Zimmer vs. Will (Again)

Environment • Views: 3,021

Science writer Carl Zimmer is calling out George Will again, this time for misrepresenting climate change statistics published by the World Meteorological Organization: George Will, Now With Misleading Links!

One of the more egregious lines from George Will’s recent columns on global warming is the claim that real data shows that warnings about a rise in the average global temperature are wrong. He writes: “According to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade.”

The secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization himself, Michael Jarraud, decided he had to write to the Washington Post to tell them George Will is wrong.

Here’s the nut of Jarraud’s letter from March 21:

It is a misinterpretation of the data and of scientific knowledge to point to one year as the warmest on record — as was done in a recent Post column [“Dark Green Doomsayers,” George F. Will, op-ed, Feb. 15] — and then to extrapolate that cooler subsequent years invalidate the reality of global warming and its effects.

The difference between climate variability and climate change is critical, not just for scientists or those engaging in policy debates about warming. Just as one cold snap does not change the global warming trend, one heat wave does not reinforce it. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit.
Evidence of global warming has been documented in widespread decreases in snow cover, sea ice and glaciers. The 11 warmest years on record occurred in the past 13 years.

While variations occur throughout the temperature record, shorter-term variations do not contradict the overwhelming long-term increase in global surface temperatures since 1850, when reliable meteorological recordkeeping began. Year to year, we may observe in some parts of the world colder or warmer episodes than in other parts, leading to record low or high temperatures. This regional climate variability does not disprove long-term climate change. While 2008 was slightly cooler than 2007, partially due to a La Niña event, it was nonetheless the 10th-warmest year on record.

This kind of distortion is one thing that makes it so difficult for non-scientists to make sense of this debate; there are people on both sides of the issue who are spinning and twisting the data.

Jump to bottom

376 comments
1 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 3:59:14pm

Global Confusion Agenda

2 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:00:50pm

Change vs. variability. The definition is highly dependent on time scale.

150 years is a very, very short time scale.

3 HelloDare  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:01:15pm

What confusion? The debate is over.

4 Ringo the Gringo  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:01:34pm

I wonder by what name future historians will refer to our age?

5 HelloDare  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:01:48pm

re: #3 HelloDare

What confusion? The debate is over.

///////////////

6 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:02:18pm

re: #3 HelloDare

What confusion? The debate is over.

You mean I am a monkey’s uncle?

7 HelloDare  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:02:27pm

re: #4 Ringo the Gringo

I wonder by what name future historians will refer to our age?

The Age of the Waffle.

8 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:02:36pm

re: #5 HelloDare

///////////////

lol I was about to say…

9 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:02:39pm

re: #4 Ringo the Gringo

I wonder by what name future historians will refer to our age?

Age of Arrogance.

10 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:03:16pm

re: #7 HelloDare

The Age of the Waffle.

The Age of Change!

11 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:03:32pm

I just think ahead maybe a day or so….these people are USING me…

12 Perplexed  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:03:45pm

Hmmm, snowed in Mn on Monday. Guess that counts for warming.

//

13 quickjustice  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:04:10pm

The climate always is changing. Always has, always will. His point about weather and climate change being two different things also is valid, and points out Wills’s error.

Nonetheless, asserting that humans cause climate change is a radically different proposition. And even if true, asserting that human-caused climate change is bad, as opposed to good, also is controversial. Weighing costs and benefits, Borg argues that human-caused climate change, which he accepts for purposes of the argument, is beneficial.

14 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:04:29pm

re: #4 Ringo the Gringo

I wonder by what name future historians will refer to our age?

for me the Age of Aging…I still rock like the punk I yam tho!

15 Mr. In get Mr. Out  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:04:29pm

re: #4 Ringo the Gringo

I wonder by what name future historians will refer to our age?

Dude, where’s our car?

16 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:04:36pm

re: #12 Perplexed

Hmmm, snowed in Mn on Monday. Guess that counts for warming.

//

Snowstorms still in Kansas…..damn global warming.

17 Midwestprof  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:04:38pm

My wife is a PhD in atmospheric sciences specializing in computer modeling. She says anthropogenic global warming is not proven (simply stated instead of using the term “BS”).

18 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:04:42pm
This kind of distortion is one thing that makes it so difficult for non-scientists to make sense of this debate; there are people on both sides of the issue who are spinning and twisting the data.

It is hard to know what’s true but this makes it all the more important to not let the debate be over. And certainly it is not time to enact draconian socialist policies to correct what is clearly a debatable phenomenon.

19 irongrampa  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:04:49pm

Came to the conclusion that it’s irrelevant if the Earth warms or cools. Man isn’t going to have any influence on either, in any measurable way.
Strikes me the only solution is to either adapt or perish.

Everything else is moot.

20 Thor-Zone  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:05:08pm

The earth may be warming, but it sure isn’t because of what man is doing. The last few years have seen a very high level of solar activity. During this period the earth was warming.

This has changed recently. Now the sun is in a period of realitive calm. The latest data show the earth is actually cooling right now.

GLOBAL WARMING = BS

21 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:05:15pm

re: #15 Mr. In get Mr. Out

Dude, where’s our car?

Wheres our car Dude?

22 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:05:32pm

re: #16 Hengineer

Snowstorms still in Kansas…..damn global warming.

Snowed in Seattle yesterday, closed the mountain passes last night.

23 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:05:45pm

re: #4 Ringo the Gringo

I wonder by what name future historians will refer to our age?

We haven’t entered my age yet. The Age of ConservatismNow!

24 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:06:02pm

re: #17 Midwestprof

My wife is a PhD in atmospheric sciences specializing in computer modeling. She says anthropogenic global warming is not proven (simply stated instead of using the term “BS”).

But that kind of statement doesn’t get anyone research grant money, so they go with the crazy statements.

25 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:06:11pm

re: #21 Hengineer

Wheres our car Dude?


Studebaker was allowed to fail…….

26 Ringo the Gringo  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:06:28pm

The Age of Information Shock.

27 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:07:07pm

re: #25 jcm

Studebaker was allowed to fail…….

Carmengia

28 debutaunt  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:07:26pm

re: #1 Hengineer

Global Confusion Agenda

Science + politics =

29 zombie  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:07:33pm
This kind of distortion is one thing that makes it so difficult for non-scientists to make sense of this debate; there are people on both sides of the issue who are spinning and twisting the data.

That is true, but what we haven’t seen much on LGF recently are posts about about the other side — the global warming catastrophists — are themselves twisting the data.

It’s all well and good to “clean house” and do a bit of self-criticism — always a good idea — but let’s not forget that the other side is doing no such thing, and outright partisan data-twisting is going on all the time, relentlessly, from the AGW catastrophists.

30 HoosierHoops  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:07:36pm

This kind of distortion is one thing that makes it so difficult for non-scientists to make sense of this debate; there are people on both sides of the issue who are spinning and twisting the data.
I couldn’t agree more..
This last summer the very respected Universetoday.com posted a thread about the low level of activity on the Sun..How the output is so low. ( everybody is reporting it now)
The gist of the augument was if the Sun’s output is so low then Global Warming MUST be man made.
Numbers ( generally ) Don’t lie…There is Climate change..
But if that is the logic approved and spun by Scientists..If it’s not the Sun so it must be man..
then I should have a Fucking PH.d by now…

31 zombie  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:08:09pm

And they are not apologetic and they do not back down.

32 Ceemack  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:08:35pm

I wonder if Carl Zimmer gets as exercised about the numerous distortions put forth by the pro-AGW crowd.

Given that he writes for the New York Times and Discover, I kinda doubt it.

33 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:09:08pm

re: #31 zombie

And they are not apologetic and they do not back down.

The ends justify the means when dealing with extremists on both sides.

34 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:09:51pm

re: #31 zombie

And they are not apologetic and they do not back down.

who? creationists?

35 midwestgak  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:10:02pm

re: #9 jcm

Age of Arrogance.

Age of Laodicea. Because you say, I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and know not that you are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.

36 Spar Kling  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:10:08pm

… and God protect us against self-righteous, crusading politicians and scientists who want to take drastic steps to change the Earth’s climate!
What if, as a result of their actions, we enter a massive ice age? Will they accept responsibility? Of course not!

Oh, and by the way, where are the Y2K luminaries?

-sk

37 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:10:43pm

re: #31 zombie

And they are not apologetic and they do not back down.

Which makes it all the more apparent that they have an agenda. Socialism and the strangulation of the American economy.
And what is the agenda of us that push back? Does anyone really think that we want dirty air or water? We are pushing back against the relentless creep of world socialism/communism.

38 nyc redneck  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:11:00pm

the age of kookdom

the kookdom age.

39 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:11:37pm

re: #29 zombie

That is true, but what we haven’t seen much on LGF recently are posts about about the other side — the global warming catastrophists — are themselves twisting the data.

Actually, you have. There was a post two days ago about Freeman Dyson.

40 Thor-Zone  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:11:39pm

re: #37 LGoPs

We are pushing back against the relentless creep of world socialism/communism.

Exactly.

41 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:11:44pm

re: #36 Spar Kling

… and God protect us against self-righteous, crusading politicians and scientists who want to take drastic steps to change the Earth’s climate!
What if, as a result of their actions, we enter a massive ice age? Will they accept responsibility? Of course not!

Oh, and by the way, where are the Y2K luminaries?

-sk

I honestly think whatever we do really doesn’t impact the entire world all that much.

42 brookly red  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:12:01pm

re: #36 Spar Kling

… and God protect us against self-righteous, crusading politicians and scientists who want to take drastic steps to change the Earth’s climate!
What if, as a result of their actions, we enter a massive ice age? Will they accept responsibility? Of course not!

Oh, and by the way, where are the Y2K luminaries?

-sk

/none ah dem can change the time…

43 quickjustice  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:12:45pm

Where is the Goracle when you need him to explain everything?

Answer: Up on Mt. Olympus, with Jimmy Carter and the other Nobel Peace Prize winners and Academy Award recipients. ;-)

44 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:13:05pm

re: #41 Hengineer

I honestly think whatever we do really doesn’t impact the entire world all that much.

you are a mere pissant and the Sun laughs at you….

45 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:13:07pm

re: #36 Spar Kling

… and God protect us against self-righteous, crusading politicians and scientists who want to take drastic steps to change the Earth’s climate!
What if, as a result of their actions, we enter a massive ice age? Will they accept responsibility? Of course not!

Oh, and by the way, where are the Y2K luminaries?

-sk

Maybe they’re hanging out with all those scientists who published peer-reviewed papers on intelligent design? Remember the long list you promised to show us?

46 HoosierHoops  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:14:01pm

Sorry Charles..I forgot to quote.. My #30 is directed to you.
Hope today finds you well

47 zombie  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:14:12pm

The issue that really frosts me (pun intended) more than any other is the doomsday scenarios painted for what the world will be like even if they temperatures do rise as much as the Chicken Littles are claiming.

All that will happen is that the temperate zones will shift toward the poles.

Yes, there are two ecosystems that will suffer: the polar Arctic ecosystem, which will get warmer; and the desert margins, which might become more desertified.

But all the other ecosystems will shift in ways that are not catastropic, and in some cases could be considered beneficial. All of Siberia, for example, would become a slightly less miserable place.

I’ve got to dash out the door, so can’t post extensively on this topic, but it’s one that’s very important. For every polar bear that gets diminshed range, there are potentially thousands of species that will get expanded ranges. Same applies to plants, etc.

48 freetoken  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:14:48pm

The problem demonstrated by G. Will and so many who take the same line (on AGW) is not specific to climate change, but relates to an lack of understanding of measurement, statistics, probability, and how to determine causation and correlation.

We see this in the autism-vaccine fiasco… in discussion about economics, etc.

This is a real problem in our society - we have built a society upon highly sophisticated technology which was created after the gathering of considerable scientific knowledge. However, the specialists working in the scientific fields, by the nature of the process, are now so specified into their field that the general public cannot relate to them (on subjects in that field.)

Zimmerman is one of many who have recently lamented the decline of science journalism as a job (newspapers are cutting science journalist jobs, for example). Without highly educated journalists who specialize in science, it is more difficult to bridge the gap between the specialist and the laity.

I wish I had an answer for this…. Kudos to Charles for trying to sort through these highly technical issues, but I wonder what percentage of the general populace concern themselves likewise with working through these type of problems?

49 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:15:02pm

re: #44 albusteve

you are a mere pissant and the Sun laughs at you….

basically.

50 zombie  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:15:34pm

re: #39 Charles

Actually, you have. There was a post two days ago about Freeman Dyson.

Sorry, been too busy these last two weeks to follow every LGF post every day! I’ve been “hit and run” commenting, and have missed about half the topics. I’ll have to go back and find that thread. Thanks.

51 Soona'  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:15:46pm

re: #19 irongrampa

Came to the conclusion that it’s irrelevant if the Earth warms or cools. Man isn’t going to have any influence on either, in any measurable way.
Strikes me the only solution is to either adapt or perish.

Everything else is moot.

Ditto. Good post.

52 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:16:02pm

re: #45 Charles

Maybe they’re hanging out with all those scientists who published peer-review papers on intelligent design? Remember the long list you promised to show us?

Papers on intelligent design reviewed by the authors’ peers: other intelligent design advocates?

53 freetoken  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:16:43pm

re: #29 zombie

Zombie - tell me why every professional scientific body accepts AGW.

54 quickjustice  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:16:50pm

re: #47 zombie

And if global warming continues, you could farm in Iceland and in Canada for much longer periods. Fewer people would freeze to death. There are benefits to climate change that you have to weigh against the costs.

55 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:16:58pm

By the way, I do think George Will is distorting evidence on purpose. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt the first time, but it’s happened too many times now, and in every case the people he’s quoting have turned up to say he’s not representing their views or their data correctly.

56 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:17:58pm

re: #54 quickjustice

And if global warming continues, you could farm in Iceland and in Canada for much longer periods. Fewer people would freeze to death. There are benefits to climate change that you have to weigh against the costs.

The downsides are the carbon-credit business schemes dreamed up by the Gorical.

57 itellu3times  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:18:33pm
The 11 warmest years on record occurred in the past 13 years.

I thought that statement in particular was debunked as a computer data glitch by the NASA geniuses like Holdren.

58 BlueCanuck  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:19:41pm

re: #4 Ringo the Gringo

I wonder by what name future historians will refer to our age?

The Crazy Years? Really, has anything really sane happened or been held up as a standard? We seem to me moving from crisis to crisis. Most of them made up out of whole cloth.

59 Adrenalyn  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:19:57pm

re: #4 Ringo the Gringo

I wonder by what name future historians will refer to our age?

The Age of Mass Destruction

Iran will erase Israel
or some Talibani will erase D.C.

0bama’s weakness will not go unnoticed

60 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:20:13pm

re: #57 itellu3times

I thought that statement in particular was debunked as a computer data glitch by the NASA geniuses like Holdren.

its still a telling statement “On record”

exactly what does on record mean? Who was doing the recording, with what instruments, calibrated to what scale?

What were the so-called temperatures before this recording started to begin with, and were there any outlying effects that might have altered the data?

61 quickjustice  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:20:15pm

re: #53 freetoken

That’s making a “consensus” argument, like Gore. “Everyone agrees with me, so you’re crazy if you don’t”. Are you claiming that every member of every scientific body agrees with AGW? Are you claiming that there are no reputable dissident scientists?

62 zombie  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:20:16pm

re: #53 freetoken

Zombie - tell me why every professional scientific body accepts AGW.

I will if you tell me why every professional scientific body exaggerates the significance of AGW, and bases their doomsdays scenarios on unprovable projections.

63 pat  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:20:22pm

They both are a little wrong. Will less so than Zimmer. Sea and Satellite show that there has been no increase in global averages since 2002. That is different than cooling. Cooling has only occurred for the last 20 months and that is not enough to constitute a trend. As for warming, the world has been gradually warming for 12,000 years, with intervening highs and lows. The highs were much higher than today using Zimmers interesting measure, ice cover. A totally imprecise subterfuge. As for the hottest decade nonsense, the world seems to be unaware of the concept of the Christian calendar. It deals in odd numbers. Using arbitrary 11 year cycles, the hottest measured is in the 1930s. As to the 1950 nonsense, this happens to be the year when the Brits and Americans commenced to keep records. That then would constitute such a small sampling as to be meaningless. And was so for decades.

64 loppyd  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:20:26pm

The Global Warming cult is losing its grip on the American people. I recently read a poll or heard a poll quoted on the radio (will search for a link) which showed that Americans are increasingly skeptical.

65 nikis-knight  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:20:35pm

re: #47 zombie

The issue that really frosts me (pun intended) more than any other is the doomsday scenarios painted for what the world will be like even if they temperatures do rise as much as the Chicken Littles are claiming.

All that will happen is that the temperate zones will shift toward the poles.

Yes, there are two ecosystems that will suffer: the polar Arctic ecosystem, which will get warmer; and the desert margins, which might become more desertified.

But all the other ecosystems will shift in ways that are not catastropic, and in some cases could be considered beneficial. All of Siberia, for example, would become a slightly less miserable place.

I’ve got to dash out the door, so can’t post extensively on this topic, but it’s one that’s very important. For every polar bear that gets diminshed range, there are potentially thousands of species that will get expanded ranges. Same applies to plants, etc.


Exactly! Which makes in downright hillarious to hear Canada or all those Scandinavian countries whining about Climate Change! Oh no, Canada might be stuck with the climate of, say, Illinois!
And, look at it this way, the countires that a 1-2 degree per century increase will “hurt” the most are the more equatorial developing ones, those who are least concerned with this doomsday nonsense. There is no scenario in which it would not be worth it to them to get reliable power in exchange for a few degress ave temp increase.

And further, where is more land located? Seems to me that a shift of temperate climate northward would increase global food supply, by opening up some of the vast areas in asia and Canada for more use.

66 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:21:50pm

re: #58 BlueCanuck

The Crazy Years? Really, has anything really sane happened or been held up as a standard? We seem to me moving from crisis to crisis. Most of them made up out of whole cloth.

It’ll make for a good sitcom.

67 Mirage  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:22:02pm

re: #28 debutaunt

PseudoScience + politics =

FTFY :D

68 loppyd  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:22:15pm

re: #63 pat

They both are a little wrong. Will less so than Zimmer. Sea and Satellite show that there has been no increase in global averages since 2002. That is different than cooling. Cooling has only occurred for the last 20 months and that is not enough to constitute a trend. As for warming, the world has been gradually warming for 12,000 years, with intervening highs and lows. The highs were much higher than today using Zimmers interesting measure, ice cover. A totally imprecise subterfuge. As for the hottest decade nonsense, the world seems to be unaware of the concept of the Christian calendar. It deals in odd numbers. Using arbitrary 11 year cycles, the hottest measured is in the 1930s. As to the 1950 nonsense, this happens to be the year when the Brits and Americans commenced to keep records. That then would constitute such a small sampling as to be meaningless. And was so for decades.

But I thought Bush did more to damage our planet in his term than any president EVAH!

69 HoosierHoops  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:22:54pm

re: #59 Adrenalyn

The Age of Mass Destruction

Iran will erase Israel
or some Talibani will erase D.C.

0bama’s weakness will not go unnoticed

OMG! That may be the funniest Avatar I have ever seen..
And you look just like grandma..I think I love you

70 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:23:08pm

re: #64 loppyd

The Global Warming cult is losing its grip on the American people. I recently read a poll or heard a poll quoted on the radio (will search for a link) which showed that Americans are increasingly skeptical.

hurry and get those laws passed….get going before the people get hip to us…HURRY!…

the whole issue is sadly laughable

71 bill-tb  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:23:11pm

Regardless the argument, in the end the sun will win. Does anyone know what heat source earth has that is not the sun?

And the current quite sun is going to spell trouble, short growing seasons, less food.

Enjoy, because no one can change the course of the sun.

72 yochanan  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:23:20pm

FRANKLY for me it isn’t about climate change since the climate is always in flux other wise chicagostan would still be under the 1/2 mile of ice i was under 14,000 years ago.

the issue for me is the whole political side of it. cap’n trade etc. and that i am opposed to.

73 quickjustice  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:23:27pm

re: #68 loppyd

Are you saying that Bush saved the planet?!? ;-)

74 brookly red  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:23:45pm

re: #4 Ringo the Gringo

I wonder by what name future historians will refer to our age?

well if there are to be future historians, they probably won’t refer to us very much.

75 nikis-knight  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:23:52pm

re: #72 yochanan

FRANKLY for me it isn’t about climate change since the climate is always in flux other wise chicagostan would still be under the 1/2 mile of ice i was under 14,000 years ago.

the issue for me is the whole political side of it. cap’n trade etc. and that i am opposed to.

Yup. Can’t let a crisis go to waste.

76 RoughRider  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:23:59pm

re: #4 Ringo the Gringo

I wonder by what name future historians will refer to our age?

In the future, 2009 will be reset to Year 1 Anno Obama.

77 freetoken  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:24:14pm

re: #62 zombie

I will if you tell me why every professional scientific body exaggerates the significance of AGW, and bases their doomsdays scenarios on unprovable projections.

Thus sayeth Zombie…

So, you must believe these scientific bodies are somehow either dishonest, or in someway being non-professional?

78 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:24:20pm

Besides the fact that there may be cherry picking of data on both sides of the debate (although I am convinced that the vast majority of the bad faith resides on the GW side) there is one point in the debate that seems the most illuminating to me.
If in fact, GW is real and human caused and will bring catastrophic results, how in the world can one argue that certain countries are to be exempted from the effort to combat it.
If we really are in such dire peril, then it is incumbent on every person and every nation to do its utmost to stop this.
And arguments that focus the effort predominantly on America, and the West, seem to me very transparently hypocritical and have only one objective. And that is to drag down America and the prosperity that it represents.

79 quickjustice  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:25:03pm

re: #76 RoughRider

No. That’s “1 Anno Horribulus”.

80 ziggyelman  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:25:10pm

Remember all the experts apologizing for saying the North pole was going to completely melt away last summer?
[Link: news.nationalgeographic.com…]

Perhaps I missed that?

81 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:25:10pm

re: #71 bill-tb

Regardless the argument, in the end the sun will win. Does anyone know what heat source earth has that is not the sun?

And the current quite sun is going to spell trouble, short growing seasons, less food.

Enjoy, because no one can change the course of the sun.

Its all Bush’s fault.

82 WhiteRasta  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:25:16pm

The problem I have is that nitrogen makes up 86% of the atmosphere, but does not affect the “climate”.

Carbon dioxide makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere, but does affect the climate.

Where is the logic in that? My BS meter is off the scale.

83 Soona'  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:26:04pm

re: #72 yochanan

FRANKLY for me it isn’t about climate change since the climate is always in flux other wise chicagostan would still be under the 1/2 mile of ice i was under 14,000 years ago.

the issue for me is the whole political side of it. cap’n trade etc. and that i am opposed to.

You’re right. It’s about fleecing the capitalists (US) and the degradation of individual liberty.

84 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:26:04pm

re: #64 loppyd

The Global Warming cult is losing its grip on the American people. I recently read a poll or heard a poll quoted on the radio (will search for a link) which showed that Americans are increasingly skeptical.

Here’s the thing: are they skeptical because the hypothesis has not been proven, because they reject science altogether, or another reason?

85 Lincolntf  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:26:09pm

Chick-fil-A is the best fast food sandwich in America. Seriously, the brand was just a name I’d maybe heard once or twice until I moved South
Just had one, unbelievable!

86 Bearster  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:26:37pm

#53 freetoken

They don’t. I would check out Steven Milloy’s www.junkscience.com and www.climate-skeptic.com which has tons and tons of material. Also, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a petititon signed by over 31,000 scientists that says (among many other things):

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
87 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:26:51pm

re: #82 WhiteRasta

The problem I have is that nitrogen makes up 86% of the atmosphere, but does not affect the “climate”.

Carbon dioxide makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere, but does affect the climate.

Where is the logic in that? My BS meter is off the scale.

Far More water vapor in the atmosphere affects the climate than the Carbon Dioxide does.

Besides, don’t plants need carbon dioxide to breathe? Without CO2, farms would be destroyed, food would be destroyed. Vegetarians source of food would no longer exist!

88 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:27:03pm

re: #73 quickjustice

Are you saying that Bush saved the planet?!? ;-)

No. It was Karl Rove’s weather machine. It righted the ecosystem. :D

89 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:27:21pm

re: #85 Lincolntf

Chick-fil-A is the best fast food sandwich in America. Seriously, the brand was just a name I’d maybe heard once or twice until I moved South
Just had one, unbelievable!

I like Subway better, Chick-fil-A is alright, been there once.

90 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:27:27pm

I’m just tired of the politicizing of science by people on both sides of the aisle. I still wonder if this isn’t intentional to create an overall mistrust of science by multiple factions with the only common thread being irrationality trumping reason and fact.

91 quickjustice  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:27:40pm

re: #82 WhiteRasta

One AGW argument is that CO2 levels, caused by human activity, correlate with temperature rises. The trouble is, they don’t. Temperatures are rising far more slowly than this leading “indicator” is indicating.

92 Loren42  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:28:09pm

Duh! Since when has this been a scientific debate? It’s an emotional debate, silly.

93 HoosierHoops  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:28:26pm

re: #85 Lincolntf

Chick-fil-A is the best fast food sandwich in America. Seriously, the brand was just a name I’d maybe heard once or twice until I moved South
Just had one, unbelievable!

Amen to that bro…Great healthy food..and it’s fast food…

94 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:28:27pm

re: #82 WhiteRasta

The problem I have is that nitrogen makes up 86% of the atmosphere, but does not affect the “climate”.

Carbon dioxide makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere, but does affect the climate.

Where is the logic in that? My BS meter is off the scale.

The answer to that is pretty fundamental: Neither nitrogen nor oxygen block infrared radiation, CO2 and H2O and methane and other things do.

95 Hhar  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:28:40pm

I agree completely.

Science is a profession, and frankly is best left to professionals, working in their fields. The problem, however, is that professionals are human, and humans are susceptible to non-rational behaviors. So science works in the long run, but sometimes not very well in the short run.

The best thing any non-scientist can do is inform yourself, but stick to basics, take a deep breath, and remind yourself: Vanity of vanities….. Anthropogenic warming could be real, might not be. It bothers me that the governmental response to its perceived liklihood is to spend large amounts of money on “fixing” it with lunatic trading ideas and “economic incentives”…

This is sorta how it seems to me.
basics: You don’t want the sauds having you by the short and curlies
basics: The ideal energy source is abundant and widely distributed.
basics: Economic and cultural development hinges critically on technological development

Dick all in there about global warming, isn’t there?
Inseems to me that the gubment is GOOD at getting research done. It is NOT good at doing trade. So………..

96 WhiteRasta  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:28:44pm

re: #87 Hengineer

I refer to CO2 as PLANT FOOD, without which there would be no life on earth. None.

97 ziggyelman  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:29:05pm

re: #85 Lincolntf

Chick-fil-A is the best fast food sandwich in America. Seriously, the brand was just a name I’d maybe heard once or twice until I moved South
Just had one, unbelievable!

and their waffle fries are not greasy at all!

98 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:29:17pm

re: #85 Lincolntf

Chick-fil-A is the best fast food sandwich in America. Seriously, the brand was just a name I’d maybe heard once or twice until I moved South
Just had one, unbelievable!

When I lived in Georgia they used to have some hilarious billboards along the interstate. There was a cow, propped up by another cow, changing the billboard to read “Eat more Beef Chikin”

99 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:29:20pm

re: #87 Hengineer

Far More water vapor in the atmosphere affects the climate than the Carbon Dioxide does.

Besides, don’t plants need carbon dioxide to breathe? Without CO2, farms would be destroyed, food would be destroyed. Vegetarians source of food would no longer exist!

The other question with CO2 and the various feedback loops. More CO2 -> Warmer -> better environment for plants -> more CO2 fixing.

100 DEZes  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:29:22pm

re: #92 Loren42

A hatching, hiya.

101 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:29:23pm

re: #97 ziggyelman

and their waffle fries are not greasy at all!

And they have the BEST lemonade.

102 quickjustice  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:29:46pm

Those poor polar bears! And their cute little cubs! They’ll all drown! Waaaah!
(Exits stage left weeping).

103 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:29:58pm

re: #96 WhiteRasta

I refer to CO2 as PLANT FOOD, without which there would be no life on earth. None.

You shall be taxed a Carbon Credit for exhaling.

104 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:30:07pm

re: #90 Sharmuta

I’m just tired of the politicizing of science by people on both sides of the aisle. I still wonder if this isn’t intentional to create an overall mistrust of science by multiple factions with the only common thread being irrationality trumping reason and fact.

of course it is…it’s just more fantasy at the expense of ordinary folk…another world wide scam to bilk us…there is HUGE money denouncing science and that ain’t fiction

105 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:30:45pm

re: #90 Sharmuta

I’m just tired of the politicizing of science by people on both sides of the aisle. I still wonder if this isn’t intentional to create an overall mistrust of science by multiple factions with the only common thread being irrationality trumping reason and fact.

Now now, don’t be a creationalarmist.

106 Adrenalyn  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:30:50pm

re: #69 HoosierHoops

OMG! That may be the funniest Avatar I have ever seen..
And you look just like grandma..I think I love you

ah, that’s not me
that’s just a sweet little old lady
I am a “the mad mullah on the mountain” (the neighbors just think I am a madman, but call when they’re scared)
and could not find a really good avatar that said “me” any better

plus, aren’t we supposed to toss our grandmas under the bus ?

107 WhiteRasta  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:30:50pm

Gotta go cook some red meat….on a fire. Make lots of CO2!

108 itellu3times  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:30:58pm
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74°C, but this increase has not been continuous. The linear warming trend over the past 50 years (0.13°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the past 100 years.

This is crap. The claim here is that average temperature has risen 5 * 0.13 = 0.65°C in fifty years, and about 10 * 0.065 = 0.65°C in 100 years? IOW, the entire trend is in the last fifty, and that is small enough to be within the noise level, both noise in the measurement processes, and noise in natural variability.

And this while the poles on Mars are melting.

Sorry, I’ll favor Will over Zimmer in this match, and the more excited Zimmer gets about it, the less credibility I think he gets.

109 freetoken  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:31:12pm

Well, I have an appointment I must keep… hopefully someone else (naso? ludwig?) will step in to defend the (vastly) majority science side.

110 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:31:18pm

re: #78 LGoPs

And arguments that focus the effort predominantly on America, and the West, seem to me very transparently hypocritical and have only one objective. And that is to drag down America and the prosperity that it represents.

That’s a big problem for me too. It’s no so much the science (which I can accept) as it is the agenda being pushed very selectively.

111 HoosierHoops  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:31:26pm

re: #92 Loren42

Duh! Since when has this been a scientific debate? It’s an emotional debate, silly.

It is a scientific debate..with a large measure of emotion and politics thrown in for good measure..
Nice having you here..Welcome

112 DEZes  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:31:59pm

re: #100 DEZes

Not a hatchling, just bashful.

113 Clemente  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:32:06pm

re: #82 WhiteRasta

The problem I have is that nitrogen makes up 86% of the atmosphere, but does not affect the “climate”.

Carbon dioxide makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere, but does affect the climate.

Where is the logic in that? My BS meter is off the scale.

CO2 is BAD because America can be blamed for it, even after Bush has left office.

/ A simple and irresistible example of what passes for logic in some minds. And, by the way, your BS meter is functioning perfectly.

114 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:32:08pm

re: #110 Sharmuta

That’s a big problem for me too. It’s no so much the science (which I can accept) as it is the agenda being pushed very selectively.

meanwhile your tax dollars fund the entire scam

115 Hengineer  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:32:42pm

ok i’m out all.

Later Lizards

116 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:33:04pm
117 HoosierHoops  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:33:41pm

re: #106 Adrenalyn

ah, that’s not me
that’s just a sweet little old lady
I am a “the mad mullah on the mountain” (the neighbors just think I am a madman, but call when they’re scared)
and could not find a really good avatar that said “me” any better

plus, aren’t we supposed to toss our grandmas under the bus ?

Ah Dang! I thought that was you! Nice meeting you.

118 Wishing  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:33:53pm

None of this matters: cap and trade is a done deal.
We will pay.

119 brookly red  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:34:00pm

re: #112 DEZes

Not a hatchling, just bashful.

ack!

120 quickjustice  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:34:03pm

If the sun shuts down, or explodes, I assure all of you that this debate will become moot in a hurry.

121 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:34:11pm

re: #114 albusteve

meanwhile your tax dollars fund the entire scam

Thank God it’s only Sharm’s tax dollars. I was worried for a minute there that my tax dollars would be used for this too.
///////

122 lostlakehiker  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:34:22pm

re: #82 WhiteRasta

The problem I have is that nitrogen makes up 86% of the atmosphere, but does not affect the “climate”.

Carbon dioxide makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere, but does affect the climate.

Where is the logic in that? My BS meter is off the scale.

Let’s make an analogy. You look up at the sun through 15 pounds of nitrogen, oxygen, etc., and it’s blinding. You put on glasses. Still blinding. You put one milligram of smoke on the glass. Ah. There. Better.

Some things are transparent. Others aren’t. Some things are transparent to light in the visible spectrum, such as nitrogen gas and carbon dioxide gas. But nitrogen is ALSO transparent in the infrared, while carbon dioxide is less transparent. From the point of view of these wavelengths, ones you cannot see with the naked eye but still every bit as real as those you can see, CO2 is relatively opaque. It tends to block the outgoing IR radiation from escaping into space. What does not escape, warms the earth.

What does escape, cools it.

And while we’re at it, what is not absorbed when it hits the earth, because it hits ice and is reflected right back to the sky, does not heat the earth. Well, we’re well on our way to losing the better part of the arctic ice cap. It’ll reform every winter, true, but winter doesn’t matter because no sunlight reaches the arctic in the winter either way.

arctic sea ice shrinking

123 Clemente  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:35:23pm

And on a happier note,

Blagojevich, his brother, top aides indicted

Will be interesting to see who sings, and what songs, and who’s invited to the choir next…

124 loppyd  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:35:32pm

re: #70 albusteve

hurry and get those laws passed….get going before the people get hip to us…HURRY!…

the whole issue is sadly laughable

Someone posted earlier that Cap and Trade is dying or dead in the Senate.

125 Wishing  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:36:22pm

re: #124 loppyd

Someone posted earlier that Cap and Trade is dying or dead in the Senate.

I listened to a telephone town meeting with Phil Roe (R-TN) two nights ago. It is a done deal.

126 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:36:36pm

re: #124 loppyd

Someone posted earlier that Cap and Trade is dying or dead in the Senate.

I heard..I’ll look at it tomarrow…right now I’m in a snarky, mean assed mood

127 yochanan  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:37:04pm

re: #116 CyanSnowHawk

The 11 year cycles are not arbitrary. The number of sunspots visible on the sun waxes and wanes with an approximate 11-year cycle.

The Maunder Minimum

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.

128 DEZes  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:37:20pm

re: #119 brookly red

ack!

Spit it out Red!

129 Soona'  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:37:28pm

re: #124 loppyd

Someone posted earlier that Cap and Trade is dying or dead in the Senate.

In the thread before last.

130 quickjustice  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:37:28pm

re: #124 loppyd

Cap and trade is moribund for now. It’ll take a little Chicago-style arm twisting to get things moving. Which they will.

131 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:37:29pm
132 Wishing  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:37:34pm

If it is still possible to kill it in the Senate, terrific. Will send off email to my senators now.
Thanks!

133 loppyd  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:37:41pm

re: #84 ConservatismNow!

Here’s the thing: are they skeptical because the hypothesis has not been proven, because they reject science altogether, or another reason?

I don’t know. Maybe it’s because they can’t reach out and touch it. Or they bought those curly light bulbs and realized they suck and are toxic?

134 brookly red  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:37:50pm

re: #126 albusteve

I heard..I’ll look at it tomarrow…right now I’m in a snarky, mean assed mood

you say that as if it was a bad thing?

135 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:38:06pm

re: #116 CyanSnowHawk

The 11 year cycles are not arbitrary. The number of sunspots visible on the sun waxes and wanes with an approximate 11-year cycle.

The heck you say! What possible effect could the sun, 93 million miles away have on the temperature on this planet?

jeeze get real!

///////

136 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:38:17pm

BOs gangsters are checking to see who is on their ass…the Mob takes care of their own…loyalty is bought and sold and BO ain’t got much game right now

137 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:38:45pm

I don’t appreciate the draconian measures being sought to curb America’s pollutants when we as a society already value our natural resources and strive to be good stewards, when countries like China and India are basically allowed to do whatever they want while polluting significantly. When other industrialized countries join us in curbing their pollution willingly, and we’re all on the same page, then give me a call. The alarmism reeks whether the science is sound or not.

138 Mirage  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:38:51pm

re: #96 WhiteRasta

I refer to CO2 as PLANT FOOD, without which there would be no life on earth. None.

Similarly, O2 could be considered plant poop which we need to live. (Yes, my attempt at humor) :D

139 loppyd  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:40:04pm

re: #126 albusteve

I heard..I’ll look at it tomarrow…right now I’m in a snarky, mean assed mood

Sorry to hear it.

This will make you smile.

140 brookly red  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:40:41pm

re: #131 Iron Fist

Not on anything, not ever. It is highly ironic that if the Democrats would have removed Clinton from office Al Gore likely would have won the 2000 election. Instead they circled the wagons, defended the indefensible, and lost what may have been the most important election in the history of the United States.

… in mysterious ways…

141 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:40:44pm

re: #133 loppyd

I don’t know. Maybe it’s because they can’t reach out and touch it. Or they bought those curly light bulbs and realized they suck and are toxic?

Probably that one. I better there are some that are skeptical because it’s just too big for them to get. So they are mistrustful of science whether for or against. The longer these two groups fight, the more science and learning as a whole will lose. Average joes will look at scientists and go “Who paid you to say that?”

142 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:40:46pm

re: #139 loppyd

Sorry to hear it.

This will make you smile.

taste like chicken


jus kidding

143 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:40:55pm

re: #131 Iron Fist

Not on anything, not ever. It is highly ironic that if the Democrats would have removed Clinton from office Al Gore likely would have won the 2000 election. Instead they circled the wagons, defended the indefensible, and lost what may have been the most important election in the history of the United States.

I still kind of chuckle thinking about that. Ya could have been President, Al but you defended your boss instead. Oh well!

144 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:41:24pm

re: #138 Mirage

Similarly, O2 could be considered plant poop which we need to live. (Yes, my attempt at humor) :D

Nitrogen is also plant food. So…your poop is also plant food.

145 Soona'  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:41:24pm

re: #137 Sharmuta

I don’t appreciate the draconian measures being sought to curb America’s pollutants when we as a society already value our natural resources and strive to be good stewards, when countries like China and India are basically allowed to do whatever they want while polluting significantly. When other industrialized countries join us in curbing their pollution willingly, and we’re all on the same page, then give me a call. The alarmism reeks whether the science is sound or not.

It’s all about money and power. Science has nothing to do with it.

146 brookly red  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:41:50pm

re: #128 DEZes

Spit it out Red!

no, you go player…

147 Aviator  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:41:51pm

re: #130 quickjustice

Cap and trade is moribund for now. It’ll take a little Chicago-style arm twisting to get things moving. Which they will.

Planned:
[Link: blogs.abcnews.com…]

148 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:42:01pm

re: #71 bill-tb

Regardless the argument, in the end the sun will win. Does anyone know what heat source earth has that is not the sun?

And the current quite sun is going to spell trouble, short growing seasons, less food.

Enjoy, because no one can change the course of the sun.

While the Sun may be the overall winner in terms of magnitude, the Earth experiences some internal heating from the decay of radioactive material.

The effect of the Sun at a minimum, like it appears to be heading into now, could be significant. The Maunder minimum was no picnic, but they didn’t have SUVs to save them.

149 loppyd  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:42:08pm

re: #142 albusteve

taste like chicken

jus kidding

Speaking of chicken - must go tend to dinner.

BBL

150 alegrias  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:43:16pm

OT,
Jihad Rap Video Artist Mansour “Amriki” is recruiting Americans for jihad.
He looks just like Che Guevara in jihadi drag, recruiting fools to fight in Somalia.

Catherine Herridge reports on Fox News.

151 DEZes  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:43:33pm

re: #146 brookly red

no, you go player…

I was talking about the hatchling.;)
ACK.

152 Wishing  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:43:47pm

re: #147 Aviator

Planned:
[Link: blogs.abcnews.com…]

Egads.

153 Wishing  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:44:39pm

They throw shovelfuls at us all at once and figure that some will stick.
I despise them.

154 AlexRogan  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:44:57pm

re: #45 Charles

Maybe they’re hanging out with all those scientists who published peer-reviewed papers on intelligent design? Remember the long list you promised to show us?

Zing!

155 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:45:02pm

OT: My favorite gaffe yet!

Journalists get shock with ‘sexy’ White House call

Journalists based in the United States got a shock Thursday when they dialed a toll-free number to join a conference call with senior officials accompanying US President Barack Obama in London.

The number turned out to be a sex chat line inviting callers to use their credit card numbers.

“Do you have any hidden desires?” a sultry voiced woman asked.

“Well, do you feel like getting nasty? Then you came to the right place — brought to you by the girls of Swank magazine,” she said.

Reporters finally got through to the two officials in London — National Security Advisor James Jones and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — when they gave up on the US “800” number and instead dialed an international number.

The White House did not offer an explanation when asked how it sent the wrong number in an email listing both numbers — one for journalists in the United States and the other for those overseas.

156 perf guide  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:45:39pm

There are more subtle ways to distort data.
For example, Jarraud’s statement:
“Since the beginning of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit.”

The first thing I learned in science class (high school) was to always state the measurement error when providing numbers. Is this 1.33 degrees plus-or-minus 0.02 degrees or plus-or-minus 10 degrees.

My guess is that the statement would not be very effective if stated according to basic scientific standards.

157 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:45:46pm

re: #143 Sharmuta

I still kind of chuckle thinking about that. Ya could have been President, Al but you defended your boss instead. Oh well!

I wish someone would start a petition to have Gore give back his Nobel and turn himself in to face criminal fraud and racketeering charges…humiliate the fucker….call him out to a series of debates to prove his worthiness…I hve fantasies too

158 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:46:07pm

re: #143 Sharmuta

I still kind of chuckle thinking about that. Ya could have been President, Al but you defended your boss instead. Oh well!

I really, really hope that that thought drives him mad.
Actually, now that I think of it….maybe it has.

159 AlexRogan  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:46:12pm

re: #55 Charles

By the way, I do think George Will is distorting evidence on purpose. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt the first time, but it’s happened too many times now, and in every case the people he’s quoting have turned up to say he’s not representing their views or their data correctly.

And if we can’t trust his integrity on this issue, how can we trust Will on anything else?

160 DEZes  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:46:21pm

re: #155 Sharmuta

OT: My favorite gaffe yet!

Journalists get shock with ‘sexy’ White House call

Well we are all getting screwed. ;)

161 lostlakehiker  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:46:28pm

re: #78 LGoPs

Besides the fact that there may be cherry picking of data on both sides of the debate (although I am convinced that the vast majority of the bad faith resides on the GW side) there is one point in the debate that seems the most illuminating to me.
If in fact, GW is real and human caused and will bring catastrophic results, how in the world can one argue that certain countries are to be exempted from the effort to combat it.
If we really are in such dire peril, then it is incumbent on every person and every nation to do its utmost to stop this.
And arguments that focus the effort predominantly on America, and the West, seem to me very transparently hypocritical and have only one objective. And that is to drag down America and the prosperity that it represents.


That is certainly part of the agenda of some lefties who have embraced AGW as a cause, but will not embrace any cure that threatens to leave America standing.

They oppose nuclear power.

They oppose wind power the moment it becomes technically feasible. Suddenly, the view from Nantuckett is of paramount concern.

They will oppose solar thermal on the very day that GE (or any other giant) asks the EPA for permission to cover 1% of Arizona with mirrors and towers. It’s all slated for CRITICAL HABITAT of the desert mouse. Or something.

Anyone who wants to be an honest part of the debate about AGW and energy and civilization has to acknowledge that sucking it up and spending our resources on coping will have to be part of the solution, that massive industrial efforts, harmful to wildlife in some remote and sun-blasted, windswept areas, may be necessary, and that nuclear power is an unavoidable component of the solution.

Also, that China, Europe, and India will have to be on board or AGW will proceed unchecked.

162 vxbush  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:46:31pm

OT:

How can you tell if you’ve broken a bone in your ankle?

163 Aviator  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:46:40pm

re: #155 Sharmuta

OT: My favorite gaffe yet!

Journalists get shock with ‘sexy’ White House call

Just a number floating around in O’s Blackberry that slipped into the e-mail.

164 brookly red  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:46:55pm

re: #155 Sharmuta

OT: My favorite gaffe yet!

Journalists get shock with ‘sexy’ White House call

can’t blame this on on barney…

165 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:46:56pm

re: #155 Sharmuta

OT: My favorite gaffe yet!

Journalists get shock with ‘sexy’ White House call

Sure it wasn’t the protocol office?

166 pink freud  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:47:06pm

re: #156 perf guide

Welcome!

167 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:47:11pm

re: #162 vxbush

OT:

How can you tell if you’ve broken a bone in your ankle?

X Rays

168 brookly red  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:48:13pm

re: #162 vxbush

OT:

How can you tell if you’ve broken a bone in your ankle?

do you feel like throwing up? yes, maybe… no, no bone damage.

169 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:48:36pm

re: #162 vxbush

OT:

How can you tell if you’ve broken a bone in your ankle?

The grinding noise when you go upstairs?

/

Seriously, it’s hard to tell without an X ray. If you think you might have, you should get one.

170 Aviator  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:48:39pm

re: #162 vxbush

OT:

How can you tell if you’ve broken a bone in your ankle?

If is sticking through the skin?

171 DEZes  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:48:46pm

re: #167 albusteve

X Rays

I knew that was coming, it was just who was gonna be 1st that remained the question. ;)

172 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:48:49pm
173 pink freud  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:49:11pm

What’s happened, vx?

174 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:49:38pm

OT - Ward Churchill wins… 1 dollar settlement (Scopes option)…

[Link: www.denverpost.com…]

175 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:49:50pm

re: #159 talon_262

And if we can’t trust his integrity on this issue, how can we trust Will on anything else?

That’s just it- if people blow their credibility on something which is easily checked, how can we be so sure about them as a source on other matters?

176 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:49:50pm

re: #171 DEZes

I knew that was coming, it was just who was gonna be 1st that remained the question. ;)

there is no other way…unless you’re Al Gore

177 vxbush  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:50:03pm

re: #168 brookly red

do you feel like throwing up? yes, maybe… no, no bone damage.

No, I rolled my ankle over a week ago and it’s still hurting. I can walk on it, but I can’t put any weight on it when it’s laying in bed and I try to lay something on it, “sideways” as it were.

re: #167 albusteve

X Rays

Yes, that’s the plan tomorrow. :D I’m just wondering if I’m imagining things.

178 vxbush  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:50:31pm

re: #170 Aviator

If is sticking through the skin?

Ew, I hope not. This would be one of the ankle bones, if it is.

179 alegrias  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:50:40pm

OT

Some enterprising entrepreneurial military wives in California are making fortunes for couples who want babies, acting as surrogate rent-a-wombs, BUT charging the military healthcare TRICARE for surrogacy costs! Yep, you’re paying for this rip-off.

Their non-military “customers”—including foreigners wanting babies but in whose homelands this is illegal— are getting free In Vitro Fertilization babies at military expense.

This is happening in California where anyone can have taxpaid help making test-tube babies, regardless of marital status, income, or ability to parent. (See Octomom case)

Another Fox News Story.

180 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:50:49pm

re: #162 vxbush

OT:

How can you tell if you’ve broken a bone in your ankle?

Pain swelling, crepitus (grind, scraping noise).

Get thee or whom ever the ankle is attached to, to an ER. If it is broken it can impinge on nerve and damage blood vessels and cause permanent damage if not treated.

Go. Now.
20 year EMT speaking.

181 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:50:50pm

re: #155 Sharmuta

OT: My favorite gaffe yet!

Journalists get shock with ‘sexy’ White House call

Well, I have to speak up for the Obama Administration in this case. Call it truth in advertising because this is admitting that we are getting fucked…….
/

182 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:51:03pm

re: #177 vxbush

Yes, that’s the plan tomorrow. :D I’m just wondering if I’m imagining things.

just go to the ER about 3am….in and out

183 Wishing  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:51:10pm

re: #174 Walter L. Newton

OT - Ward Churchill wins… 1 dollar settlement (Scopes option)…

[Link: www.denverpost.com…]

At $1, he was overpaid.

184 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:51:18pm
185 vxbush  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:51:29pm

re: #173 pink freud

What’s happened, vx?

See #177…..I can walk fine, but if I try to sit and cross my legs Indian-style, it hurts with any weight on it.

186 debutaunt  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:51:46pm

re: #162 vxbush

OT:

How can you tell if you’ve broken a bone in your ankle?

X-ray?

187 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:51:52pm

re: #177 vxbush

Yes, that’s the plan tomorrow. :D I’m just wondering if I’m imagining things.

It could be a severe ankle sprain. Is it swelled up?

188 right_wing2  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:51:55pm

How much of the ‘global warming’ is due to more of the areas where temperature is measured being nearer & nearer areas of concrete, buildings, or even where the hot air coming off a/c systems is ducted?

189 vxbush  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:52:29pm

re: #182 albusteve

just go to the ER about 3am….in and out

Oh, sure, my husband would looooove that, considering he had surgery today.

I think not.

:D

190 Soona'  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:52:30pm

re: #159 talon_262

And if we can’t trust his integrity on this issue, how can we trust Will on anything else?

Because global warming was designed to be distorted. Again I say. Global warming has nothing to do with science.

191 Lincolntf  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:52:31pm

re: #183 Wishing

If he’d have sought any more, he’d have been a little Eichmann in my book.

192 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:52:39pm

re: #82 WhiteRasta

The problem I have is that nitrogen makes up 86% of the atmosphere, but does not affect the “climate”.

Carbon dioxide makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere, but does affect the climate.

Where is the logic in that? My BS meter is off the scale.

Molecular Nitrogen (N2), the vast majority of atmospheric Nitrogen, is an inert gas, it doesn’t react with much. CO2 is not, and the reactions that happen with CO2 are what is concerning, and being blown way out of proportion by, the AGW crowd.

193 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:52:40pm

re: #187 ConservatismNow!

It could be a severe ankle sprain. Is it swelled up?

you cannot walk on a sprain…

194 OldLineTexan  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:52:45pm

re: #174 Walter L. Newton

OT - Ward Churchill wins… 1 dollar settlement (Scopes option)…

[Link: www.denverpost.com…]

Hey, if Obama can be President, Ward Churchill can be a professor (and a Native American).

195 itellu3times  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:53:09pm

re: #82 WhiteRasta

The problem I have is that nitrogen makes up 86% of the atmosphere, but does not affect the “climate”.

Carbon dioxide makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere, but does affect the climate.

Where is the logic in that? My BS meter is off the scale.

Whoa there cowboy, you don’t need to go questioning the entire framework of science, just because a couple of numbers strike you funny. Let’s take it slow. First, nobody says that nitrogen has no role in climate, just that it’s not something we’re much affecting, and as you point out, there’s plenty of it around anyway. Second, if it just so happens that CO2 is much better at absorbing the infrared heat frequencies, then that’s just how it is, every element and molecule has a little different property, and that’s what makes it all interesting, gives all those scientists something to write abut.

But the details of nitrogen and carbon dioxide don’t tell us the answers to any of the big questions about climate, they’re just the tools and facts on the table.

196 Aviator  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:53:16pm

re: #178 vxbush

Ew, I hope not. This would be one of the ankle bones, if it is.

Just kidding. Like others said you need to have films.

197 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:53:24pm

re: #189 vxbush

Oh, sure, my husband would looooove that, considering he had surgery today.

I think not.

:D

what’s your husband got to do with it?…leave him alone

198 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:53:30pm

re: #188 right_wing2

How much of the ‘global warming’ is due to more of the areas where temperature is measured being nearer & nearer areas of concrete, buildings, or even where the hot air coming off a/c systems is ducted?

In the ConUs? A lot.

199 vxbush  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:53:31pm

re: #187 ConservatismNow!

It could be a severe ankle sprain. Is it swelled up?

It didn’t swell at first; but it started swelling last Friday, two days after injury. It’s going down, but it’s still purple on the outside. Not dark, like bruising, but pale purple, like blood pooling.

200 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:53:33pm

re: #184 Iron Fist

It also helps to remember that Al Gore didn’t lose the election in Florida. The lie that he did is one that the media and the Democrats have pushed for the last eight years, but it is patently false. If Gore had carried his home state of Tennessee, Florida wouldn’t have mattered.

I know- I followed it all very closely. The ultimate irony is that if Gore had pushed for the Bush standard, he would have won FL by 3 votes. By his standard, he lost.

201 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:53:38pm

re: #188 right_wing2

How much of the ‘global warming’ is due to more of the areas where temperature is measured being nearer & nearer areas of concrete, buildings, or even where the hot air coming off a/c systems is ducted?

On average even the rural and ocean sensors are showing warmer overnights. Sorry, the urban heat bubble myth is disproved by that.

202 ArmyWife  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:53:40pm

I’m sorry. I just can’t buy that we are destroying our world and the only path to salvation is fluorescent lights and the purchasing of carbon credits (now with free Snugglie!). Why is it just so darn difficult to say “be a good steward of the Earth”? Seriously, it isn’t a great plan to dump things in rivers, streams and other bodies of water - so don’t. If you can clean up the emissions from stacks, etc, do it. Throw trash in trash cans, not on the side of the road - in general do exactly what your mom said to do “clean up after yourself, there is no maid service here”.

203 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:53:46pm
204 Wishing  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:53:52pm

re: #191 Lincolntf

If he’d have sought any more, he’d have been a little Eichmann in my book.

Bad enough that he wants reinstatement. I hope they can stop that.

205 debutaunt  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:53:55pm

re: #189 vxbush

Oh, sure, my husband would looooove that, considering he had surgery today.

I think not.

:D

Are the two incidents connected?

206 irongrampa  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:54:04pm

Someone needs to tax Ward Churchill’s unconscionable monetary award.

90% would be fitting.

207 brookly red  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:54:18pm

re: #177 vxbush

Yes, that’s the plan tomorrow. :D I’m just wondering if I’m imagining things.

If the bone is damaged it will trigger a glandular reaction that will cause nausea… if not then F’ed up but not broken.

208 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:54:23pm

re: #196 Aviator

Just kidding. Like others said you need to have films.

Footloose would be a good one….

209 HoosierHoops  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:54:33pm

re: #162 vxbush

OT:

How can you tell if you’ve broken a bone in your ankle?

Hi VX! Nice seeing you..Boy I’ve had a lot of broken bones..knee ops..stitches..
Boy do I have stories..
To answer your concern..
If you break an ankle.. It swells really bad.. It just blows up..It Hurts really bad..But what doesn’t hurt with the angle? But the pain is different. I swear I twisted both angles in ONE play..But..You know when it’s broken..A broken angle is frigging hell on wheels..

210 vxbush  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:54:41pm

re: #197 albusteve

what’s your husband got to do with it?…leave him alone

LOL…..well, it might be kind of hard to drive my stick shift home if I end up getting a cast.

211 Cognito  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:54:41pm
This kind of distortion… makes it so difficult for non-scientists to make sense of this debate…

Darn right, man.

I’m so weary of it, and I suspect a lot of people are so weary of it, that a sort of Green Fatigue will eventually set in, if it hasn’t already. Especially when people are concerned about things as elemental as their livelihoods.

Green Fatigue, I say.

212 ArmyWife  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:54:55pm

re: #177 vxbush

I did this about 2 years ago - 2 sets of xrays showed nothing, but that ankle hurt for a month. I did end up in an air cast for what was called a bad sprain, but wow, it HURT.

213 Lincolntf  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:55:12pm

re: #204 Wishing

I know, but hard experience has taught me that Universities are the last place to seek rational thought or actions.

214 DEZes  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:55:43pm

re: #209 HoosierHoops

Hi VX! Nice seeing you..Boy I’ve had a lot of broken bones..knee ops..stitches..
Boy do I have stories..
To answer your concern..
If you break an ankle.. It swells really bad.. It just blows up..It Hurts really bad..But what doesn’t hurt with the angle? But the pain is different. I swear I twisted both angles in ONE play..But..You know when it’s broken..A broken angle is frigging hell on wheels..

you broke a what?

215 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:55:57pm

re: #199 vxbush

It didn’t swell at first; but it started swelling last Friday, two days after injury. It’s going down, but it’s still purple on the outside. Not dark, like bruising, but pale purple, like blood pooling.

sounds like one of those insidious appendage eating viruses

216 vxbush  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:56:04pm

re: #205 debutaunt

Are the two incidents connected?

Heavens, no. I put the sledgehammer away *before* I rolled my ankle. :D

No, he had sinus surgery.

217 yochanan  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:56:11pm

My famous Korean recipe for cooking dog: If you want to cook dog then first you need a big sized dog, with a yellowish coat, also the fatter the better. Now you don’t want to torcher it, so kill it quickly, next you must know that you’re going to have to butcher it up for the meat. My favorite is fried dog, if you know how to make fried chicken then you know how to make fried dog, you see fried dog is just like making fried chicken.

MY CAT WITH HER EVIL MIND CONTROL made me post this.

218 Ojoe  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:56:14pm

For most (95%) of the climate history of the earth, it was warmer than now and there was no ice at the poles, according to the Brittanica’s article on “Climatic Change”. (In my paper edition of about 1980)

219 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:56:33pm

re: #214 DEZes

you broke a what?

An Angle. He did it when he was a Jute…….
:)

220 ArmyWife  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:56:42pm

re: #215 albusteve

I was thinking that but didn’t want to cause alarm.

221 debutaunt  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:57:07pm

re: #214 DEZes

you broke a what?

Can an angle be effectively X-rayed?

222 Wishing  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:57:08pm

re: #203 Iron Fist

Heh. That happened to me the other day. I transposed two numbers and instead of getting who I was calling, I got a phone sex line. It was surprising :-)

Yeh yeh yeh, what they all say, I misdialed!

223 yochanan  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:57:41pm

re: #222 Wishing

Yeh yeh yeh, what they all say, I misdialed!

my wife would not buy it either.

224 DEZes  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:57:51pm

re: #219 LGoPs

An Angle. He did it when he was a Jute…….
:)


Dont be obtuse.

225 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:57:57pm

re: #216 vxbush

Try this link

I don’t know what your symptoms are, so maybe webMD can narrow it down for you.

226 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:58:03pm

re: #221 debutaunt

Can an angle be effectively X-rayed?

Only if it’s a cute angle………

227 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:58:17pm

re: #224 DEZes

Dont be obtuse.

LOL……

228 Mirage  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:58:30pm

re: #144 ConservatismNow!

Nitrogen is also plant food. So…your poop is also plant food.

That darned cycle of life thingie … :)

229 itellu3times  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:58:30pm

re: #218 Ojoe

For most (95%) of the climate history of the earth, it was warmer than now and there was no ice at the poles, according to the Brittanica’s article on “Climatic Change”. (In my paper edition of about 1980)

Well OK, but how about the last 50,000 years or so, since humans have been big news?

I mean, we know that “in the beginning, there were hot lumps” but I hope that doesn’t figure into the averages.

230 irongrampa  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:58:41pm

Off an a tangent again, I see.

231 debutaunt  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:58:44pm

re: #224 DEZes

Dont be obtuse.

Straight-edge the angle - don’t bother with an X-Ray.

232 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:58:46pm
233 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:58:51pm

re: #203 Iron Fist

Heh. That happened to me the other day. I transposed two numbers and instead of getting who I was calling, I got a phone sex line. It was surprising :-)

Interestingly enough, [Link: www.whitehouse.gov,…] and [Link: www.whitehouse.com…] are NOT related. Well…the current White House could be.

234 vxbush  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:58:59pm

re: #207 brookly red

If the bone is damaged it will trigger a glandular reaction that will cause nausea… if not then F’ed up but not broken.

No nausea, either when I rolled it or now. And walking feels fine.


re: #212 ArmyWife

I did this about 2 years ago - 2 sets of xrays showed nothing, but that ankle hurt for a month. I did end up in an air cast for what was called a bad sprain, but wow, it HURT.

I wouldn’t make a splint of some kind that would allow me to wear shoes and drive.

235 pre-Boomer's SockPuppy  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:59:07pm

I will lure the Evil Cat Goddess onto the thread by posting a comment.

Shazzam!

She cannot resist. She is doomed.

236 Russkilitlover  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:59:17pm

re: #177 vxbush

Yes, that’s the plan tomorrow. :D I’m just wondering if I’m imagining things.

I would venture that you have a really bad sprain. Sounds like the kind of injury that basketballers get often - can sit them out of games for weeks or the remainder of seasons. Sprains can be worse than breaks because of how long a severe sprain can take to heal.

Keep lots of ice handy and in use.

Maybe your Dr. can get you one of those physical therapy ice machines to use at home.

237 DEZes  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 4:59:32pm

re: #221 debutaunt

Can an angle be effectively X-rayed?

Only at 90 degrees.

238 Aviator  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:00:15pm

re: #218 Ojoe

For most (95%) of the climate history of the earth, it was warmer than now and there was no ice at the poles, according to the Brittanica’s article on “Climatic Change”. (In my paper edition of about 1980)

Yeah, but that was back when they were selling global cooling.

239 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:00:16pm
240 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:00:33pm

re: #225 ConservatismNow!

Try this link

I don’t know what your symptoms are, so maybe webMD can narrow it down for you.

seriously you may have strained a ligament…the ankle is a very delicate and complex structure and alot of stuff that really doesnt amount to much can cause a bunch of pain….if it doesnt improve by the weekend consider an amputation

241 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:00:36pm

re: #237 DEZes

Only at 90 degrees.

What does temperature have to do with it?
/

242 ArmyWife  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:00:47pm

re: #224 DEZes

You always have to be right, don’t you?

243 HoosierHoops  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:01:01pm

re: #214 DEZes

you broke a what?

LOL
Forgive me..I’m on a con call..blogging..watching NCIS and talking to a friend on the other line…I’ve broke and sprained ALOT..
Nobody wants to read the low down on that list..:)
How are you tonight?

244 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:01:09pm

re: #203 Iron Fist

Heh. That happened to me the other day. I transposed two numbers and instead of getting who I was calling, I got a phone sex line. It was surprising :-)

I did that at work a few days ago, call a vendor and mis-dialed…..

245 funky chicken  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:01:30pm

re: #4 Ringo the Gringo

I wonder by what name future historians will refer to our age?

The age of insanity? The age of pseudo-scientific panic?

It won’t be the second age of enlightenment, that’s for sure.

246 brookly red  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:01:53pm

re: #234 vxbush

I wouldn’t make a splint of some kind that would allow me to wear shoes and drive.

not broken… get well soon.

i smell food… bbiab

247 OldLineTexan  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:02:06pm

re: #230 irongrampa

Off an a tangent again, I see.

You noted the sines, I see.

248 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:02:17pm

re: #235 pre-Boomer’s SockPuppy

I will lure the Evil Cat Goddess onto the thread by posting a comment.

Shazzam!

She cannot resist. She is doomed.

Don’t bite off more than you can chew….

249 Wishing  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:02:18pm

re: #245 funky chicken

The age of insanity? The age of pseudo-scientific panic?

It won’t be the second age of enlightenment, that’s for sure.

Dark Ages redoux?

250 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:02:43pm
251 DEZes  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:02:48pm

re: #242 ArmyWife

You always have to be right, don’t you?

Sometimes I am off a few minutes.

252 Wishing  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:02:50pm
253 DEZes  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:03:13pm

re: #247 OldLineTexan

You noted the sines, I see.

we are going off on a few tangents here.

254 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:03:28pm

A while back, another Lizard linked to a video about hydrogen run cars, where the only emission would be water vapor. I pondered at that time how this was any help, considering water vapor is a greenhouse gas! How is this green technology?

255 albusteve  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:04:03pm

re: #254 Sharmuta

A while back, another Lizard linked to a video about hydrogen run cars, where the only emission would be water vapor. I pondered at that time how this was any help, considering water vapor is a greenhouse gas! How is this green technology?

green tech is 75% bunk

256 pre-Boomer's SockPuppy  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:04:10pm

re: #248 jcm

Don’t bite off more than you can chew….

Why does the link take me to a “403 - Forbidden” window?!
This is Age Discrimination! Just because I’m a Puppy, I have my Rights!

257 DEZes  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:04:14pm

re: #243 HoosierHoops

LOL
Forgive me..I’m on a con call..blogging..watching NCIS and talking to a friend on the other line…I’ve broke and sprained ALOT..
Nobody wants to read the low down on that list..:)
How are you tonight?

Doing good, thanks for asking, I hope today finds you well.

258 Hhar  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:04:55pm

The degree of over-the-top hysteria even amoung professionals in this field is just bizarre. This … resulted in it being known that to criticise Gore was morally equivalent to genocide detailed Here.

This is not reason sweet and pure, and you can expect data analysis and interpretation to be tainted. The last time I saw something like this was back in the 90’s in a series of furious debates between MDs over the value of penile circumcision, which were completely over the top, and attracted all kinds of narcissistic kooks.

259 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:05:24pm

re: #235 pre-Boomer’s SockPuppy

I will lure the Evil Cat Goddess onto the thread by posting a comment.

Shazzam!

She cannot resist. She is doomed.

Didn’t your mama tell you never to mess around with evil spirits?

260 OldLineTexan  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:05:28pm

re: #254 Sharmuta

A while back, another Lizard linked to a video about hydrogen run cars, where the only emission would be water vapor. I pondered at that time how this was any help, considering water vapor is a greenhouse gas! How is this green technology?

Hydrogen also go boom. See “Hindenburg, the”.

;)

261 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:05:40pm

re: #256 pre-Boomer’s SockPuppy

Why does the link take me to a “403 - Forbidden” window?!
This is Age Discrimination! Just because I’m a Puppy, I have my Rights!

Image: 30746.jpg

Try this one…..

262 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:06:15pm

An interesting bit from David Attenborough, long time climate change skeptic, on why he’s changed his mind:

263 vxbush  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:06:25pm

Oh, I love bone pictures. Based on where the pain is, I’d guess either just a tiny piece of bone broke off (unlikely) or a tendon tore.

I’m still debating a doctor visit. I’d like to get the hubby healed up first, just in case they decide they do need to do something to me.

Can I wait until Monday? Please? I promise I’ll be good. No salsa dancing.

[sticks out pouty lip]

264 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:06:33pm
265 ArmyWife  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:06:48pm

re: #254 Sharmuta

Same way electric cars are, I suppose. Do they know how electricity is generated?

266 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:07:00pm
267 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:07:14pm

re: #259 goddessoftheclassroom

Didn’t your mama tell you never to mess around with evil spirits?

Wow. It looks like Basement Kitty had a bad day.

268 irongrampa  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:07:40pm

Since it’s a nice warm evening here, I think we’ll take the Toy out for a spin-and a double scoop of French vanilla.

New ice cream place to check, that just opened.

Have a fine evening, good people.

269 OldLineTexan  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:07:46pm

re: #265 ArmyWife

Same way electric cars are, I suppose. Do they know how electricity is generated?

Should be nukes. I should have an electric scooter sucking up that sweet nuke juice for those short, wasteful American “errands”. ;)

270 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:08:23pm
271 HoosierHoops  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:08:45pm

re: #253 DEZes

we are going off on a few tangents here.

You can get an A in any trig class if you know one Indian.. That’s what my tutor taught me in College.. I got an A-.
The America famous Indian?
Chief SOHCHATOA
soh/cha/toa
can you remember that?
s=o/h
c=h/a
t=o/a

For instance..If I need to solve for T.. The Tangent angle.. I just divide the opposite angle by the adjacent angle..
That’s it…

272 jcm  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:09:17pm

re: #264 Iron Fist

It’s kind of disconcerting how pervasive porn has become in this country. Personally, I am a big fan of having the *.XXX domain for porn. It makes it easy to filter out if you don’t want to see it or have kids you don’t want to see it, but it has a minimal effect on the free speech rights of those who wish to see such material.

It is such a no-brainer that it isn’t much of a surprise that neither party supports the idea.

I’ve thought about that too, no brainer easy. Also a special prefix for sex lines.

273 pre-Boomer's SockPuppy  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:09:44pm

re: #259 goddessoftheclassroom

Didn’t your mama tell you never to mess around with evil spirits?

*eyes wide*
WhatTheF(leabite) Is THAT!
YIKES!

An’ th’ day was goin’ so GOOD!

274 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:10:38pm

re: #262 Charles

What convinced me several years ago was discovering that the temperature overnight was higher on average, but not so much during the day.

275 J.D.  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:10:41pm

re: #259 goddessoftheclassroom

Didn’t your mama tell you never to mess around with evil spirits?

Now I’ll have nightmares!

276 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:11:45pm
277 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:12:00pm

re: #273 pre-Boomer’s SockPuppy

*eyes wide*
WhatTheF(leabite) Is THAT!
YIKES!

An’ th’ day was goin’ so GOOD!

In hopes that you remember the Twilight Zone…

278 pre-Boomer's SockPuppy  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:12:07pm

re: #261 jcm

[Link: nicelol.com…]

Try this one…..

I am STILL being discriminated agai…*GASP*
NO! WAIT!
THE EVIL BASEMENT CAT HAS GOTTEN TO JCM!
OH NOES!

279 HoosierHoops  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:12:40pm

re: #263 vxbush

Oh, I love bone pictures. Based on where the pain is, I’d guess either just a tiny piece of bone broke off (unlikely) or a tendon tore.

I’m still debating a doctor visit. I’d like to get the hubby healed up first, just in case they decide they do need to do something to me.

Can I wait until Monday? Please? I promise I’ll be good. No salsa dancing.

[sticks out pouty lip]

Hey..You are good..If you broke it you would be in the emergency room screaming bloody hell../ even a little piece broke off..

280 pre-Boomer's SockPuppy  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:14:52pm

re: #277 goddessoftheclassroom

In hopes that you remember the Twilight Zone…

YIKES!
MORE of them!
EVERYBODY RUN!

281 funky chicken  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:15:30pm

re: #263 vxbush

Oh, I love bone pictures. Based on where the pain is, I’d guess either just a tiny piece of bone broke off (unlikely) or a tendon tore.

I’m still debating a doctor visit. I’d like to get the hubby healed up first, just in case they decide they do need to do something to me.

Can I wait until Monday? Please? I promise I’ll be good. No salsa dancing.

[sticks out pouty lip]

Yes, but immobilize it.

282 HoosierHoops  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:15:57pm

re: #278 pre-Boomer’s SockPuppy

I am STILL being discriminated agai…*GASP*
NO! WAIT!
THE EVIL BASEMENT CAT HAS GOTTEN TO JCM!
OH NOES!

Can I sic little Winston on your Sock puppet? I think he is bored with his toys.

283 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:17:02pm

re: #280 pre-Boomer’s SockPuppy

YIKES!
MORE of them!
EVERYBODY RUN!

It’s wise to take good advice!

284 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:18:25pm

re: #282 HoosierHoops

Can I sic little Winston on your Sock puppet? I think he is bored with his toys.

Do NOT mess with SockPuppy!

285 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:19:07pm
286 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:20:15pm
287 scuba mom  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:21:09pm

re: #233 ConservatismNow!

Actually, whitehouse.com is a carryover from the clinton administration. Whois says it’s currently registered to some dude named Carville

288 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:21:12pm

re: #283 goddessoftheclassroom

The wife sent me that one yesterday

289 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:22:19pm

re: #288 ConservatismNow!

The wife sent me that one yesterday

I’m enjoying the royalties… :)

290 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:22:48pm

re: #288 ConservatismNow!

The wife sent me that one yesterday

LOL!
That’s our Goddess!

291 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:23:17pm
292 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:23:51pm

re: #289 goddessoftheclassroom

I’m enjoying the royalties… :)

I’ve gotta get out of her for the evening pretty quick.
Was hoping you’d be around.
How are you doing?

293 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:23:55pm

re: #290 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I have a cat who thinks exactly like this, sits exactly like this, and then she casually extends one leg and grooms her nethers.

294 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:24:36pm

re: #291 goddessoftheclassroom

Be sure to get a picture so I can write a LOLcat caption!

MWAH!

Yes, LOL!

295 HoosierHoops  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:24:50pm

re: #286 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I’m doomed!

LOL
When a dog barked tonight on TV..Winston went nuts..He ran around and got really excited..
Did you hear that? That was a Dog..Hey did you hear that! There it is again!
Excuse me I need to run in circles again..I’ll be right back!
Did you hear that DOG?

Poor Winston..I put him out for awhile…I’m sure he is still on the case.

296 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:25:01pm

re: #292 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I’ve gotta get out of her for the evening pretty quick.
Was hoping you’d be around.
How are you doing?

I’m fine, thanks! I’m so glad our swords paths crossed!

MWAH encore!

297 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:25:46pm

re: #293 ConservatismNow!

I have a cat who thinks exactly like this, sits exactly like this, and then she casually extends one leg and grooms her nethers.

*grin*
Kinda destroys the image, doesn’t it?!

298 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:26:55pm

re: #296 goddessoftheclassroom

I’m fine, thanks! I’m so glad our swords paths crossed!

MWAH encore!

mmmmmmMMMMMMMMMMMWWWWWWWWWWAH ! ! !

299 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:27:09pm

re: #297 pre-Boomer Marine brat

*grin*
Kinda destroys the image, doesn’t it?!

The funny thing is that she doesn’t groom that area when we are not around. She specifically seeks us out in the computer room, plops down in a corner, and grooms. The worst part is that she makes slurping noises. Don’t ask me how.

300 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:27:54pm

re: #295 HoosierHoops

LOL
When a dog barked tonight on TV..Winston went nuts..He ran around and got really excited..
Did you hear that? That was a Dog..Hey did you hear that! There it is again!
Excuse me I need to run in circles again..I’ll be right back!
Did you hear that DOG?

Poor Winston..I put him out for awhile…I’m sure he is still on the case.

LOL!
How old is your dog?

301 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:28:52pm
302 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:28:59pm

re: #299 ConservatismNow!

The funny thing is that she doesn’t groom that area when we are not around. She specifically seeks us out in the computer room, plops down in a corner, and grooms. The worst part is that she makes slurping noises. Don’t ask me how.

I you ever find out how she makes them (in THAT area) … PLEASE DON’T TELL ME !

303 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:30:48pm

I need to catch up on some sleep, so I’ll say goodnight now.

{pre-Boomer Marine brat}
{ConservatismNow!}
{HoosierHoops}

304 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:30:59pm

re: #301 ConservatismNow!

And now in woodgrain finish

Talk about oddity
(Goddess has already seen this)

305 Olderthandirt  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:31:06pm

And, the issue is what, exactly, please?

If in fact we’re in a period of global warming, is it caused by SUVs or by sun spot activity or by other factors related to cyclical climate changes?

What about some AGW advocates who claim that we’re now going to have 12-years of cooling followed by years of warming! To which claim, all I can say is: “Wow!” Now that’s really getting into the nitty gritty details.

Personally, I’ll put my money on sun spot activity being at a minimum now, in 2008 and continuing into 2009, having a cooling effect on our climate, since the record, as we know it, does so indicate that.

306 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:31:21pm

re: #303 goddessoftheclassroom

I need to catch up on some sleep, so I’ll say goodnight now.

{pre-Boomer Marine brat}
{ConservatismNow!}
{HoosierHoops}

{goddess}
MWAH!

307 HoosierHoops  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:32:13pm

re: #300 pre-Boomer Marine brat

LOL!
How old is your dog?

2 yrs old..I got stuck with the little bastard as a rescue dog..He was living in a pole barn in Indiana…A ‘friend’ of mine pawned him off on me…I’ve never had a pet before..So it’s really fun…EVERYBODY loves little Winston.

308 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:34:02pm

re: #307 HoosierHoops

2 yrs old..I got stuck with the little bastard as a rescue dog..He was living in a pole barn in Indiana…A ‘friend’ of mine pawned him off on me…I’ve never had a pet before..So it’s really fun…EVERYBODY loves little Winston.

He sounds like a ball of fire … AND fun.

I’ve gotta get out of here.
Supper needs serious attention, and I’ve got stuff to do before tomorrow.

See y’awl tomorrow!

309 Galroc  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:55:59pm

re: #55 Charles

By the way, I do think George Will is distorting evidence on purpose.

Distorting is a strong word. People, from both sides, frame their evidence to present their points in the best possible light. What George Will said now and back in February was correct.

People proAGW do the same thing. They compare today’s temperatures to either the 70s, or the early 1900s, relatively cool periods. They don’t compare today’s temperatures against the late 90s or the 30s, both very warm periods.

Everyone agrees that it is getting warmer since the little ice age ended a few hundred years ago. Most people agree it was warmer in the medieval warm period about 1000 years ago.

Are today’s temperatures unusual? No. Is todays CO2 concentration high? No. doubling CO2 doesn’t double its effect on temperature. The first 20ppm of CO2 has the most effect, and then it drops off, exponentially.

What gets me is the really crappy science behind AGW. I am speaking as a scientist. The Mann et al Hockey Stick graph is a bunch of crap. It was proven crap by a statistician outside of the climate field. You can get crap through the peer review process if it agrees with the current dogma. Publishing against the dogma is very hard. Publishing with the dogma generates publications and grants.

The other issue I have is the under estimation of UHI (urban heat island) that effects temperature readings. The UN IPCC reports this as 0.05c/century, a very small number, from a paper published by Jones, et al.

Jones just published a new paper that revises his earlier estimate and determined that UHI could be as large as 0.1C/decade in China. That is 1.0C/century. That is huge.

Also remember that global temperatures have not increased for 7-8 years, but Co2 is still rising. You can do a George Will and go back 10 years to a very hot year, but you can go back 7-8 years and come away with the same conclusion.

Also ocean temperatures have been dropping for the last 5-7 years. Both not predicted by any computer model.

What gets me is that bloggers, or people outside the small climate field are correcting the “professionals” in the field.

Very good sites:
Climate Audit
Watts Up With That
Ice Cap

In case you want the other side:
Real Climate

310 ThatGuy  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:59:57pm

re: #55 Charles

By the way, I do think George Will is distorting evidence on purpose. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt the first time, but it’s happened too many times now, and in every case the people he’s quoting have turned up to say he’s not representing their views or their data correctly.

I think you might be swayed a bit too much by the “scientific experts” here, and possibly might not have read Will’s column carefully enough. He prefaced his statement that WMO records show no years warmer than 1998 by a reference to the AGW proponents’ working hypothesis that temperature increases correspond to increases of CO2 (although inferentially - his actual phrase was: “Reducing carbon emissions supposedly will reverse warming”). His point is that in the past 10 years of greatly increasing CO2, we should expect to see some year warmer than 1998. If you check the link to WMO records, you find at page page 4 Figure 2, which shows that 2007 (the latest year in the chart) ranks behind 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, in addition to 1998. At the top of page 5 the WMO document states, “All temperature values have uncertainties, which arise mainly from gaps in data coverage. The size of the uncertainties is such that the global average temperature for 2007 is statistically indistinguishable from each of the nine warmest years on record.” (emphasis mine) In other words 2007 is “statistically indistinguishable” from the years 1997 - 2006. My take from the WMO data: Have we really experienced an alarming increase in global temperature in the past decade, if these years are “statistically indistinguishable”?

Is Will distorting the evidence, or is he simply drawing a different conclusion than the scientists with a vested interest in perpetuating AGW? What about your source here, Zimmer, who as a writer for NYTimes, is a member of the MSM which is pushing AGW? I would have more respect for him if he posted something challenging some of the atrocious scientific reasoning that exists in many MSM global warming articles.

I don’t have as much respect for Will’s work as I used to, but I think that you are making a mountain out of a molehill, when the criticism is about one line - making a statement about a matter of scientific fact that is true - in a column devoted to making the point that governments acting on “scientific evidence” can screw things up royally.

As far as Zimmer goes, he cites the WMO statement “The linear warming trend over the past 50 years (0.13°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the past 100 years.” The disingenousness of this statement is shown graphically in easily understandable charts from the recent 2009 International Conference on Climate Change republished in Power Line. Check them out: [Link: www.powerlineblog.com…]

I’m probably lose some respect for you too if you keep posting about Zimmer’s criticism of Will.

311 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 6:00:18pm

re: #285 Iron Fist

It is one thing to say that the temperature is in a warming trend, and quite another to say that humans are causing it to warm, and is yet another thing to say that to fix the problem we are going to impose strict restrictions on America but it is OK for China and India to keep on churning out their “greenhouse” gasses. That last one is important. The people who are saying that (and that was part of the Kyoto Accord) aren’t concerned with global warming, they are concerned that the standard of living is too good in America.

I’m certainly not saying that. I think we contribute some to warming, and will be contributing a great deal more as population swells to 9 billion in the next 40 years. I think we need to do some things gradually to compensate over the next century, but I’m certainly not in favor of draconian measures or ecological imperialism. When we come out of this sunspot lull I don’t suspect we’ll be broiling, but things are going to be slightly warmer than they should be. If we continue down that path our grandchildren will be cursing us.

312 Jimash  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 6:02:06pm

“The difference between climate variability and climate change is critical, not just for scientists or those engaging in policy debates about warming. Just as one cold snap does not change the global warming trend, one heat wave does not reinforce it. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit.
Evidence of global warming has been documented in widespread decreases in snow cover, sea ice and glaciers. The 11 warmest years on record occurred in the past 13 years.”

I find this to be first class doubletalk and a real distortion.
In fact it very much remonds me of The Young Earth Cosmology explanation of the slowing down of the speed of light, which miraculously stablized in the 1960’s just in time for the first accurate measurements.

313 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 6:09:34pm

re: #310 ThatGuy

His point is that in the past 10 years of greatly increasing CO2, we should expect to see some year warmer than 1998.

Not necessarily true. There are many factors that affect climate, vulcanism and sunspots being just two. The point that nobody can seem to answer is why have average overnight temperatures gone up over the past century? Do you have an explanation for that?

314 LesLein  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 6:11:31pm

Here’s what the researchers at the Jungfraujoch say about glaciers (from their publication Between Heaven and Earth, 2006):

“2,000 and 4,000 years ago, the Alps were covered by much less ice than they are today. Tree trunks and fragments of turf crushed by the glaciers have melted out of the Alpine glaciers over the past few years. During Roman times the glacier tongues were located at least 300 m higher than they are now.”

What’s happened since 1850 reflects the end of a “mini-Ice age”, not human activity:

“Around 1850 the Alpine glaciers reached their greatest extension since the last Ice Age. Evidence of this ‘mini-Ice Age’ can be seen in the fresh, steep moraine ridges which surround all our Alpine glaciers.”

“The postglacial period — the last 10,000 years — has been marked by five climatic cycles. Each lasted 2,000 years with rapid changes from colder to warmer or warmer to colder weather.”

“PS: Under certain circumstances, the post-glacial period may already be another pre-glacial period!”

315 Hhar  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 6:13:30pm

#55
re: #309 Galroc

No, I think distortion is a good word.

There are two problems at hand wrt anthropogenic cliamte change:

1. What is the predictive utility of the multivariate analysis and
2. What are the plausible explanations underlying any such utility (in other words: can you tell a good story about how all of this works)

Anybody who isn’t addressing these two questions isn’t really looking at the problem objectively. George Will isn’t really addressing the multivariate analysis in any rigorous way. He knows climate has many factors, and you can’t simply pick apart the problem in a piecemeal way.

I agree with you (for instance) that the climate audit results are highly disturbing, and should make anyone wonder about the data. But anthropogenic warming could (for instance) still be happening even if George will’s facts are right. Simply because Al Gore et al are propagandistic blowhards doesn’t mean that anthropogenic global warming isn’t real. The point is moot to anyone who hasn’t actually played around with the data in a professional and competant manner. My problem with multivariate analyses is that until you have played with the modelling and the specific data sets yourself a lot, its hard to get a feeling for what is relervant and what isn’t. Its just its own field.

316 LesLein  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 6:26:41pm

This article explains why I’m suspicious of scientific models predicting disaster:

“Upon examining the model Sagan had shown to the world press to “prove” the danger of “nuclear winter,” Schneider found it was of a barren ball of rock with no mountains and no oceans. Oceans, as both Schneider and Sagan knew, act as gigantic energy flywheels that moderate temperature, helping cool adjacent continents in summer and warm them in winter.”

“Sagan, in other words, knowingly committed deliberate scientific fraud. He cooked up a phony computer model to concoct the phony “nuclear winter” results he wanted for political reasons. He avoided the already-available NCAR computer climate model precisely because he knew it would not produce the “nuclear winter” he wanted to sell to gullible journalists and an ignorant public. And were he still alive, Sagan would doubtless be among the signers, like Ehrlich, of this letter accusing President Bush of politicizing science.”

[Link: www.frontpagemag.com…]

317 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 6:27:37pm
318 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 6:33:41pm

re: #310 ThatGuy

I’m probably lose some respect for you too if you keep posting about Zimmer’s criticism of Will.

I’ll just have to live with that.

319 Hhar  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 6:41:47pm

re: #316 LesLein

I applaud your skepticism of Sagan: he liked a good story more than anything. Sagan’s famous samurai crab story
referred to here is obvious crap, for instance. I never saw Cosmos as a kid, but when I was in undergraduate I heard the story, and as part of an evolutionary biology course at McGill a bunch of us ran it right into the ground with great glee and happiness. Fer instance, “samurai” crab remains have been discovered in places like the Phillipines dating the oligocene, so the whole story about the samurai face arising because of selection is frankly quite funny. You still hear the story repeated on occasion.

On the other hand, one of the nice things about personal computers is that they made playing with data and modelling a LOT easier than it used to be back in Sagan’s day, and so people are a lot more willing to challenge assumptions in models and demonstrate sensitivity. Any idiot undergraduate can do a regression now, or even a multivariate model. All you need is a bit of data and off you go. So people challenge simple models (which is what Sagan used: a very simple model) a lot more readily.

Of course, this leads to a lot of peopler thinking they know something, simply because they can tart their ideas up with a bit of math, but still………

320 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 6:44:40pm

re: #316 LesLein

This article explains why I’m suspicious of scientific models predicting disaster:

“Upon examining the model Sagan had shown to the world press to “prove” the danger of “nuclear winter,” Schneider found it was of a barren ball of rock with no mountains and no oceans. Oceans, as both Schneider and Sagan knew, act as gigantic energy flywheels that moderate temperature, helping cool adjacent continents in summer and warm them in winter.”

“Sagan, in other words, knowingly committed deliberate scientific fraud. He cooked up a phony computer model to concoct the phony “nuclear winter” results he wanted for political reasons. He avoided the already-available NCAR computer climate model precisely because he knew it would not produce the “nuclear winter” he wanted to sell to gullible journalists and an ignorant public. And were he still alive, Sagan would doubtless be among the signers, like Ehrlich, of this letter accusing President Bush of politicizing science.”

[Link: www.frontpagemag.com…]

Sorry, but this is a very ugly distortion of Carl Sagan’s “nuclear winter” controversy. If you rely on FrontPage to tell you the truth about this kind of stuff, you’re going to be misled.

I suggest you research what actually happened with this issue, and Sagan’s actual positions and opinions, because that article is complete BS.

321 AlexRogan  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 6:44:46pm

re: #310 ThatGuy


I’m probably lose some respect for you too if you keep posting about Zimmer’s criticism of Will.

Oh no, Mr. Two-Posts, what will we do?

////

322 largolarry  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 6:57:26pm

George Will, the columnist, wrote about climate change and perhaps got some things wrong. That is bad.

However, Hansen, Mann, and the secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization Michael Jarraud supposed professionals but through data manipulation, false graphics, invalid data and corrupt statistics got things very wrong. They not only do not admit it but attempt to intimidate people who criticize them and use media propaganda to support their false claims. Now Hansen is supporting protesting techniques that will lead to terrorists acts from his brain dead supporters.
Strip them of the doctorates they have tarnished and send the to the Arctic and Antarctic to do some real climate research.

323 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 6:59:48pm

Nuclear winter modeling has since been improved, expanded, and replicated. Here’s Columbia Encyclopedia on it:

The earliest version of the theory, which was put forward in the early 1980s in the so-called TTAPS report (named for last initials of its authors, Richard P. Turco, Owen B. Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack, and Carl Sagan), held that the ensuing low temperatures and prolonged periods of darkness would obliterate plant life and seriously threaten the existence of the human species. Later models, which took into account additional variables, confirmed the basic conclusions of the TTAPS report and suggested that the detonation of 100 megatons (the explosive power of 100 million tons of TNT) over 100 cities could produce temperature drops ranging from 5 to 15 degrees.

324 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:01:26pm

re: #322 largolarry

George Will, the columnist, wrote about climate change and perhaps got some things wrong. That is bad.

However, Hansen, Mann, and the secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization Michael Jarraud supposed professionals but through data manipulation, false graphics, invalid data and corrupt statistics got things very wrong. They not only do not admit it but attempt to intimidate people who criticize them and use media propaganda to support their false claims. Now Hansen is supporting protesting techniques that will lead to terrorists acts from his brain dead supporters.
Strip them of the doctorates they have tarnished and send the to the Arctic and Antarctic to do some real climate research.

Mmm-kay. So your position is that most of the scientists in the world are lying to you, in a vast conspiracy to promote terrorism?

Lovely.

325 medaura18586  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:06:03pm

Charles,

There are various thorny issues at stake here: How do we define climate change (what sort of time span should be considered, what magnitude of statistical variation in the trend is sufficient to warrant the designation, etc.), is it presently occurring, does man have anything to do with it, would it occur nevertheless without man’s involvement, and what would its consequences be in any case?

An Ice Age shaped the migrations of anthropologically modern man. The blueprint of human prehistory was settled by climate change. We know from the fossil record that Earth has seen wild climate swings, each fostering conditions ideal for the explosion of different profiles of flora and fauna. Climate change has occurred before primates ever roamed the Earth, and it will certainly continue its course even now that we’re here.

The continuity of Western civilization spans nearly three millenia (I trace its beginnings to the rise of Minoan civilization) —- and it’s been blessed with a legacy of natural conditions stable enough to induce tunnel vision in our perspective. The same parochial worldview behind Geocentrism may be now reincarnated in most AGW scientists’ unexamined assumption that the temperatures we know throughout human history are somehow sacred. Could they in fact represent just a narrow window we happened to be familiar with? Could they be neither typical to the planet, nor preordained to persist? If our progeny will inherit the Earth over the next few thousand years, they are likely to face fundamental climate change with a mind of its own.

Predicating the survival of civilization on a narrow unchanging “ideal” range of world temperatures is a losing battle over the long haul. If mankind’s dependence on fossil fuels over the past century has had an effect on climate change, said impact could have been only marginal at best. I am more interested in investigating the causes and cycles behind exogenous climate change — produced by the Earth core itself, the Sun, and any other long-term interactions of natural elements. That’s the kind of climate change we better prepare future generations for, predict the swings of, design technological solutions to shield our current lifestyle from, or explore ways of adapting to.

Focusing on AGW makes no sense whatsoever. We’ll be getting off of fossil fuels soon in any case, or at least we would, if the bureaucrats in charge of the commending heights of Western economies lifted all obstructions to the development of nuclear-power solutions.

Aside from it representing a poor prioritization of our efforts, AGW is less than convincing on scientific grounds alone. For one thing, have any of its proponents put forth experiments that would falsify their thesis?… Not that I am aware.

Beside, the progression of climate is a chaotic system. Developments within chaotic systems are practically impossible to trace back to specific causes (the proverbial flap of a butterfly’s wings in Central Park could ultimately cause an earthquake in China). They are also nearly impossible to replicate in controlled conditions necessary for ideal scientific testing methods. The evolution of climate unfolds before our very lives: mother nature plays improv music, and all we can do on the spot, is try fitting lyrics/narrative that rhyme with it. These are not the most rigorous conditions for scientific inquiry.

326 medaura18586  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:06:32pm

re: #325 medaura18586

My field, economics, is similar in this regard. Basic laws of human behavior and interaction can be pinpointed fairly accurately, but economists who apply them to an economy unfolding in real time, almost always get divergent results. Scholars are still hotly debating the causes of the Great Depression, for goodness’ sake, while we are all living its rerun. These are unrepeatable, complex, and unique events, whose causes can never be scientifically settled, but only speculated upon in hindsight. Chaotic systems simply do not lend themselves to our standard tools of prediction and estimation. Which is why a climatologist’s apocalyptic computer model means squat in the grand scheme of things.

327 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:07:26pm

re: #322 largolarry

The last two years was the International Polar Year, a lot of scientists were at the poles researching this.

328 Basho  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:08:14pm

re: #313 Thanos

Not necessarily true. There are many factors that affect climate, vulcanism and sunspots being just two. The point that nobody can seem to answer is why have average overnight temperatures gone up over the past century? Do you have an explanation for that?

Solar activity is highest during nighttime! Hahaha

329 Basho  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:12:47pm

re: #324 Charles

Mmm-kay. So your position is that most of the scientists in the world are lying to you, in a vast conspiracy to promote terrorism?

I linked to this a million times, but it’s always great. This tries to outline and combine various denialist conspiracies. Don’t forget to check out the diagram:
[Link: frankbi.wordpress.com…]

330 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:13:22pm

Medaura, I agree there are higher priorities, energy and hunger being the first that come to mind, but humanity can multitask. During this century we do need to clean up our energy sources but we don’t need to cripple economies and do it yesterday as the alarmists suggest.

331 Jimash  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:25:31pm

re: #323 Thanos

suggested that the detonation of 100 megatons (the explosive power of 100 million tons of TNT) over 100 cities could produce temperature drops ranging from 5 to 15 degrees.

But real Nuclear Weapons are not produced in 100 megaton models.
So how many average real-world nuke would one have to set off to achieve the actual results ?
figure maybe 2000 of the biggest bombs we no longer carry.
100 but it’s really more like 2000.
So that is a fudged study, since 100 megaton bombs don’t exist and the reality number of 2000 of the largest bombs from the 60’s that we don’t even carry anymore
doesn’t really sound as reasonable or fearfullly possible as 100 does it ?

332 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:30:48pm

re: #331 Jimash

But real Nuclear Weapons are not produced in 100 megaton models.
So how many average real-world nuke would one have to set off to achieve the actual results ?
figure maybe 2000 of the biggest bombs we no longer carry.
100 but it’s really more like 2000.
So that is a fudged study, since 100 megaton bombs don’t exist and the reality number of 2000 of the largest bombs from the 60’s that we don’t even carry anymore
doesn’t really sound as reasonable or fearfullly possible as 100 does it ?

Just as a matter of interest…. there is really no point in building a nuclear weapon larger than about 750 kilotons because of the curvature of the earth. Whatever you wanted to hit - with the bigger blast radius - has been shielded by the earth’s curvature. Building bigger only means more atmosphere kicked into space and wasting more fissionable material that could have been used for another warhead.

333 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:32:58pm

re: #310 ThatGuy

I think you might be swayed a bit too much by the “scientific experts” here, and possibly might not have read Will’s column carefully enough. He prefaced his statement that WMO records show no years warmer than 1998 by a reference to the AGW proponents’ working hypothesis that temperature increases correspond to increases of CO2 (although inferentially - his actual phrase was: “Reducing carbon emissions supposedly will reverse warming”). His point is that in the past 10 years of greatly increasing CO2, we should expect to see some year warmer than 1998. If you check the link to WMO records, you find at page page 4 Figure 2, which shows that 2007 (the latest year in the chart) ranks behind 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, in addition to 1998. At the top of page 5 the WMO document states, “All temperature values have uncertainties, which arise mainly from gaps in data coverage. The size of the uncertainties is such that the global average temperature for 2007 is statistically indistinguishable from each of the nine warmest years on record.” (emphasis mine) In other words 2007 is “statistically indistinguishable” from the years 1997 - 2006. My take from the WMO data: Have we really experienced an alarming increase in global temperature in the past decade, if these years are “statistically indistinguishable”?

Is Will distorting the evidence, or is he simply drawing a different conclusion than the scientists with a vested interest in perpetuating AGW? What about your source here, Zimmer, who as a writer for NYTimes, is a member of the MSM which is pushing AGW? I would have more respect for him if he posted something challenging some of the atrocious scientific reasoning that exists in many MSM global warming articles.

I don’t have as much respect for Will’s work as I used to, but I think that you are making a mountain out of a molehill, when the criticism is about one line - making a statement about a matter of scientific fact that is true - in a column devoted to making the point that governments acting on “scientific evidence” can screw things up royally.

As far as Zimmer goes, he cites the WMO statement “The linear warming trend over the past 50 years (0.13°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the past 100 years.” The disingenousness of this statement is shown graphically in easily understandable charts from the recent 2009 International Conference on Climate Change republished in Power Line. Check them out: [Link: www.powerlineblog.com…]

I’m probably lose some respect for you too if you keep posting about Zimmer’s criticism of Will.

This is actually not true at all. Do look at some of my other links.

334 Basho  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:34:21pm

re: #333 LudwigVanQuixote

This is actually not true at all. Do look at some of my other links.

Good luck with that ;)

335 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:35:39pm

re: #103 Hengineer

You shall be taxed a Carbon Credit for exhaling.

But there are a lot fewer plants on the Earth in the last century. While the amount of carbon we have output has gone up, the amount of things that eat it have gone down. Please go look into that before smugly dismissing everything with a slogan.

336 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:36:09pm

re: #334 Basho

Good luck with that ;)

Well, I have to try to fight the good fight :)

337 Jimash  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:38:08pm

re: #332 LudwigVanQuixote


So, 100, 100 megaton events, corresponds to maybe 13,000 (Bad math) actual events.
How likely is it that a situation cannot be resolved before you drop 13,000 nukes ?

338 Basho  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:44:02pm

Results of a 50 megaton explosion:
[Link: www.damninteresting.com…]

“The ground surface of the island has been levelled, swept and licked so that it looks like a skating rink. The same goes for rocks. The snow has melted and their sides and edges are shiny. There is not a trace of unevenness in the ground… Everything in this area has been swept clean, scoured, melted and blown away.”

Fun fact:

Ivan– sometimes referred to as “Tsar Bomba” or “King of Bombs”– was originally designed to yield a 100 megaton explosion, but the soviets decided that such a blast would create too great a risk of nuclear fallout, and an almost certain chance that the release plane would be unable to reach safety before detonation. Prior to testing, the engineers replaced a portion of the radioactive uranium with a lead tamper, cutting its explosive potential in half, to a “mere” 50 megatons. Later analysis showed that the fallout from a 100 megaton detonation would have resulted in lethal levels of radioactive fallout over an enormous area.
339 Promethea  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 8:00:13pm

re: #2 jcm

Change vs. variability. The definition is highly dependent on time scale.

150 years is a very, very short time scale.

This needs to be repeated, so I’m repeating it. The entire global warming debate is nonsense because there just isn’t enough data. The only reason that the global warming debate has taken the form that it has is because there is grant money available for those who want to prove that GW is a problem.

340 Promethea  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 8:01:44pm

re: #254 Sharmuta

A while back, another Lizard linked to a video about hydrogen run cars, where the only emission would be water vapor. I pondered at that time how this was any help, considering water vapor is a greenhouse gas! How is this green technology?

Ha ha.

341 Promethea  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 8:06:14pm

re: #262 Charles

An interesting bit from David Attenborough, long time climate change skeptic, on why he’s changed his mind:


[Video]

Not convincing. (1) Too short a time. (2) A climate “model.” A “model” doesn’t prove anything. “The map is not the territory.”

I’m surprised that Attenborough was convinced by this very slim argument.

342 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 8:37:01pm

re: #341 Promethea

Not convincing.

Not surprised.

343 LesLein  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 8:45:04pm

re: #320 Charles

Sorry, but this is a very ugly distortion of Carl Sagan’s “nuclear winter” controversy. If you rely on FrontPage to tell you the truth about this kind of stuff, you’re going to be misled.

I suggest you research what actually happened with this issue, and Sagan’s actual positions and opinions, because that article is complete BS.

I did. Front Page is hardly the only source noting Sagan’s shabby nuclear winter research. A lot of well qualified scientists noticed his research was intended to be propaganda.

[Link: findarticles.com…]

“Physicist John Maddox, editor of the prestigious British scientific journal Nature, did take the TTAPS authors to task in the September 27, 1984, issue of his magazine: On such a matter, certain to stir the public imagination, it seems to me improper that the results of calculations should be published even in sober language without a warning to all potential readers of the pitfalls there must be. This is doubly unfortunate when, as on this occasion, a purportedly scientific publication is so fully amplified by popular articles, first in parade [magazine] …”

“Howard Maccabee, past president of Docotors for Disaster Preparedness, points out in the May issue of Reason magazine: This sequence of events—a publicity campaign paid for and launched before the publication and circulation of a scientific study—is very unusual. In fact, most scientists agree that this type of arrangement is destructive of the goals of honest inquiry and more consistent with attemps at stock-market manipulation or disguised political purposes.”

“MIT arms-control advocate George Rathjens is an ally of Segan’s in the fight against Star Wars. Yet he has charged that winterists suppress research contradicting the winter theory because “people don’t want it to be dis-proved.” Rathjens told an audience on the Berkeley campus on October 3, 1984, that winterists see the winter idea “as a tool for fighting pernicious public policy” (i.E., President Reagan’s).”

TTAPS used research on dust storms on Mars to support its findings. Mars’ amount of surface liquid water and atmosphere is very different from earth.

Sagan assumed that the Soviets would focus their attacks on cities. Actually, they first priority was on military targets.

Another article:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

“In December 1983 the “TTAPS” study was published in Science [20]. The study was partly inspired to write the paper both by the suggestions of one Dr. A.M. Salzberg (who, unlike the TTAPS authors, believed that the initial dust thrown into the air would be primarily responsible for the climate changes) and by cooling effects due to dust storms on Mars[citation needed]. To carry out a calculation of the effect they used a very simplified two-dimensional model of the Earth’s atmosphere that assumed that conditions at a given latitude were constant. The model also assumed a solid, smooth Earth.

344 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 8:51:41pm

re: #343 LesLein

If you want to believe that Carl Sagan was a liar who deliberately committed scientific fraud, that’s your right.

But it is not true.

345 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 9:11:40pm

Science papers on Nuclear winter, several by Robcock here
[Link: climate.envsci.rutgers.edu…]

more recent conference and papers

[Link: www.medicalnewstoday.com…]

and you can find many more papers on it here

[Link: www.atmos-chem-phys.net…]

Now do you have some more bullshit to fling?

346 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 9:12:54pm

Bullshit that’s not 20+ years old?

347 Jimmah  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 9:15:34pm

re: #341 Promethea

Not convincing. (1) Too short a time. (2) A climate “model.” A “model” doesn’t prove anything. “The map is not the territory.”

I’m surprised that Attenborough was convinced by this very slim argument.

You seem to imply that modelling is frowned upon in science, there are no methods by which the quality of models can be judged, and that the vast majority of scientists who use models and rely on them in many diverse fields are just being stupid by doing so. Sorry, but that is nonsense.

It would be much more persuasive if you could dispute the details of the models themselves. But then that would require a good understanding of them - you don’t give the impression that you have that.

348 Robert Schwartz  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 9:18:15pm

Charles: These people may claim to be scientists, but everything they say and do needs to be carefully vetted.

Mr. Jarraud’s letter is typical of the breed:

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit.

First. Is that a lot or a little? NASA says the global mean temperature is 57° F/13.9° C. The increase of 1.33° F looks like a 2% increase. But calculate it in Celsius and it’s 5%. The correct way to avoid this discrepancy is to use the Kelvin temperature scale which is rooted at Absolute Zero -273.15° C. That way the mean temperature is 287.05° K and the 0.74° increase is 0.2%. Not much.

Second, those numbers are subject to error. In the case of the K number it is 0.74 ± 0.18 °K That means the increase might be 0.56° K.

It hardly sounds like the end of the world, and it hasn’t been.

Evidence of global warming has been documented in widespread decreases in snow cover, sea ice and glaciers.

Some have decreased to be sure, but there has been increases in other places, like Antarctica that have been compensatory on a global scale.


The 11 warmest years on record occurred in the past 13 years.

The problematic term here is “record” The record, such as it is is mostly made up of temperature readings from places in Europe and North America. It is also compromised by the evolution of urban places over the last hundred years (the urban heat island effect). We only have about 40 years of satellite data to supplement the ground station data. Further, the record of the most important place on earth, the deep ocean that stores most of the planet’s heat is only a few years. The meaning of the statement from the letter is therefor unclear. Remember, that to the earth, human life spans are mere instants. A 160 year record proves little.

Further, if we are only concerned with the past few years, we should note the downward trend over the past 8 years.

To conclude, GW advocates argue using numbers, but without context or background, those numbers prove little. Further, those numbers are only the beginning. The next step is the predictions. Be skeptical reading about them. Ask if there is a positive feedback mechanism, and why hasn’t it kicked in during geological time.

Then there is the parade of horrors. Will sea levels rise? Can we move to higher ground? Can we build dikes and sea walls like the Dutch? Will tropical diseases spread. Or, are tropical diseases really diseases of poverty and bad government which can be eliminated by drainage and sanitation. Will the polar bears starve to death? Aren’t they bears and capable of, and willing to, eat anything?

349 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 9:38:55pm
350 hacker  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 10:05:18pm

I call BS. A “scientist” is no closer to the truth that a priest is closer to God.

A “good” “scientist” knows a lot of strange math. And is well versed in some strange concepts, maybe. And keeps good records. That’s all. He’s not necessarily smarter than you, or able to divine things better than you.

BH

351 ThatGuy  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 10:08:27pm

re: #262 Charles

The Attenborough clip is interesting. What we don’t know is how the models were set up. Even if we did, we wouldn’t be able to tell whether they were poor/fair/good/execellent models. And I’d bet that Attenboro doesn’t have the knowlege to make that judgment either. It would take a compentent scientist.

I will point out that the time line is very short. Looked at from a longer point of view, what we have experienced recently does not look so out of the ordinary. See the first graphic at this site: [Link: www.powerlineblog.com…]
On the other hand, noting that two variability patterns are similar does not mean that the same causal factors were at work in both.

352 ThatGuy  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 10:21:35pm

re: #313 Thanos

Not necessarily true. There are many factors that affect climate, vulcanism and sunspots being just two. The point that nobody can seem to answer is why have average overnight temperatures gone up over the past century? Do you have an explanation for that?

You’re right that Will’s point is not necessarily true.

I’m not really sure what data you are referring to in your question, and I do not claim to be an expert in global warming or any other scientific field. I suspect that the sceptics of AGW would respond to your question by noting that the data sources used over the years have changed, which could be causing or contributing to the phenomena that you mention. It’s too late at night for me to find links to things that I read months ago, but there are recent pictures documenting that here in the US we have weather reporting stations placed right next to parking lots, near HVAC outlets, etc.

353 ThatGuy  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 10:24:50pm

re: #321 talon_262

Oh no, Mr. Two-Posts, what will we do?

////

This response is now my 6th post. In your view does that make my first one tonight more or less important?

354 hacker  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 10:30:00pm

re: #352 ThatGuy


there are recent pictures documenting that here in the US we have weather reporting stations placed right next to parking lots, near HVAC outlets, etc.

Corrections are made for thermal island effects. Who’s watching the correctors?

Corrected data is as good as BS, without explanation. But the “scientists” do not explain much, because you’re too simple to understand their magic.

BH

355 hoystory  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 10:35:32pm

If you’re wondering about the quality of the temperature record, I encourage you to go to Surfacestations.org where Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat.com has had people surveying the locations around the U.S. where the scientists get this temperature data.

If you follow his site, you’ll discover that the vast majority of the sites suffer from all sorts of quality problems (co-located at sewage treatment plants, in close proximity to air conditioners and trash burners and even placement in the middle of blacktop parking lots) that call into question the validity of the data.

Hansen and his cohort say that they can account for those factors, but I find it hard to believe that when the amount of purported temperature change attributed to CO2 is little more than a rounding error.

356 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 10:38:33pm

re: #352 ThatGuy

After your passive aggressive comments about “expecting better from me” I invite you to start your own blog. Because you’re not welcome at this one.

357 hacker  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 10:48:39pm

re: #355 hoystory

If you’re wondering about the quality of the temperature record, I encourage you to go to Surfacestations.org where Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat.com has had

Hansen and his cohort say that they can account for those factors, but I find it hard to believe that when the amount of purported temperature change attributed to CO2 is little more than a rounding error.

Amplify this by 10^6. Spread it around. I’m not a “scientist”, just an engineer, and I don’t trust their “data” at all. “They” are not really open about methods. Embarrassed?

Now, to be fair, surface data is probably close to obsolete, but when corrected data fits notions, don’t believe it’s not used.

I think George Will embarrassed some people with the satellite ice thing. It’s not that someone is right or wrong about data on a case by case basis - who cares?

BH

358 superdaveTWC  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 11:24:49pm

I am a physical chemist (Ph.D.). I have worked in academia, industry, and now in government (DoD civil service). One thing I can say for certain is that money talks, BS walks. Without money, a scientist cannot hire grad students, postdocs, technician, etc.

Without money, a scientist cannot purchase and service expensive equipment, purchase and update software, purchase supplies, or even (and this is key) PUBLISH. Try reading scientific journals someday. I do it every day. Often the introduction has little to do with the bulk of the paper, and only makes sense when you get to the and and see who funded the research.

Oddly, during the five years I spent in industry, I never felt pressured to link my publications with my company’s priorities. In academia, you MUST publish within the scope of your funding or else you will have to look elsewhere for funding.

In academia, once you find a funding source, you cling to it like a newborn marsupial to its mother’s teat, because finding new sources of funding is MUCH more difficult than justifying a grant renewal.

If you think scientists are as pure as the wind-driven snow, then you must ask yourself, “Is everyone in my profession as pure as the wind-driven snow?”

Not even a Catholic Priest can answer “yes” to that question. We are ALL human.

You must ALWAYS utilize critical thinking skills. If all Americans thought as critically about Palestinian photographs as LGFer’s do, then the Palestinians would have capitulated years ago.

Do the same with “scientific” reporting.

IMHEO (in my highly educated opinion), anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has less supportive evidence than Last Tuesdayism (the belief that God created the universe last Tuesday, and all evidence and memory of pre-Tuesday history was also created last Tuesday).

The history of the Earth as we know it tells us that the Earth goes through climate changes. Duh. Logic dictates that the Earth’s climate will either get warmer on average, colder on average, or stay the same on average over the next period of years. Human and geological histories have shown that the Earth’s climate is not prone to stagnation, but gets warmer or colder over time.

Therefore, the Earth will either get warmer or colder given all historical evidence.

Which would you prefer?

I vote for warmer.

359 jantjepietje  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 4:02:25am

I’ve come to the conclusion that the whole global warming debate is irrelevant. Whether or not man is the cause their are plenty of reasons to get rid of oil that have nothing to do with global warming or the environment there are even plenty of reasons to protect the environment that have nothing to do with CO2 or greenhouse gasses.
So whether or not it is true we must still take action.

360 largolarry  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 5:42:19am

My comment on promoting a terrorism is directly aimed at Hansen. My sending them to ends of earth was a punishment not a reward. I think you will find that more scientists believe that AGW is a hoax than supporters. The inbreeding of AGW research is strong with an old boy network glad handing one another. They are supported by a large political apparatus that know little and understand even less.

A more likely scenario is a coming decline in temperature caused by the current solar minimum. This is a very real threat (much more probable than AGW but not guaranteed) that we can point to real physical causes (lack of sunspots etc). The AGW crowd relies on a bad temperature record (70%-90% of US land data is questionable and that is the best in the world see [Link: www.surfacestations.org),…] questionable statistical techniques, favorably tweaked model results, and cherry picked historical data.

361 Galroc  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 5:46:28am

re: #262 Charles

Because he is a journalist, you trust his view on AGW? I would pick Dyson over Attenborough every time.

I can’t really comment on the video itself because it lacks the information on why it came to the conclusion it did. Its format prevent it from doing that and is basically designed for the masses.

362 dwdw49  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 6:11:11am

this question always ends the debate for me:
What is the correct temperature of the earth? if we don’t know that, how can we tell if warming or cooling is good or bad?

363 MKELLY  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 6:52:21am

I look at this global warming issue from a mechanical engineer perspective with a love of geology thrown in.
As such I don’t think CO2 in the atmosphere can or will cause the harm alarmist talk about.

I have several reason for this:
1. History of geologic data shows that at no time in the past millions of years has a high level of CO2 caused runaway anything.
2. The core samples from Vostok show that over 650000 years CO2 always lagged temperature by an average of 800 years. And again as CO2 rose it did not cause a runaway temperature.
3. As presently described the global warming theory violates my understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The atmosphere/CO2 cannot warm the thing that gave it warmth, the earth. Energy flows down hill and entropy always wins in the end.
4. The ocean to atmosphere CO2 ration is about 50 to 1. As such even if we burn all the “fossil fuels” we know of it is impossible to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I think of coal as a different kind of biofuel not fossil fuel because like ethanol it is made of once live plants.
5. The theory of CO2 caused global warming is not logical. In logic the answer must meet the necessary and sufficient requirements. CO2 has been demonstrated to be neither necessary (see para 2 above) nor sufficient (para 1 and 2).
6. There are no experiments that demonstrate CO2 induced warming via infrared emissions.
I believe the Sun and our varying distances from the Sun over geologic time is what causes the warming and cooling our planet goes thru. There is no way to control the Sun.

364 Jimash  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 7:54:42am

I add links to this discussion.
It is my belief that, althugh I am for less pollution and more advanced energy sources, that AGW is a politically driven hypothesis, and that the models and calculations often, or ALWAYS leave pout things that matter like sunspots.

We were told ( Explicitly) that AGW was an inexorable climb in temperature, but since it has stopped climbing what is the reason for that ? And can we trace the former climb to the same source ?

Yes

And YEs

and uh, YES

365 ckb  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 8:48:00am

Could someone check up on this statement:

“The 11 warmest years on record occurred in the past 13 years.”

My best recollection of the NASA data are that this is untrue. There was a little kerfuffle about errors in computing the numbers not too long ago and my memory of seeign the new list is that there were quite a number of years from earlier in the century in the top 10. (Was that data purely for the US?)

Also, the fellow who made this statement should go further and define “the record”. If you expand the record to temperature data gathered though anthropologic means (ice cores, etc.) it certainly is untrue. The current numbers are barely a blip on a large time scale.

366 medaura18586  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 10:12:56am

re: #262 Charles

An interesting bit from David Attenborough, long time climate change skeptic, on why he’s changed his mind:


[Video]

I just finally got to watch that video, since I was having problems with the sound on my computer yesterday. I am disappointed as I expected a more exhaustive explanation (for one thing, a detailed list and explanation of all natural factors included in the model, and how the projected effect of humans’ activity was arrived at).

One thing I find strikingly surprising from a mere visual examination of the graph (the best I can do, given the utter lack of data and estimation techniques used) is that in some parts (pivoting around the year 1900), the projection of temperature change factoring in human effects falls below the projection from natural causes alone.

Does that mean human activities have the ability to lower temperatures below what they would have been due solely to natural factors? Anthropogenic Global Cooling?

If I’m misinterpreting the graph, someone please enlighten me.

367 Jimash  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 10:13:16am

I did find some reference to this “warmest on record” issue.
But it isn’t pretty.
Explanation of the record and its shallow nature.

368 ckb  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 10:59:55am

Yes, thank you! It the NASA United States data that is on a downtrend since 1998. The global data is still relatively high.

When Hansen makes statments like this:

“background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases”

stating as fact what is an uproven theory, it becomes difficult to get too angry about Will’s spinning. I think he just left out “in the United States”.

369 wltzacrsstxs  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 11:56:42am

I recommend a visit to Climateskeptic.com if you want to learn more about the flaws in the AGW theory.

I am of the opinion that history will not judge Hansen kindly. I am of the opinion that he has been on a 30 year mission to get “his way,” and won’t rest until he’s garnered enough power to order all the rest of us around.

My other opinion is there is no f#$%ing way ANY temperature data can be taken reliably. Ever notice how the temperature readings on bank signs are like 10 degrees hotter than it really is? Because they’re in a parking lot. And if you look at the temperature stations around the world, over the years, they’ve all been surrounding by asphalt. A giant heat sink.

And Hansen wants me to believe the Russians can take accurate temperature measurements? My Russian nesting dolls don’t fit together right.

Hell, my old man has 3 thermometers outside the same window of his house, and they’re always 2-3 degrees different.

370 wltzacrsstxs  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 12:02:57pm

As a follow up to the article in Science daily posted by #367, they relied on data from SHIPS? Like that POS flagged from Liberia with a crew of misfits, thieves and convicts from every third world nation under the sun? You’re telling me THAT’s reliable?

Sorry, ain’t buying it. And that’s my opinion on readings off THERMOMETERS. Don’t get me started on what a pile of witchcraft the “computer models” and “temperature recreations” are. As if we can REALLY TELL what temperature it was in B.F.E. 2000 years ago.

371 largolarry  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 1:49:15pm

I have looked at the data and software that Hansen and GISS use to put out the statements that the 11 warmest years on record occurred in the past 13 years. The data is primarily land based and badly corrupted by Urban Heat Island effects since the “rural” portion of the data has been greatly effected by the closing of historical weather collection sites. Less than 11% of the data can be said to be “pristine”. The software tries to compensate to this using a routine that typically lowers the historical temperature data thus introduces an increasing heat bias where in fact they should be lowering the the rate of increase. The software also uses such a broad grid that temperatures in say Albany New York are effected by Atlanta and by Chicago.

Are we in a time of increasing temperatures?
Yes, we are in an inter-glacial period.
Does man do anything to effect it?
Yes, but mostly through land use.
Is the warming bad?
Yes, If less deaths from cold and more crop yields are bad.

372 Galroc  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 1:52:51pm

The Russian temperature data is highly suspect. Under communism, some resources were allocated in certain areas based upon how cold it was. Temperature readings were sometimes read low in the early 20 century so that more resources would be allocated to the community.

Then, after the fall of USSR, hundreds of rural temperature stations were abandoned. This lead to an increase in urban stations compared to rural stations. This increased the effect of UHI.

373 Robert Schwartz  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 3:04:17pm

superdaveTWC, MKELLY

could you please check out this page:

The flux on Earth from the sun as measured by satellites is widely reported to be around 1366 w/m^2 …

The earth is approximately spherical and receives light from the sun on a cross-sectional area of a circle, but radiates thermal energy from the area of a sphere. The ratio of the spherical area to the circular area is 4. Dividing the incoming energy flux by 4 gives the Earth an approximate maximum temperature of 279° K. This is quite a bit below the standard value given as around 288° K (or 15° C). This is probably due to the fact that this is the temperature of the atmosphere as a whole, or basically the average atmospheric temperature, which is different and will be lower than the surface temperature. The atmosphere is exposed to a gravity field and particles higher in the atmosphere have higher potential energy and lower kinetic energy. Particles at the surface have lower potential energy and higher kinetic energy … overall this averages out over the entire atmosphere to a maximum value of 279 ° K (our maximum blackbody temperature), but at the surface the temperature will be higher. Calculating the ‘expected’ maximum surface temperature would be quite complex taking into account all the factors, but that is not the point of this article. The point of this article is to show that there is a maximum temperature and we are probably already very close to it.

374 Robert Schwartz  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 3:05:46pm

I would appreciate it if somebody who knows mathematical thermodynamics vetted this statement.

375 slyvester  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 3:29:27pm

I wonder if anyone has published the assumptions and “corrections” incorporated in the black box computer programs used to project future global temperatures. It would be interesting to see;I know that programs must be “normalized” to meet new data when it comes in.

As to anthropogenic causes…CO2 levels seem to trail global warming trends by 800 years. And we have seen warming trends on Mars and … was it Jupiter? How can human activity be at fault? There is an abundance of faith and a lack of skepticism, seems to me, on the part of those who would put cap-and-trade or carbon tax burdens on the economy.

376 tsionguy  Fri, Apr 3, 2009 9:22:58pm

If I were a climatologist, which I am not, I would test the hypothesis that all the regional world temperatures in the first fifty years of the last century were lower than the same regional world temperatures in the second fifty years of the last century. I would calculate regional averages on a month-by-month basis. There would be 600 data points for each region, for each fifty year period. If the latter 600 points were significantly higher than the earlier 600 points, within a given region, then you could confidently state that the climate is changing, within a given region. ANOVA (analysis of variance) testing is perfectly suited for this type of analysis. If the initial analysis reveals no statistical significance, then no further testing of data subsets is appropriate. Most of the statistics being quoted in this debate seem ad hoc and arbitrary. Since there is so much “noise” in the data, and since the theoretical warming trend is so small, any statistical test should ask a broad question over a longer period. Too often, people are tempted to cherry-pick the data. ANOVA looks at all the data without bias.


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
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 461 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1