pm
67 Yashmak  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:39:04pm

re: #54 bulwrk

Really its time to stop beating that old dead horse it ain’t going nowhere.

As much as I hate to say it, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss avanti’s sarcasm here. It’s really hard to tell who to trust, or distrust, on an issue as politicized as AGW, but whenever I read a statement from a scientist with a vested interest one way or the other (i.e. working for an eco-firm or working for an ‘energy and resources’ organization), I take what they say with a grain of salt.

68 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:39:11pm

re: #42 Nevergiveup

Environment
Forests
American taste for soft toilet roll ‘worse than driving Hummers’
Extra-soft, quilted and multi-ply toilet roll made from virgin forest causes more damage than gas-guzzlers, fast food or McMansions, say campaigners

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk…]

The hell with global warming, keep you dam dirty hands away from my ass!

What a bummer.

69 so.cal.swede  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:39:28pm

re: #51 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

3 hours on the phone arguing a point because dipshits in management never bother to read the contract which spelled it all. Millions of dollars a month contract on the table and the guys dicussing it never even heard of the documentation that governs how its supposed to work.

Fucking pathetic.

Welcome to my world …

70 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:39:45pm

I know this is from a past thread, but has anyone other than Israeli sources said that the USA is NOT going to Durban 2?

71 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:39:48pm

re: #58 Sharmuta

Al Gore…. Creationist?

Would not suprise me if he did support it. He’s never been very strong on science to being with.

72 jcm  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:39:59pm

re: #65 wrenchwench

Al Gore…Panderer.

In 1880 Algore would be selling snake oil.

73 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:40:03pm

re: #48 Killian Bundy

/it’s a damn shame

ROTFLMAO I love how the nutjob decries technology while wrapped in her high-tech fleece and rain gear -

Whats with all the screaming? Doesn’t it disturbing the harmony of the forest and its little creatures?

74 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:40:20pm
75 so.cal.swede  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:40:30pm

re: #72 jcm

In 1880 Algore would be selling snake oil.


Your child has a FEEEEVEER.

76 avanti  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:41:19pm

re: #57 Honorary Yooper

I was doing the search for an entriely different article, and came across this:

Climate Change: Statement of Dr. William Happer before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

It struck me as interesting.

He a physics professor and his statement about cooling in the last 10 years is dead wrong. The ID’ers like to use scientists outside of the field too.

77 VioletTiger  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:41:34pm

re: #48 Killian Bundy

Yes, the trees and rocks have more interesting lives than those hippies…/

78 kingkenrod  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:41:46pm

re: #46 kf

There’s a lot of disinformation/distortions floating around from even the best intentioned “realists”/”deniers” (depending on your point of view). George Will seems to be distorting somewhat, and it’s a bit disappointing.

I would highly recommend that those interested in a scientific analysis of the situation to listen to lectures given by Dr. John Christy or Dr. Roy Spencer (both at the University of Alabama - Huntsville…should be able to find them on Youtube). They believe that the globe warmed in the past century, and at least part of it was anthropogenic (really, this is the “scientific” truth), but they are at odds with Hansen/Gore with regards to climate models (specifically vis a vis “feedbacks”), catastrophic climate projections and the idea that all or most of the warming can be attributed to humans.

The better informed EVERYONE is on the subject, the better informed our policy can be. I think the road we’re going down with Gore/Hansen driving the car could lead to some catastrophically bad results. They are salesmen/advocates. Hansen has long since ceased being a scientist.

Very good points. I always point people to Bjorn Lomborg’s site for additional information. He’s not a global warming skeptic (despite the name of his site), but he has enlightening ideas about how we economically confront climate change.

lomborg.com

79 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:41:57pm

re: #75 so.cal.swede

Your child has a FEEEEVEER.

Wouldn’t that be vapors ?

80 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:42:04pm
81 UFO TOFU  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:42:04pm

re: #57 Honorary Yooper

It struck me as interesting.


It does. Damn, I’m going to have to bookmark that and read the whole thing later.

82 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:42:05pm

re: #65 wrenchwench

Al Gore…Panderer.

Well- you know how the DI et al like to point out ugly personalities who accepted evolution? Well- now I have an ugly friend for them…

Disco Dewd: You know who accepted evolution? Timothy McVeigh!

Sharmuta: Yeah, but you have Al Gore on your side.

83 pink freud  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:42:15pm

re: #75 so.cal.swede

Here’s yer bottle of Hadacol, lil missy.

84 gmsc  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:42:53pm

re: #72 jcm

In 1880 Algore would be selling snake oil.

“Not only will this cure fevers, coughs, hysteria, but it does much more! Feed it to the animals on your farm! Cows will give more milk! Chickens? More eggs! Butterflies? More butter!”

85 Killian Bundy  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:42:53pm

re: #42 Nevergiveup

American taste for soft toilet roll ‘worse than driving Hummers’

/if everyone would just convert to Islam that wouldn’t be a problem

86 Fat Jolly Penguin  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:43:00pm

re: #82 Sharmuta

Well- you know how the DI et al like to point out ugly personalities who accepted evolution? Well- now I have an ugly friend for them…

Disco Dewd: You know who accepted evolution? Timothy McVeigh!

Sharmuta: Yeah, but you have Al Gore on your side.

That’ll make some heads explode. I love it!

87 jcm  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:43:02pm

re: #79 Creeping Eruption

Wouldn’t that be vapors ?

This bottle for fever, but I have another bottle for vapors!

88 yma o hyd  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:43:02pm

re: #26 Wishing

Not sure how reliable this is: Global warming..NOT!

From that link:

‘An analysis by the Center for Public Integrity found that more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists in the past year to influence federal policy.
Politico.com notes that since 2003, the number of global warming lobbyists has risen by more than 300 percent, and “Washington can now boast more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.”

(Emphasis by me)

No comment …

89 Racer X  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:43:02pm

re: #72 jcm

In 1880 Algore would be selling snake oil.

In 1880 2009 Algore would Obama be is selling snake oil.

/fixed

90 SFGoth  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:43:06pm

If only the dinosaurs had been able to stop climate change … we wouldn’t have Obama. I blame the fucking dinosaurs.

91 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:43:17pm

re: #71 Honorary Yooper

Would not suprise me if he did support it. He’s never been very strong on science to being with.

Between his hypocritical concern for the environment and his “I invented the internet” crap, it would seem so.

92 albusteve  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:44:04pm

re: #83 pink freud

Here’s yer bottle of Hadacol, lil missy.

no opium?….pffft

93 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:44:07pm

re: #83 pink freud

Here’s yer bottle of Hadacol, lil missy.

I found the Carbolic Smoke Ball works best in this situation

94 BartB  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:44:28pm

Is it not the custom that those who make the strongest statements are required to provide the most proof?
So far, I don’t think AlGore and the rest of the crowd have met that requirement.
AGW is more of a religion than a scientific statement.

95 jcm  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:44:28pm

re: #89 Racer X

In 1880 2009 Algore would Obama be is selling snake oil.

/fixed

Excellent!

96 Silvergirl  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:45:10pm

re: #29 livefreeor die

Given all the protests against the One’s policies today, I expect the level of steam coming out of the White House is melting some ice.

I wish upon a star on that. In reality, the noise is going to have to get louder before the White House inhabitants sit up and take notice.

97 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:45:43pm
98 OldLineTexan  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:46:14pm

re: #90 SFGoth

If only the dinosaurs had been able to stop climate change … we wouldn’t have Obama. I blame the fucking dinosaurs.

According to the old Sinclair stations, the dinos are now oil. And the plants they should have eaten are coal.

So the stupid batsard dinos are also responsible for Gorebull Warming and all this missing sea ice/drowned polar bears.

/

99 VioletTiger  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:46:29pm

re: #81 UFO TOFU

It does. Damn, I’m going to have to bookmark that and read the whole thing later.

Also, do a search and see what some are saying about global temps the past ten years. Are we warming or cooling?

100 bulwrk  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:46:43pm

re: #67 Yashmak

The big money is on the side of the global warming alarmist and its fairly easy pickings.

101 Kragar  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:47:21pm

re: #59 Racer X

That was you on the conference call?

*high five*

I’m going to kill the next person who invites me to a conference call. I figure at least 1/3 of my time at work is wasted on them for and even then its for things which have nothing to do with my team.

102 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:47:43pm
103 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:47:45pm

Regarding the Japanese report, here’s something on it from Watts Up With That, with a letter from Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Prof., Yokohama National University, at the end of the summary. Here’s an interesting excerpt, because I am curious to see what they have to report next:

We know that our try this time is small one, and its impact has a limitation especially due to language problem. Nevertheless, we believe that the discussion was useful and informative for everyone interested in the controversies associated with the AGW issue. In March, another article will come also in the JSER journal because the discussion received much interest from the readers of the journal.

I hope the article in March is translated immediately so we all can see and read it.

104 Kenneth  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:47:48pm

Canadian MP blasts NDP for sponsoring Israel Apartheid Week

Acts of ignorance such as these protests should offend not only all Canadians, but Parliament as well. Why? Because an NDP student union is a co-sponsor. The very notion of a political party’s connection to this brings shame to this chamber. These protests have become a haven for thugs who practice bully tactics and promote intolerance of the Jewish people.

I implore both the NDP and misguided campus groups everywhere to stand down from this week’s long attack and recognize Israel for the vibrant democratic society that it is.

Good for James Lunney (Conservative Party, Nanaimo, BC)

105 VioletTiger  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:47:53pm

re: #98 OldLineTexan

According to the old Sinclair stations, the dinos are now oil. And the plants they should have eaten are coal.

So the stupid batsard dinos are also responsible for Gorebull Warming and all this missing sea ice/drowned polar bears.

/

Revenge for extinction./

106 avanti  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:48:00pm

re: #67 Yashmak

As much as I hate to say it, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss avanti’s sarcasm here. It’s really hard to tell who to trust, or distrust, on an issue as politicized as AGW, but whenever I read a statement from a scientist with a vested interest one way or the other (i.e. working for an eco-firm or working for an ‘energy and resources’ organization), I take what they say with a grain of salt.

Thank you for that. I have no problem with honest skepticism about AGW, just the total disregard of the science we don’t like is smacks of the ID crowd. Sure, if we dig around we’ll find plenty of Evolution and AGW skeptics, just weigh the data fairly without the politics.

107 jcm  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:48:24pm

re: #96 Silvergirl

I wish upon a star on that. In reality, the noise is going to have to get louder before the White House inhabitants sit up and take notice.

Rahm: Sire, Sire! The peasants are revolting!
Barry: They certainly are!

108 Colonel Panik  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:48:36pm

Okay, all this talk about Al Gore and no one has yet supplied the obligatory ManBearPig link.

“I’m here to educate you about the single biggest threat to our planet. I’m talking of course, about ManBearPig.”

109 OldLineTexan  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:48:40pm

re: #101 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I’m going to kill the next person who invites me to a conference call. I figure at least 1/3 of my time at work is wasted on them for and even then its for things which have nothing to do with my team.

I should try killing.

You know what works best for me? Hang.Up.The.Phone.

I drop an e-mail to the organizer excusing myself for an emergency (not a lie, they are constant) and then hang up.

110 Racer X  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:50:04pm

re: #101 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I’m going to kill the next person who invites me to a conference call. I figure at least 1/3 of my time at work is wasted on them for and even then its for things which have nothing to do with my team.

“Time Bandits”

111 albusteve  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:50:23pm

re: #104 Kenneth

Canadian MP blasts NDP for sponsoring Israel Apartheid Week

Good for James Lunney (Conservative Party, Nanaimo, BC)

I wish we would hear more bold talk like that from the GOP…

112 jcm  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:50:44pm

re: #101 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I’m going to kill the next person who invites me to a conference call. I figure at least 1/3 of my time at work is wasted on them for and even then its for things which have nothing to do with my team.

Wait till you have a “productivity initiative.”

113 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:50:53pm
114 UFO TOFU  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:50:57pm

re: #99 VioletTiger

I’ll try and do that.
Gotta run.

115 yma o hyd  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:51:09pm

re: #78 kingkenrod

Upding for linking to Bjorn Lomborg!
The main point of his book ‘The skeptical environmentalist’ was that its better for the world to think about how to cope with climate change rather than ruining our economies trying to prevent the unpreventable.

116 OldLineTexan  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:51:12pm

re: #105 VioletTiger

Revenge for extinction./

Great, blame me for that. How many carbon credits am I gonna have to buy to make up for either a giant meteor impact or a mega-volcano?

Can we just pretend they died to piss ID’rs off? You know, the VDEM!

117 OldLineTexan  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:52:22pm

re: #115 yma o hyd

Upding for linking to Bjorn Lomborg!
The main point of his book ‘The skeptical environmentalist’ was that its better for the world to think about how to cope with climate change rather than ruining our economies trying to prevent the unpreventable.

Those polar bears can already swim, so they had better start devolving back into grizzlies OR evolving into whales.

/

118 Bloodnok  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:53:19pm

re: #58 Sharmuta

Al Gore…. Creationist?

Wow!

119 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:53:43pm

Jonah Goldberg noticed Al Gore’s nuance in 1999 too:

Witness his latest hem and haw about the Kansas School Board decision. At first he declined to criticize the decision. The he said that the schools should teach creationism along with science. Then he said creationism should be taught in religion classes. Finally, or rather as of this moment, he has said that he opposes the decision, calling it a “mistake.”

Now, as a matter of federalism I think the schools should be allowed to teach whatever they want. But as a matter of principle, I think it is silly to teach creationism as science, or rather to teach it as a replacement of evolutionary theory. I think evolutionary theory has some serious flaws. But I don’t think one can extrapolate from those flaws that men lived alongside dinosaurs, unless you count The Flintstones (if you would like to see a good examination of some of those flaws you should read Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box or read his articles (2/9/98 and 3/9/98 in National Review).

Is Mr. Goldberg still under the impression that Dr Behe’s hypotheses have any credibility?

120 soccerdad  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:53:59pm

re: #18 fish

I am in the same boat here.

Fish, peacekeeper and Racer X , et. al…

My take:

While this article is simply one battle, the “war” over global warming is being perpetrated by the Lefties who are trying to destroy capitalism and make us move towards socialism/facism/communism.

Their premise: Man-made global warming means we must severly curtail/stop the industrial processes and the developed ways of life that we in the west, (and to an extent, the rest of the world) enjoy. The lefties, greenies, whatever are against any kind of development, industrial, housing, etc.

Taken to its logical extreme, the “man-made global warming” answer is to move us all back to agrarian, collectivist economies. They are anti-growth lunatics.

I don’t always agree with his politics…but I do believe George Carlin has it right on this issue:

The Planet is Fine

121 DaddyG  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:54:08pm

re: #117 OldLineTexan

Those polar bears can already swim, so they had better start devolving back into grizzlies OR evolving into whales.

/

Sea Teddy Bears to go with our Sea Kittens!

122 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:54:28pm

re: #106 avanti

Avanti, to be quite honest, I find the Catastrophic Athropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) folks to be closest to IDers in how they come across. They take a little data and blow it up into something that will end all life on the planet of we don’t do anything about it. Never mind that’s not what the data said, and that the data could say something else entirely. They feel the need, like the IDers to make us conform to their [CAGW] way of thinking. They don’t do it with data and present their data in a sane and scientific manner; instead, they feel the need to legislate it into our lives regardless of what the data may or may not say.

123 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:55:14pm

re: #7 UFO TOFU

I wish this linked to the actual report.
Japanese scientists: Global Warming isn’t man-made.

Here is a Register Article I read yesterday that translated some sections of the Japanese report. I like the comparison of the IPCC true believers to astrologers.

124 bulwrk  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:55:48pm

re: #106 avanti

Sure, if we dig around we’ll find plenty of Evolution and AGW skeptics, just weigh the data fairly without the politics.

So please enlighten us all,when there is fifty billion in government grant money for research how do you remove the politics?

125 OldLineTexan  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:56:08pm

re: #121 DaddyG

Sea Teddy Bears to go with our Sea Kittens!

This is why I come to LGF. People here get it.

ps - If you haven’t received your unicorn yet, consider adopting a narwhal sea unicorn. Instead of rainbow farts, they excrete sea ice!

126 Yashmak  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:56:12pm

re: #100 bulwrk

The big money is on the side of the global warming alarmist and its fairly easy pickings.

Yes, I know that. But there’s plenty of money on the flip side of the coin as well. For the record, I’m fairly certain that we have seen a degree of global warming in recent decades, but am rather skeptical about the degree to which we’re directly responsible for it.

However, I think one should still always double-check the info from any source which is paid by parties with a vested interest in the issue.. . no matter if they’re promoting the idea of human caused global warming, or trying to debunk it.

Maybe it’s just my aversion to the idea of looking back at this all years from now, and having to admit “Yeah, I really got the wool pulled over my eyes on that one.”

127 Silvergirl  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:56:18pm

re: #107 jcm

Rahm: Sire, Sire! The peasants are revolting!
Barry: They certainly are!

Yep. They see what they want to see. (And disregard the rest?)

Comic

128 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:56:59pm
129 Kenneth  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:57:17pm

The manipulative mythology of Israeli apartheid

From March 1-8, Canadian universities and cities around the globe are settings for “Israel Apartheid Week.” Organizers insist that the Israeli state is an illegitimate child of Zionism worthy of boycotts, sanctions, and liquidation. We are told by the champions of “Israel Apartheid Week” that “prominent Palestinians, Jewish anti-Zionists, and South Africans have been at the forefront of this struggle.”

As a university professor at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, one of the “Israel Apartheid Week” participating cities, I will deconstruct the five illusions of “Israel Apartheid Week.”:

1) Israel is a racist state comparable to formerly apartheid South Africa;
2) Israel is an absolute oppressor and Palestinians and Arabs passive victims of the conflict;
3) A one-state solution will solve the conflict;
4) A two-state solution is not an option; and
5) Anti-Zionism is superior to Zionism.
130 yma o hyd  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:57:57pm

re: #117 OldLineTexan

Those polar bears can already swim, so they had better start devolving back into grizzlies OR evolving into whales.

/

Furry whales - now there’s a novel concept!

:-)

131 OldLineTexan  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:57:57pm

re: #128 taxfreekiller

Native americans were and still are learning how to cope with short, long, very long and 10,000 year climate changes.

Al Gore and liars like him have no history of the use of truth, so as he is and many of them are known liars, you should expect more of the same with this subject before us now.

You guys should have never melted that land/ice bridge back to Siberia.

Too late now.

/

132 VioletTiger  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:58:11pm

re: #125 OldLineTexan

This is why I come to LGF. People here get it.

ps - If you haven’t received your unicorn yet, consider adopting a narwhal sea unicorn. Instead of rainbow farts, they excrete sea ice!

Can I just get a Sea Kitten?

133 avanti  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:58:17pm
Upding for linking to Bjorn Lomborg!
The main point of his book ‘The skeptical environmentalist’ was that its better for the world to think about how to cope with climate change rather than ruining our economies trying to prevent the unpreventable.


Now that looks like something that should be looked at. All the scientists say there is nothing we can do to keep the earth from warming for the next 50 years. Why not take moderate steps to cap CO2 and learn to deal with the effects we know are coming.
Spending trillions now to slow down warming after we’re all dead, won’t sell politically. Burning less foreign oil and conservation will.

134 OldLineTexan  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:58:46pm

re: #130 yma o hyd

Furry whales - now there’s a novel concept!

:-)

OK, fine … dye ‘em brown with RIT and ship ‘em south.

;)

135 OldLineTexan  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:59:31pm

re: #132 VioletTiger

Can I just get a Sea Kitten?

Are you planning to let Catula look after it?

/

136 Kenneth  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:01:13pm

re: #124 bulwrk

There is a common joke told in the science departments of universities today…

Can’t get a gov’t grant to support your research into red squirrel populations in Michigan? Try adding the magic phrase,

“To study the effects of Global Warming on _(fill in the blank)_”


…You’ll get the grant.

137 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:01:17pm
138 avanti  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:01:34pm

re: #122 Honorary Yooper

Avanti, to be quite honest, I find the Catastrophic Athropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) folks to be closest to IDers in how they come across. They take a little data and blow it up into something that will end all life on the planet of we don’t do anything about it. Never mind that’s not what the data said, and that the data could say something else entirely. They feel the need, like the IDers to make us conform to their [CAGW] way of thinking. They don’t do it with data and present their data in a sane and scientific manner; instead, they feel the need to legislate it into our lives regardless of what the data may or may not say.

I agree, some, including Al Gore are in the CAGW crowd. Global warming is happening, but it’s not the end of life as we know it.

139 VioletTiger  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:02:23pm

re: #135 OldLineTexan

Are you planning to let Catula look after it?

/

Sure. She’s a real sweetie. Cuddles is my snarky cat.

140 OldLineTexan  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:02:49pm

re: #136 Kenneth

There is a common joke told in the science departments of universities today…

Can’t get a gov’t grant to support your research into red squirrel populations in Michigan? Try adding the magic phrase,


…You’ll get the grant.

I predict a decline in the red squirrel population of Michigan as we adopt Obamanomics.

The deer are in for a rough time, too.

And teh lake kittehs.

/dat’ll be five bucks

141 yma o hyd  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:02:51pm

re: #123 CyanSnowHawk

Here is a Register Article I read yesterday that translated some sections of the Japanese report. I like the comparison of the IPCC true believers to astrologers.

That looks very interesting - thanks!
Bookmarked for later reading.

142 Kenneth  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:03:08pm

re: #130 yma o hyd

Furry whales - now there’s a novel concept!

:-)

Are you some kind of Moby or are you just being a Dick?

143 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:03:17pm
144 Kenneth  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:03:40pm

re: #140 OldLineTexan

LOL! You do crack me up.

145 kf  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:03:43pm

re: #78 kingkenrod

Very good points. I always point people to Bjorn Lomborg’s site for additional information. He’s not a global warming skeptic (despite the name of his site), but he has enlightening ideas about how we economically confront climate change.

[Link: www.lomborg.com…]

Bjorn is a great orator, watched one of his speeches a few months ago. Michael Crichton also gave VERY good speeches about global warming. Towards the end of his life, he toured the country giving lectures urging scientists to get back to the science of global warming and stop turning it political.

I like to think that this will be one of Crichton’s more noteworthy legacies as we look back on his life 15-20 years in the future.

(And when I bring him up on less….friendly….venues regarding global warming, I usually get a response of “who cares what a sci-fi writer has to say!” He has an MD from Harvard).

146 OldLineTexan  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:04:37pm

re: #144 Kenneth

LOL! You do crack me up.

Hey, I run a serious low-budget think tank here!

/

147 yma o hyd  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:05:08pm

re: #134 OldLineTexan

OK, fine … dye ‘em brown with RIT and ship ‘em south.

;)

Aww - now that would pollute the pristine sea and kill off all the sweet little sea kittehs!

148 DaddyG  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:05:25pm

re: #146 OldLineTexan

Hey, I run a serious low-budget think tank here!

/

Ohhh… Ohhh… can I be an “expert”?

149 yma o hyd  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:06:31pm

re: #142 Kenneth

Are you some kind of Moby or are you just being a Dick?

:-))))

Dicking around is sometimes a necessity!

150 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:08:39pm

Let’s just put it all together and let’s just get this out there.

The Joos cause Global Warming.

Not THAT’S a thread!

151 VioletTiger  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:09:08pm

re: #137 taxfreekiller

“all the scientist say”

lie

There are thousands of scientists who do not believe that global warming is man-made.

152 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:09:27pm

re: #151 VioletTiger

There are thousands of scientists who do not believe that global warming is man-made.


Name them.

153 Kenneth  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:11:03pm

re: #150 Ben Hur

Let’s just put it all together and let’s just get this out there.

The Joos cause Global Warming to Cover up 9-11 and Stop Evolution.

Not THAT’S a real crazy ass thread!

154 Basho  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:11:18pm

re: #22 Glaucon

Am I the only one having trouble following this scandal?

As far as I can tell, Will accurately quoted a blog, which accurately quoted the U.of Ill. research center.

Maybe this will help:
scienceblogs.com

155 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:12:53pm

re: #145 kf

Bjorn is a great orator, watched one of his speeches a few months ago. Michael Crichton also gave VERY good speeches about global warming. Towards the end of his life, he toured the country giving lectures urging scientists to get back to the science of global warming and stop turning it political.

I like to think that this will be one of Crichton’s more noteworthy legacies as we look back on his life 15-20 years in the future.

(And when I bring him up on less….friendly….venues regarding global warming, I usually get a response of “who cares what a sci-fi writer has to say!” He has an MD from Harvard).

If you get a chance read Crichton’s book that weave’s a great story around the AGW hysteria, State of Fear. He footnotes all his research and the Hollywood idiot character that is an amalgam of Martin Sheen and Ed Begley Jr. comes to a rather satisfying, if gruesome end.

157 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:13:29pm

re: #153 Kenneth


Let’s just put it all together and let’s just get this out there.

The Joos cause Global Warming to Cover up 9-11 and Stop Evolution in Gentiles so they can steal their women.

Not THAT’S a real crazy ass thread!

158 Kenneth  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:13:43pm

re: #155 CyanSnowHawk

… the Hollywood idiot character that is an amalgam of Martin Sheen and Ed Begley Jr. comes to a rather satisfying, if gruesome end.

I’d pay to see that movie!

159 VioletTiger  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:13:52pm

re: #152 Ben Hur

Name them.

I see your point. Generalities do suck.
Do a search. The names are out there.

160 SFGoth  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:14:19pm

re: #150 Ben Hur

Let’s just put it all together and let’s just get this out there.

The Joos cause Global Warming.

Not THAT’S a thread!

Jewish dinosaurs.

161 ConservatismNow!  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:14:39pm

re: #150 Ben Hur

Let’s just put it all together and let’s just get this out there.

The Joos cause Global Warming.

Not THAT’S a thread!

Funny you should mention that

162 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:14:55pm

re: #156 Kenneth

Pffffttt….

That was like, what, 25?

163 sixgunsamori  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:15:14pm

So, SCIENCE is a whore… Shocker. All we need to know is who left the money on the nightstand to accurately predict which side of the debate will be espoused…

164 Kenneth  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:15:19pm

I’m outta here… it’s Friday & I’ve got a hot date with a cold beer.

165 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:15:23pm

re: #159 VioletTiger

I see your point. Generalities do suck.
Do a search. The names are out there.

Was yoke, was yoke.

(you;’ll get used to me)

166 Shr_Nfr  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:15:30pm

re: #39 VioletTiger

The reason I use SCAMS as a reference point is that it is basically the same instrument as the present MSU. You get your sea ice extent from the microwave reflectivity of the surface in the window channel someplace a bit over 30 GHz away from the 22.235 GHz H2O line and the 50-70 GHz O2 complex. You use the 22.235 channel to take out the water vapor column, although this is not all that important in dry areas like the arctic. The window channel is the channel, btw, that has gone south on the current instrument according to my understanding. The chances of getting the SCAMS data is probably little or none. I doubt they ever transferred it off of the 9 track tape, and the original tapes are probably totally unreadable at this point due to bleed through.

The bottom line is that we probably know less about what the real extent is of the sea ice in 1979 than we pretend to. There is probably some DMSP data lurking someplace (Defense Meteorological Space Program) that was the forerunner of the MSU, but finding that one would be tough too.

Given that the character of the ground stations has changed due to heat islands and all the rest, I am not sure we can say a lot with any real conviction. There is more to this process than taking a dataset of observations. There is the process of qc on that dataset which appears to have a spotty record over time.

167 VioletTiger  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:17:57pm

re: #165 Ben Hur

Was yoke, was yoke.

(you;’ll get used to me)

Sorry! I didn’t know how to take your comment and I didn’t want to post a list of links. ;)

168 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:18:40pm
169 Kenneth  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:19:43pm

re: #162 Ben Hur

Pffffttt….

That was like, what, 25?

Somewhat more than 25. And there are many others. But the number is irrelevant. Science is not decided by a vote. My point is to refute the political activists who claim their is a scientific consensus and that the science is complete.

Hogwash.

There was a heck of a greater scientific consensus in 1900 that the universe was permeated with an ether which was necessary for light waves to propagate through a vacuum.

170 VioletTiger  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:20:29pm

re: #166 Shr_Nfr

I agree.
We were probably not keeping the data with any of this is mind. There would be no reason to do so. So they draw conclusions with sketchy data, and that is what is driving me nuts.

171 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:21:10pm
172 harlemghost  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:21:44pm

the bottom line is that Will’s column was correct …

173 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:23:30pm

re: #166 Shr_Nfr

The reason I use SCAMS as a reference point is that it is basically the same instrument as the present MSU. You get your sea ice extent from the microwave reflectivity of the surface in the window channel someplace a bit over 30 GHz away from the 22.235 GHz H2O line and the 50-70 GHz O2 complex. You use the 22.235 channel to take out the water vapor column, although this is not all that important in dry areas like the arctic. The window channel is the channel, btw, that has gone south on the current instrument according to my understanding. The chances of getting the SCAMS data is probably little or none. I doubt they ever transferred it off of the 9 track tape, and the original tapes are probably totally unreadable at this point due to bleed through.

The bottom line is that we probably know less about what the real extent is of the sea ice in 1979 than we pretend to. There is probably some DMSP data lurking someplace (Defense Meteorological Space Program) that was the forerunner of the MSU, but finding that one would be tough too.

Given that the character of the ground stations has changed due to heat islands and all the rest, I am not sure we can say a lot with any real conviction. There is more to this process than taking a dataset of observations. There is the process of qc on that dataset which appears to have a spotty record over time.

You’re waaaaay out of your league here, mister!

174 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:25:01pm

re: #169 Kenneth

Somewhat more than 25. And there are many others. But the number is irrelevant. Science is not decided by a vote. My point is to refute the political activists who claim their is a scientific consensus and that the science is complete.

Hogwash.

There was a heck of a greater scientific consensus in 1900 that the universe was permeated with an ether which was necessary for light waves to propagate through a vacuum.


So, what, you’re like a Holocaust denier? Is that what you’re telling me?!?!?

175 harlemghost  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:26:35pm

for a web site that makes a VERY BIG deal about evolution over creationism (correctly IMHO) Not seeing thru the AGW scam is puzzling ?

AGW and Creationism are both faith based sciences … both are wrong … and the data says so very time you look at it … when I say data I mean data not faked by Hansen and Co. …

See: the “hockey stick” … sea ice measurements … cooling since 1998 …

176 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:27:20pm
177 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:31:19pm

re: #175 harlemghost

George Will was wrong, get over it:

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

Now even if you grant George Will the instrument defect as a mulligan, 193000 does not equal 1.34 MILLION.

178 avanti  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:32:02pm

re: #156 Kenneth


List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Ah the famous list, many on it have asked to removed, most of the rest are either not in the field or are agnostic on the issue.
link

179 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:35:25pm
180 Basho  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:35:33pm

re: #178 avanti

Some aren’t even deniers. One scientist said that population control should be in any policy that tackle climate change, and for that reason he was added to the list…

181 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:36:45pm
182 avanti  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:38:52pm

re: #177 Thanos

George Will was wrong, get over it:

Now even if you grant George Will the instrument defect as a mulligan, 193000 does not equal 1.34 MILLION.

The big problem is that once a error like that is published, the deniers grab onto it just like the false cooling since 1998 and the rest. As more reasonable heads on the right accept that warming is taking place, we’ll be able to decide what if anything to do about it. As long as it seen as a political issue, all the science in the world won’t sway minds.

183 bulwrk  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:40:05pm

re: #178 avanti

Yes the list doesn’t quite have the impact of a hockey stick graph.

184 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:41:04pm
185 Outrider  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:41:21pm

re: #145 kf

Bjorn is a great orator, watched one of his speeches a few months ago. Michael Crichton also gave VERY good speeches about global warming. Towards the end of his life, he toured the country giving lectures urging scientists to get back to the science of global warming and stop turning it political.

I like to think that this will be one of Crichton’s more noteworthy legacies as we look back on his life 15-20 years in the future.

(And when I bring him up on less….friendly….venues regarding global warming, I usually get a response of “who cares what a sci-fi writer has to say!” He has an MD from Harvard).

Strangely enough, the same people giving that response are the same people that will take as gospel what a GW spokesman who happens to be a politician says. (algore) Weird world.

186 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:44:01pm
187 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:47:07pm
188 avanti  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:49:34pm

re: #183 bulwrk

Yes the list doesn’t quite have the impact of a hockey stick graph.

Damn shame Gore ever got involved, because it makes otherwise smart people ignore the science. Here’s a great link on deniers and their tactics. It should be helpful hints both ways.

Skeptics

189 kenufive  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:52:46pm

#42 I don’t believe anyone would cut down old growth trees which are worth many thousands of dollars for high end lumber [veneer etc.] or in furniture making. The paper companies grow almost all their pulp trees on tree farms for a small fraction of the price.

190 Shr_Nfr  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:52:59pm

re: #170 VioletTiger

It continues to drive me nuts that the data from old instruments just goes up in smoke. Its all we have of the historical record. Given that you are making historical trend statements, you need it. Nimbus-E and Nimbus-F data is probably down the hole forever now.

191 Hollowpoint  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:53:59pm

re: #76 avanti

He a physics professor and his statement about cooling in the last 10 years is dead wrong. The ID’ers like to use scientists outside of the field too.

How would a physics professor be commenting “outside of the field” with regards to “global warming”? You don’t consider subjects like, say, thermodynamics relevant to the discussion?

Reminds me of an article by some AGW cultist deriding scientists who didn’t jump on the bandwagon, suggesting that scientists in fields like chemistry were out of their depth. The author? A history professor.

192 Leatherhelmet  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:54:57pm

Frankly, Mr. Zimmer’s blog makes a comparison that those who don’t buy the global warming undisputed science are similar to the logic of creationists. That tells me enough about Mr. Zimmer than he is not objectively looking at the science.

I also find it hilarious that he things Mr. Will should read his blog while slamming Will for quote another science blog.

193 freetoken  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:01:27pm

re: #192 Leatherhelmet

I also find it hilarious that he things Mr. Will should read his blog while slamming Will for quote another science blog.

Calling DailyTech a science blog is equivalent to calling ronpaul.com a website of a future President.

194 avanti  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:05:10pm

re: #191 Hollowpoint

How would a physics professor be commenting “outside of the field” with regards to “global warming”? You don’t consider subjects like, say, thermodynamics relevant to the discussion?

Reminds me of an article by some AGW cultist deriding scientists who didn’t jump on the bandwagon, suggesting that scientists in fields like chemistry were out of their depth. The author? A history professor.

Here’s a great link on why arguing with a denier is a waste of time. Yours would be the fake expert tactic.

1.conspiracy
2. selectivity (cherry-picking)
3. fake experts
4. impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts)
5. general fallacies of logic.

BTW, works for every kind of denier.

link

195 Basho  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:09:33pm

re: #194 avanti

fake experts are the commies from nasa

they should give up there razor scooters and pelosi
must stop takin world over

196 freetoken  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:14:42pm

re: #194 avanti


3. fake experts

You mean starting a cable TV channel doesn’t count?

197 avanti  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:20:59pm

re: #196 freetoken

You mean starting a cable TV channel doesn’t count?

That should count if we are discussing business management, not so much for global climate change. The guy you mentioned got his education 50 years before he started the weather channel. Ben Stein got off subject with evolution too.

198 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:38:09pm

In case anyone is actually interested in the data, the ice tracking website The Cryospher Today has published a pdf on the issue.

Read it carefully, because it CONFIRMS the core assertion in question made at Daily Tech (the source material for Will). It then SHIFTS THE ARGUMENT to point to the FACT that Northern Hemisphere sea ice is between 500K sq miles and 1M sq miles below that measured in 1979.

They spend much of the pdf describing why GLOBAL sea ice concentrations (which are, in fact, the same within margin of error of that measured in 1979) should not be used to discuss global warming, but rather one should look at the Northern Hemisphere data.

In science, this is called “cherry picking data to support your biases.” Be that as it may, the core assertion at Daily Tech has not been refuted.

And Carl Zimmer does a dishonest job of dodging the issue altogether in his counter attack - he simply unleashes a series of cleverly disguised ad-hominems and then makes naked re-assertions.

Net is this - Will did not lie. He relied on a source that proved to be accurate. Whether he should have relied on that source in the first place is a matter for a different debate.

199 Basho  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:43:57pm

re: #198 karmic_inquisitor


In science, this is called “cherry picking data to support your biases.”

Damn these unpronounceable scientific jargon. What does the Latin root mean?

200 LANMaster  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:47:12pm

I used to respect the Ad Council …. no, really. :)

But then I found this at the top of my web page ..

Link to screen shot here

Can there be no other responsible choices?

This is why the GW issue has me so frantically peeved.

Global climate change is cyclical and natural. Humanity’s contribution of emissions is less than 4% that of natural emissions.

I am all for clean air and water. And I will support legislation to limit pollution almost every time.

But this BS that we must do something right now to save the planet, at the cost of capitalism and the prosperity of human-kind is utterly bonkers.

Ten you have “arguably the world’s leading researcher on global warming” making absolutely fraudulent assessments of even his own data to support his call for civil disobedience to kill capitalism in order to save the planet.

The fact that there have been at least 3 separtate ice ages proves that cooling and warming is CYCLICAL. I don’t buy the envirokook notion that in a mere 100 years, humanity has tipped a scale beyond return toward warming. There’s no precedent for such a theory. Only hype and fear-mongering leftists, who 90% of the time have a disdain for Capitalism at the core of their arguments.

201 LANMaster  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:50:21pm

^^^^ EDIT ^^^^

I gave the wrong link for the Ad Council shot

Here it is

Charles …. is there a way to do a quick edit when I make a mistake like that?

:)

202 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:03:38pm

Dear Messrs. Gore and Will,
It’s too fucking cold up here and it’s your fault.
Yours very truly,
Spare O’Lake

203 LGoPs  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:04:25pm

re: #40 Racer X

See, thats the whole thing isn’t it? Global Warming has become so politicized that you can get whatever data you want.

Bigger picture - should the doom and gloomers who follow alGore be correct, it would take drastic changes by the entire planet to make any impact at all.

You can drive a Prius and buy a bunch of Carbon Offset Credits to make yourself feel good, but your ass is gonna get warm (or cold) no matter what.

re: #34 Shr_Nfr

I doubt it. But its harder to say what the true extent of the ice was in 1979. I suppose folks could hunt through the old SCAMS (SCAnning Microwave Spectrometer) dataset to get an apples to apples comparison with the present MSU dataset, but I doubt anyone will.

The whole point is that between 1979 and now is only 30 years. That’s a helluva small data point to draw any conclusions on let alone start moving out on enacting draconian economic changes that will fundamentally impact all of us.
This is precisely why science shouldn’t be politicized and damn all those who do so.

204 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:08:38pm
205 Hollowpoint  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:26:55pm

re: #194 avanti

Here’s a great link on why arguing with a denier is a waste of time. Yours would be the fake expert tactic.

1.conspiracy
2. selectivity (cherry-picking)
3. fake experts
4. impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts)
5. general fallacies of logic.

BTW, works for every kind of denier.

link

So a physics professor- someone with intimite knowledge of thermodynamics, which is quite relevant- is by definition a “fake expert”, but anyone endorsed by the IPCC is a legitimate expert?

But let’s turn your little theory around, shall we?

The AGW proponents:

1. Conspiracy. Those with even the most remote connection to the energy industry are part of a grand scheme to cover up AGW, and thus can’t be listened to, no matter what their credentials or factual argument.

2. Selectivity. AGW types excel here; pick a historic low temperature, compare it to a more recent and higher temperature to raise alarm. Ignore periods in history such as the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age that do not conform to the AGW theory.

3. Fake experts. Al Gore. The legions of IPCC scientists with little qualification beyond the willingness to board the AGW bandwagon.

4. “Moving the goalposts”. Just recently they lowered their predictions on what level of warming would be catastrophic, almost certainly because earlier predictions of warming have failed miserably. When predictions fail, cite a previously unconsidered and unprovable factor.

5. General fallacies of logic. Rarely do AGW advocates accurately predict trends regarding extreme weather events, but after the event will cite AGW as contributing to it. Flood, drought, warm weather, cold weather, snow, lack of snow, hurricanes, lack of hurricanes- all are cited as evidence of AGW, but only after the event.

206 Teh Flowah  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:56:36pm

re: #179 taxfreekiller

Avanti, when you and the other loon ass liars give up your cars and air conditioning and air plane rides let me know,

as in the stimulus package deal,

what you loons do not use,,, I will.

thanks very much

This is just flawed beyond acceptable standards of stupid. Few scientists and few laymen who accept the scientific theory of AGW advocate going back to the stone age. They argue for developing renewable resources, or new methods of recycling, or carbon filtering, or more efficient cars, or public transportation. They’re asking you not to be wasteful, not to give everything up. Instead of turning up the heat, put on a sweater. And by God, let’s catch up to France.

But that probably sounds like someone telling you to give up electricity, amirite? Idiot.

re: #205 Hollowpoint

So a physics professor- someone with intimite knowledge of thermodynamics, which is quite relevant- is by definition a “fake expert”, but anyone endorsed by the IPCC is a legitimate expert?


I don’t know. Did the “scientist” with the Ph.D. in molecular genetics working at the creationist museum have an expert’s authority to question the theory of evolution? Before you answer the question, allow me to laugh heartily.

Physics of course, being related to many fields because it is so fundamental being a poor indicator of someone’s knowledge in the field of climate change. He might know everything there is to know about thermodynamics but he would likewise need to know everything about the earth’s climate to put the two together. Does he? Is he supported by other scientists as well? Has he been peer reviewed?

Do you think there is some worldwide conspiracy wherein the vast majority of scientists are in cahoots to fool the world about AGW in some grab for funding? That would really be the only way to show that the “scientists” who have real evidence that AGW is wrong aren’t getting peer reviewed because their theories are bullshit. (They are.)

207 MacGregor  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:58:00pm
The consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

link

208 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 4:17:14pm

Sea ice coverage values over time are just as spiky as temperature; cherry picking the values on two dates and attempting to prove a point about trends does nothing but confirm the bias and ignorance or disingenuousness of the person making that comparison.

209 Hollowpoint  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 4:55:48pm

re: #206 Teh Flowah

I don’t know. Did the “scientist” with the Ph.D. in molecular genetics working at the creationist museum have an expert’s authority to question the theory of evolution? Before you answer the question, allow me to laugh heartily.

Yes. That one can be an “expert” does not imply that their interpretation of a theory is wrong- or right. Experts disagree all the time, with some being proven right and others wrong.

Physics of course, being related to many fields because it is so fundamental being a poor indicator of someone’s knowledge in the field of climate change. He might know everything there is to know about thermodynamics but he would likewise need to know everything about the earth’s climate to put the two together. Does he? Is he supported by other scientists as well? Has he been peer reviewed?

Do you really think there’s anybody who knows “everything” about the earth’s climate? With respect to AGW, we’re talking a relatively specific claim- that an increase of concentration of CO2 from .025% to .040% of the Earth’s atmosphere is going to cause significant warming.

The peer review process is important, but don’t confuse science with consensus- it isn’t a popularity contest, it’s about proving theory against observable data, and we’re pretty freakin far from that when it comes to AGW.

Do you think there is some worldwide conspiracy wherein the vast majority of scientists are in cahoots to fool the world about AGW in some grab for funding? That would really be the only way to show that the “scientists” who have real evidence that AGW is wrong aren’t getting peer reviewed because their theories are bullshit. (They are.)

With respect to individual scientists, no “worldwide conspiracy” is required. Become an AGW alarmist, get funding and headlines. Question AGW, you become a “denier” who gets compared to an Intelligent Design creationist. As to organizations like the IPCC, there is a bit of conspiracy there; they are a political advocacy group after all, and of course will try to advance their goals while trying to shut down countering arguments. Dismissing critics out of hand without addressing the evidence they base their argument on is not how science is supposed to work, but the IPCC is primarily a political, not scientific organization.

I don’t know exactly what relationship CO2 has to climate. The problem is that no one else does either, yet advocates want to spend trillions of dollars on an unproven theory for which there exists little consensus or proof regarding specifics.

But you go on dismissing out of hand those who question AGW as having “bullshit” arguments while simultaneously claiming that there is no effort to stifle dissent on the subject.

210 Wendya  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 5:25:05pm

re: #21 Hengineer

And all for how much political grant money you receive.

Because Lord knows, there’s a financial jackpot waiting for you when you claim the North Pole could be ice free. abcnews.go.com Of course when your prediction is shown to be so much hot air, that money doesn’t disappear.

211 mrkwong  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 6:34:40pm

Anthropogenic global warming is at best an unproven theory dependent on highly suspect data massaged by scientists who want to set policy (bonus question - how many reviewers did the IPCC report section on anthropogenic causation have?)

At worst it’s a complete fraud driven by those who want to use the issue to ramp up control over our lives.

The rational response, given that we have rock-solid empirical evidence that twenty years of Chicken Little Hansen’s predictions have notcome to pass, that the Earth is no warmer now than when most Obama voters were in grade school, is to continue to study the issue but take no action that adversely impacts our economy or our quality of life.

212 Galroc  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 6:49:59pm

The challenge he’s referring to is about the ice. Will does not mention the many other challenges that have been laid out. But let’s leave them aside. Life is short. What does Will have to say now about the ice?

Why doesn’t the Zimmer list them and refute them? Because it is easier to write a blanket statement and not back it up.

Citing data as interpreted by a blog…

Are we to discount all news from blogs, even though they might reference the source? That is silly. I bet CBS wish that was the case.

but would it have been really so hard for Will and Co. to drop a note to the scientists themselves to do their own research?

Is this a way of saying the blog was incorrect without saying they were incorrect? Well, they weren’t incorrect.


See anything missing here? How about the fact that by the time Will published his column, there was a lot less ice than there was 30 years ago? How about the point made in that same statement Will prizes so greatly that global ice is a red herring?

I think this statement is a red herring. No where does Zimmer or anyone else say that Will was wrong. University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center statement doesn’t disprove what Will wrote. It is just another fact, which is also correct, but that doesn’t mean the first set of fact was incorrect.

Just a note, as a scientist, I caution people about believing consensus opinion, especially in a new area of research. There are many examples when consensus opinion was wrong.

It is amazing how hard it is to get a grant or publish when you are going against consensus. It is just human nature but eventually the better theories win, but it could take decades.

213 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 7:16:32pm
214 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 7:31:25pm

re: #213 taxfreekiller

Scientists must be almost unimaginably stupid, huh*.

*(c)Disco institute

215 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 7:52:56pm
Question AGW, you become a “denier” who gets compared to an Intelligent Design creationist.

It’s not for asking questions that AGW deniers are getting compared to the ID crowd. It’s for using the tactics and approaches of the ID crowd. I was an AGW denier until I had a proper look at what the ‘sceptics’ were doing in terms of misusing and misrepresenting data, faking up lists of sceptical scientists to make their opinions seem more authoritative, relying on idiotic talking points that are easily refuted and so on. Once the spell of being politically comitted to the anti-AGW stance is broken, you start to see that the bullshit is mostly on the side of the deniers.

216 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 8:07:43pm

re: #211 mrkwong

The rational response, given that we have rock-solid empirical evidence that twenty years of Chicken Little Hansen’s predictions have notcome to pass, that the Earth is no warmer now than when most Obama voters were in grade school, is to continue to study the issue but take no action that adversely impacts our economy or our quality of life.

The above is an example of what I would call hardcore denialism - the sort that asserts there simply is no warming to even argue about. It’s in complete contradiction of the factual evidence, which shows a clear and rapid warming trend over the last few decades:

cru.uea.ac.uk

217 Dirk Diggler  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 9:20:49pm

mrkwong,

Anthropogenic global warming is at best an unproven theory dependent on highly suspect data massaged by scientists who want to set policy (bonus question - how many reviewers did the IPCC report section on anthropogenic causation have?)

At worst it’s a complete fraud driven by those who want to use the issue to ramp up control over our lives.

The rational response, given that we have rock-solid empirical evidence that twenty years of Chicken Little Hansen’s predictions have notcome to pass, that the Earth is no warmer now than when most Obama voters were in grade school, is to continue to study the issue but take no action that adversely impacts our economy or our quality of life.

Regardless of whether or not “Climate Change” is manmade (or even actually occurring) there’s the little problem of doing something about it. Combatting “Climate Change” has a potential price tag of $3 trillion dollars. All to combat an alleged warming of 1 degree or so.

Such a price tag is preposterous when one considers that we face the clear and present danger of a global financial meltdown.

218 hopperandadropper  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 9:51:36pm

re: #194 avanti

Avanti, all you need to do is look at any standard reference on the geological history of the planet. There is absolutely no question that the planetary climate has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now. Ice Age, Age of Dinosaurs, dig? Whatever conditions we’ve been experiencing over the last hundred years are clearly well within those limits, hence within the range of known natural variability. No human influence is needed to explain this. The observed variations during the last hundred years do not correlate especially well with trends in CO2 output due to human activity (primarily increased combustion of fossil fuels). The prime example of this is the well documented cooling trend between roughly 1945 and 1975, a period when CO2 emissions from human activity must inevitably have been increasing drastically due to postwar industrial expansion. The pronounced lack of continued warming since 1998 (slight cooling since then, if anything) is another case in point. AGW suffers from a severe and obvious lack of congruence with physical data. All the models in the world can’t overcome this problem. The proponents of AGW, it seems to me, start from the premise that the global climate in 1900 (or 1950, or whatever your starting point might be) was optimal and also had never before been subject to any significant change. Otherwise, why does a deviation, even a significant one, from an arbitrary starting point constitute a crisis?

You need to understand the scientific method and logic a bit better before you accuse those who disagree with you of adopting creationist tactics.

219 Optimizer  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 10:50:04pm

1) I’m not seeing where Will did much, if anything, wrong. If anything, the hysteria about his articles is really telling. His basic point - that much has been made of sea ice changes, while the current sea ice level is comparable to what it was 30 years ago, is valid.

2) 30 years of history isn’t long enough for this sort of thing anyway. Nobody really knows how sea ice has varied over the decades & centuries. Hell, the poles were first visited by people only about 100 years ago.

3) But it’s all a distraction from the bigger point, which is “Who cares?” Even if sea ice melts, it doesn’t change the ocean levels anyway, and the other implications of lower levels are purely speculative.

4) The argument against AGW is straightforward. AGW is entirely based on computer models which have not been validated - their results have not been shown to correlate with the real world. Quite to the contrary, they have predicted significant warming over the last decade, due to the increased CO2 that DID materialize, but the real world temperatures crested, and seem to be starting to fall. One might say the models have been proven invalid. A legit scientist would be looking for a better theory, not denying reality and predicting the end of the world anyway. The AGW crowd are the “flat-Earthers” and “deniers”.

5) A warmer Earth has always proven to be beneficial to mankind (and life in general). Granted, there must be a limit to that, but nobody’s even predicted that much warming for the next century. Further, the dreaded CO2 is not only non-toxic, but it is literally plant food. Being afraid of a warmer world, and of CO2, is quite literally insane.

6) 90% of the world’s ice is on Antarctica, which is at about -50degF. The Earth would have to warm by 80degF for it to melt, and cause problems on our shores. And even if that happened, it would take a long time to occur. Heat of fusion, and all.

220 Teh Flowah  Fri, Feb 27, 2009 11:02:18pm

re: #209 Hollowpoint
I find it utterly offensive that you would consider anyone who says “we don’t know and we don’t need to know and we don’t need to test it because it says right there in the Bible that God did it” a scientist or an “expert” in a scientific field. And I think it goes a long way to show just how in denial you are about what scientific opinion really dictates.

Are you really going to slap me down for misspeaking about knowing “all” about climate? Of course, it’s obvious no one knows everything about anything. That really wasn’t the point of my statement. My point was that the knowledge of thermodynamics in a vacuum removed from any knowledge about how earth’s climate works makes you pretty useless as an “expert”.

Calling peer review a “popularity contest” is incredibly laughable. I’m not even sure you know what peer review really is saying something so stupid as that. Really.

And how many times are we going to hear the repeated mantra of “funding funding funding” as if scientists, in some mad dash to gain funding and fame will disavow everything they should stand for as scientists, and not just that a few of them do it, but the great majority, and not on any other issues, but only AGW. Why only AGW you may ask. Well because it’s the theory I disagree with of course! Gravity, Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, that’s all fine! Funding issues have nothing to do with it!

You claim they are dismissed out of hand. I suppose you are right. But only insofar as they can be compared to how IDers are dismissed out of hand now. Because their tried and true, (tired and false) “arguments” and tactics have been debunked time and time again. It gets tired rehashing the same argument day in and day out. It’s best to just ignore the crackpots sometimes. Afterall, everyone sounds like an expert to the ignorant. I’m sure if you showed a kid that creationist’s explanations they might think she had all the answers. But in reality, when one examines her responses, you realize they are full of lies, holes, misdirection, and outright gaps in logic. The same exists for the AGW “debate” as it exists in the mind of people who deny it.

I used to be stuck in your sad little world. I tried to toe the party line as much as I could on every issue. I had to dip and dodge to make my natural scientific sympathies match up to backwards ideas concerning abortion, stem cells, evolution, AGW, all those kinds of issues. I will do so no longer. I refuse to be dishonest with myself. Perhaps one day you will join me. I’m a much happier person now that I am consistent in my beliefs.

221 Joetheplumber  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 3:22:15am

I’m amazed that anyone would seriously consider spending trillion dollars on ‘combating global warming’ which is based on computer models that can’t even predict the local temperature a week from now. The claims made by the so-called experts is pure BS and should be recognized as such by any clear thinking individual.

222 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 6:31:40am

re: #219 Optimizer

There is NO global warming. And if there was, it would be a GOOD thing!//

Get a grip.

223 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 6:44:21am

re: #219 Optimizer

Tha argument for AGW is very clear. Temperatures have risen sharply over the last few decades, and this cannot be explained by changes in solar output. Something else is responsible (the anti-AGW crowd are not even curious as to what it might be) and computer models that allow for the impact of CO2 on temperature DO match observations.

A video that shows that the case for AGW is a lot more compelling than ‘sceptics’ give it credit for:

Youtube Video

224 Galroc  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 6:59:41am

That video only shows correlation and not causation. There is a big difference and you can’t leap from one to the other.

Ice core samples show that CO2 follows temperature, and not that temperature follows CO2. Therefor I can make an argument that it is the increase of temperature that is causing the increase in CO2.

225 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 7:04:27am

re: #224 Galroc

AGW denialists are denying that correlation. Look at the post I was addressing.

As for CO2 lagging behind temperature in the ice core data read this:

gristmill.grist.org

226 [deleted]  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 7:37:52am
227 jimc  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 8:28:15am

AJ Strata does a fine job outing the BS that is Man made global warming…

228 Optimizer  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 8:44:16am

#222 Jimmah

Actually, you’re sounding a bit unhinged.

#223 Jimmah

Tha argument for AGW is very clear. Temperatures have risen sharply over the last few decades, and this cannot be explained by changes in solar output. Something else is responsible (the anti-AGW crowd are not even curious as to what it might be) and computer models that allow for the impact of CO2 on temperature DO match observations.

1) The idea that A is NOT causing B is NOT proof that B is caused by C. That’s called a “false dichotomy”. This is not a case where only two things could possibly be the cause. The real cause might even be something that is completely unknown right now.

2) Temperatures correlated with CO2 only for a relatively short time period (something like 1975-2000, IIRC). Before that, there was the cooling scare, where CO2 went up, but temperature went down. If CO2 were the driving factor, you wouldn’t have to cherry-pick that one interval of time. Further, as Galroc mentions, correlation is no guarantee of causality.

3) I don’t think it’s true that the anti-alarmist crowd is uninterested in the cause of the 1degF (or is it 2?) of warming. That being said, they recognize that it is within normal natural variation, and not going to cause any of the things the crazy alarmists claim. In contrast, the alarmist crowd seems COMPLETELY uninterested in the cause, inasmuch as they cling to a theory that is not supported by the evidence.

4) Your claim that “computer models that allow for the impact of CO2 on temperature DO match observations” is factually challenged to such an extent that you’re embarrasing yourself. NONE of the models correctly predicted the last ten years, much less the cooling period that even some alarmists admit is currently starting. I’m guessing that the “observations” you’re referring to were in the past, and possibly tinkered with, Hansen-style.

Even if you ignore the aberration of 1998, the more believable satellite data shows that warming ground to a halt this decade, and may be heading down at this point. The alarmists are the “deniers”.

5) The claims that the Sun cannot be responsible are inherently hypocritical. While the alarmist crowd clings to climate models that have positive-feedback mechanisms in them that magnify the direct effect that CO2 allegedly has, they ignore that solar radiation has an effect on the atmosphere that has a magnifying effect of its own.

229 Proximate  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 10:22:51am

Since alarmist predictions have been falling flat for over a decade (like that prediction of the polar ice cap completely melting in 2008), I’ve got a great idea: Let’s destroy our infrastructure based on their latest predictions!

The adversity from mass starvation and lack of energy to heat our homes will help build character. And I’m sure our collapsed civilization will be replaced by something better…

230 Proximate  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 10:36:27am

By the way, that warning of the ice cap melting in 2008 was from Dr. Mark Serreze of the NSIDC. Yet the 2008 winter ended with more ice than in 2002. Did I miss the the retraction and the mea culpa? He’s paid by the public, where’s our outrage?

Dr. Serreze should be accountable for repeatedly alarming us all to no purpose, but he won’t be. Apparently we’re all suckers for anyone in a labcoat.

“No matter how much evidence exists that seers do not exist, suckers will pay for the existence of seers.” - Dr. J. Scott Armstrong

231 AreaMan  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 2:29:09pm

According to the Discover “Unchecked Ice” article that LGF references, the equivalence between 1979 and ‘now’ was true 6 weeks before Will’s column, at the turn of the year. But not on Feb 15th.

But the ice on the 15th is not more significant than it was 6 weeks earlier. That is, the global ice on Jan 1, 2009 and Jan 1, 1980 was nearly the same. Moving both dates forward 6 weeks, they aren’t the same. A 6 week change over a 29 year difference cannot be significant.

232 Gmac  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 5:51:41pm

Just like Keith Olberman (spit), George Will is better suited to writing or talking about sports.

233 hopperandadropper  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 7:27:14pm

re: #223 Jimmah

Jimmah, it is hard to follow your reasoning. Temperatures have not risen sharply over the past ten years, so your statement “temperatures have risen sharply over the past few decades” is demonstrably untrue. Then, to support your arguments, you cite the authority of a pro-AGW blog that cannot possibly be viewed as a purely objective source of information.

You have said repeatedly that variations in solar output can’t be a factor in the climate variations that have been observed. In saying that, you ignore the fact that observations of sunspots (the only observation of solar activity for which we have a record that goes back for several hundred years) correlate well with the climate patterns we have observed on Earth during those years. In fact, so far as I have seen the records of sunspot activity correlate better with Earth climate than any record (actual, proxy, or estimated) of CO2.

What up, dog?

234 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 4:29:59pm

re: #228 Optimizer

#222 Jimmah

Actually, you’re sounding a bit unhinged.

No, it us you who on the one hand denies AGW outright and then goes on to say:

A warmer Earth has always proven to be beneficial to mankind (and life in general). Granted, there must be a limit to that, but nobody’s even predicted that much warming for the next century. Further, the dreaded CO2 is not only non-toxic, but it is literally plant food. Being afraid of a warmer world, and of CO2, is quite literally insane.

So there’s no AGW, and if there was, it would be a good thing. Face facts - that’s your argument in a nutshell.

#223 Jimmah

Tha argument for AGW is very clear. Temperatures have risen sharply over the last few decades, and this cannot be explained by changes in solar output. Something else is responsible (the anti-AGW crowd are not even curious as to what it might be) and computer models that allow for the impact of CO2 on temperature DO match observations.

1) The idea that A is NOT causing B is NOT proof that B is caused by C. That’s called a “false dichotomy”. This is not a case where only two things could possibly be the cause.

That is not my argument at all. When you substitute a different argument to the one made by your opponent and then proceed to refute it without having addressed your opponent’s actual argument, that’s called a “strawman fallacy”.

My argument, and the argument contained in the video clip posted was A alone(solar forcing+other known factors) does not account for B (observed temperatures), but A plus C(effect of greenhouse gases including CO2) does. The causal argument comes from the science that tells us what greenhouse gases including CO2 do in terms of absorbing heat. We know how much various gases contribute to this, we know how the relative proportions of these gases have been changing over time; when climate scientists input this information into their models their predictions match the trends that are actually observed.

The real cause might even be something that is completely unknown right now.

So it’s either greenhouse gases, or something “that is completely unknown right now”. This is an admission that AGW is the only game in town in terms of explanations of the recent warming trends. It is still possible that AGW is not happening to the extent theorized, but it is the best theory we have to explain it.

2) Temperatures correlated with CO2 only for a relatively short time period (something like 1975-2000, IIRC). Before that, there was the cooling scare, where CO2 went up, but temperature went down. If CO2 were the driving factor, you wouldn’t have to cherry-pick that one interval of time. Further, as Galroc mentions, correlation is no guarantee of causality.

Wrong. A warming trend is evident from about 1910 onwards. We begin to see some divergence from natural forcings alone from about 1950 onwards, this becomes much more evident from about 1970 to the present. The mid-century cooling period you refer to was caused largely by pollutants in the atmosphere that reduced the amount of heat absorption. Again, non-one is arguing that CO2, or greenhouse gases generally, are the only factor. The following graph shows the contribution of several important positive and negative forces that have contributed to observed temperatures.

globalwarmingart.com

contd…

235 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 4:56:02pm

re: #228 Optimizer

4) Your claim that “computer models that allow for the impact of CO2 on temperature DO match observations” is factually challenged to such an extent that you’re embarrasing yourself. NONE of the models correctly predicted the last ten years, much less the cooling period that even some alarmists admit is currently starting. I’m guessing that the “observations” you’re referring to were in the past, and possibly tinkered with, Hansen-style.

This is nonsense. Models are useful in this context for predicting trends, not specific temperatures on a given date. Again, this is down to the inherent spikiness of temperature variations, which in turn is due to the fact that many factors affect temperature, many of which - for example volcanic activity cannot be reliably predicted. The models predicted a continued warming trend and that has borne out. Models do not say that there will be no dips below or peaks above the mean, they predict that over longer time scales a trend will be apparent - and that is exactly what temperature records show. How you can look at the data and not see this is rather amazing. For all the talk of how cold 2008 was, it was nevertheless the 10th warmest year on record, way warmer than any year in the 1970’s.

Even if you ignore the aberration of 1998, the more believable satellite data shows that warming ground to a halt this decade, and may be heading down at this point. The alarmists are the “deniers”.

If you ignore the ‘aberration’ of 1998 then 2005 becomes the hottest year on record. Sorry, who are the deniers again?

You would be correct to say that temperatures have flattened or dipped a little in the last 3 years since 2005, but it is ironic that you complain about trends apparent over decades or a century as insufficiently long to draw any useful conclusions from while seeking to challenge the reading of those trends with your reading of a micro-trend of perhaps 3 years - and a stunningly unimpressive micro-trend at that.

5) The claims that the Sun cannot be responsible are inherently hypocritical.

It is not hypocritical to look for evidence of an increase in the sun’s output that could account for the warming over the last century, and then not find it in the data, and conclude that it doesn’t appear to be responsible. Your suggestion is absurd.

While the alarmist crowd clings to climate models that have positive-feedback mechanisms in them that magnify the direct effect that CO2 allegedly has, they ignore that solar radiation has an effect on the atmosphere that has a magnifying effect of its own.

And this proposed effect has been increasing in such a way as to account for the warming trend of the last century because…? Just to remind you, there has been no change in solar irradience over the last 30 years while temperatures have been rising at their fastest.

236 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:20:38pm

re: #233 hopperandadropper

Jimmah, it is hard to follow your reasoning. Temperatures have not risen sharply over the past ten years, so your statement “temperatures have risen sharply over the past few decades” is demonstrably untrue. Then, to support your arguments, you cite the authority of a pro-AGW blog that cannot possibly be viewed as a purely objective source of information.

If you can’t follow my reasoning then just look at the data. It speaks for itself on this. If you can’t see that the trend on this graph inclines steeply upwards over the last 30 years then I don’t see what help words could possibly be. As for the small levelling off/dip right at the end, representing 2005-2008, see the above post.

I don’t “cite the authority of a pro-AGW blog”, I cite the information contained therein. You should address that information. You are instead trying to invalidate the source just because it takes the opposite side of the argument to yours, in exactly the same way that creationists continually try to invalidate sources like TalkOrigins without actually addressing any of the material referenced. It’s an example of the ad hominem fallacy.

You have said repeatedly that variations in solar output can’t be a factor in the climate variations that have been observed. In saying that, you ignore the fact that observations of sunspots (the only observation of solar activity for which we have a record that goes back for several hundred years) correlate well with the climate patterns we have observed on Earth during those years. In fact, so far as I have seen the records of sunspot activity correlate better with Earth climate than any record (actual, proxy, or estimated) of CO2.

What up, dog?

I have never said that “variations in solar output can’t be a factor in the climate variations that have been observed”. I have repeatedly stressed that they are a factor, but that they do not on their own account for the recent trend that has been observed. I have also stressed that they do correlate well with historical climate variations up until recent decades. Some degree of anomaly from this is evident from the 1950’s onwards, but it is most dramatic from around 1970 till the present. There have been no changes on solar irradiance over this time period that could account for it.

237 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:22:10pm

re: #236 Jimmah

Correction - “2005-2208” should be “2006-2008”.

238 Optimizer  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 9:03:32pm

[I’d use the “reply ” & “quote” features, but they’re not working correctly for me lately]

#234 Jimmah
“I know you are, but what am I?”

But, seriously, you’ve had such a dose of Green Kool-Aid, you’ve completely missed the point - which you have reaffirmed. You consider the notion that, as you paraphrase, “So there’s no AGW, and if there was, it would be a good thing.” To so outlandish, in your tiny, closed, little mind, that you actually have the impression that I have somehow slipped up, or had some kind of gaffe. You say, “Face facts - that’s your argument in a nutshell” as though it was something I would try to deny, and you further display your lack of capacity for rational thought and reasoning by calling this an “argument” - something you are obviously ignorant as to the meaning of. This is, in fact, something called a “claim”. But like a good little Leftist, you try to change the meanings of words (a skill that is apparently essential, if one is to evade reality), and try to avoid the actual argument being made. I doubt you’re fooling anybody in here (except yourself) with this embarrassingly lame straw man.

Well, what do you know, then you go and accuse ME of a straw-man! That’s hilarious! Well, you did say that A = “Solar can’t be responsible”, that B = “Something else is responsible”, then you claim C = “CO2 is responsible” (I paraphrase for A and C). I guess I was supposed to make the connection (that you apparently did) that models allegedly matching observations proves causation, but that doesn’t follow, and you didn’t even make the claim that it did. To make that leap, the models involved would have to be validated, and no climate model has predicted the last decade with any accuracy - so that kind of blows any “validation” they might attempt to claim. Did anybody with a model go on record in 1999 saying, “Gee, I really think this global warming thing is going to take a break for the next 10 years, and start taking a dip towards the end”? If so, I’d love to hear about it.

Oh, this is even funnier! After accusing me of a straw-man, because it’s “not your argument”, you proceed to restate it - EXPLICITLY!:

So it’s either greenhouse gases, or something “that is completely unknown right now”. This is an admission that AGW is the only game in town in terms of explanations of the recent warming trends.

You’re killin’ me, man! ROFL!

And there IS a decent solar-driven theory, but you wouldn’t know about that, would you?

Jimmah:

Wrong. A warming trend is evident from about 1910 onwards. We begin to see some divergence from natural forcings alone from about 1950 onwards, this becomes much more evident from about 1970 to the present. The mid-century cooling period you refer to was caused largely by pollutants in the atmosphere that reduced the amount of heat absorption. Again, non-one is arguing that CO2, or greenhouse gases generally, are the only factor. The following graph shows the contribution of several important positive and negative forces that have contributed to observed temperatures.

This is kind of sad. An AGW talking about warming since 1910? Before humans could possibly have had any effect? And you include THAT in your “proof”? Then, I notice that the local maximum in the 1930s is missing, which means that the disgraced Michael Mann, or his ilk, ginned this up. Further, the decline in world temperatures that precipitated the “Global Cooling” scare back in the 70s, is completely absent (so I guess they didn’t like that “inconvenient truth”!). Then we leave off the current decade. I guess they had more trouble creating runaway global warming out of nothing for recent years.

Then you claim that industry cools the Earth (when it’s convenient for you) but also warms the Earth (when you need it to). So you threw in some humor at the end to wrap up your monologue

239 Optimizer  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 9:44:08pm

#235 Jimmah

This is nonsense. Models are useful in this context for predicting trends, not specific temperatures on a given date.


Another straw-man. The models haven’t successfully predicted the trend for the last decade. Try again.

The models predicted a continued warming trend and that has borne out.

Maybe according to the ginned up data by Hansen. Try looking at the satellite data sometime. Both sets expose him as the fraud that he is. Or you could just look at one of the graphs you linked to, flawed as it apparently is. cru.uea.ac.uk

How you can look at the data and not see this is rather amazing.

Actually, how you can look at that chart and not notice that it agrees that global warming has leveled off and is dipping is amazing. Not to mention how it doesn’t agree with your other chart, IIRC, which showed almost no dip after 1940. Or how the warming during the 20th century is double that which is usually quoted. I think the real numbers, without fraudulent Mann/Hansen-like manipulation, would also show that peak around 1940 as being comparable to the late 90s.

But you’re amusing me by hand-waving away the lack of capacity to predict hills and valleys that dominate over and above anything that might possibly have to do with CO2, while claiming that CO2 is shown to be the problem - with this data! Not to mention how you present a graph as evidence for AGW warming, when a similar warming trend is shown on it for 1900-1940, which is back before CO2 could have been an issue. Your own chart isn’t even right, and it refutes what you’re claiming!

You would be correct to say that temperatures have flattened or dipped a little in the last 3 years since 2005, but it is ironic that you complain about trends apparent over decades or a century as insufficiently long to draw any useful conclusions from while seeking to challenge the reading of those trends with your reading of a micro-trend of perhaps 3 years - and a stunningly unimpressive micro-trend at that.


Oh, stop it with the straw-men, for crying out loud! The trend - as confirmed in your graph is parabolic for the 1999-2009 time frame, with it’s maximum somewhere near the middle. That’s a 10-year trend, not a 3 year one. What good is a model that can’t even predict a 10-year trend? That’s cause to ask yourself, “What’s wrong with this model?” - not cause to say, “Look, see? I’m right!” The models all said it would climb steadily upwards, not turn south.

I didn’t claim that temperature will continue to drop, but I would not be surprised if it did. The Pacific oscillation is past it’s peak, and the Sun (if that idea proves valid) is quieter now than it has been for decades. We might be in for quite a chill, and if we are, guys like you are going to look even more ridiculous than you already do.

240 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 7:49:45am

re: #238 Optimizer

re: #239 Optimizer

This is a waste of time. For a debate to be interesting or fruitful both participants have to be rational, reasonably civil, and above all honest. You are none of these things.

GAZE

241 joetheplumber  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 8:30:05am

I find it amusing that while Jimmah accuses Optimizer of not being rational, civil and honest, it is he who is actually exhibiting all the traits he accuses Optimizer of. Optimizer has presented his arguments in a cogent and clear way, and it would have been nice if Jimmah had presented sound counter-arguments instead of attacking Optimizer.

242 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 10:58:04am

re: #241 joetheplumber

I find it amusing that while Jimmah accuses Optimizer of not being rational, civil and honest, it is he who is actually exhibiting all the traits he accuses Optimizer of. Optimizer has presented his arguments in a cogent and clear way, and it would have been nice if Jimmah had presented sound counter-arguments instead of attacking Optimizer.

You are blatantly lying through your teeth, as any honest person who cares to read the above exchanges can easily confirm. I have been civil and presented information and argument in a rational way, optimiser has cited no sources and provided no evidential back-up of his own for any of his statements or claims. Instead he has distorted and misread what I have said as well as what climate scientists say and what the data clearly shows. The personal attacks were all his, as a read at the above exhanges will confirm.

If you are going to lie, at least choose a lie that is halfway plausible.

243 Optimizer  Wed, Mar 4, 2009 3:56:54pm

re: #240 Jimmah

re: #239 Optimizer

This is a waste of time. For a debate to be interesting or fruitful both participants have to be rational, reasonably civil, and above all honest. You are none of these things.

GAZE

When you run out of arguments, and “can’t take the heat”, you declare yourself above it all, and “get out of the kitchen”. Heh.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh