Brain Freeze: Conservative media still using winter weather to attack global warming
Conservative media figures have used the recent snowstorms in the Washington, D.C., area to level more science-free attacks on global warming. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, scientists agree that short-term localized weather patterns are not relevant to global warming.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
If at first you don't deceive ... Conservative media again use winter snow to deny global warming
Limbaugh: It's "absurd" that Obama admin proposed global warming agency amidst "record-setting cold weather." On the February 9 broadcast of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated: "The Obama administration yesterday, amidst all this record-setting cold weather, proposed a new agency to study and report on the changing climate, also known as global warming." He added: "They're having to delay setting up the office [of Climate Service] because they're expecting another 16 to 20 inches [of snow] in Washington. I mean, this is absurd."
Fox & Friends asserts "dichotomy" between "those big snowstorms" and proposed "federal office to study global warming." On the February 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson said she wanted to talk about the "dichotomy" created by "big snowstorms" occurring while "the Obama administration [is] talking about creating a new federal office to study global warming." Co-host Steve Doocy added: "It's interesting, though, given the fact that the weather is so rotten right now that people are going, 'how can there be global warming if it's snowing and it's fairly cold?' "
Washington Times: D.C.'s "Snowmageddon" is "undermining the case for global warming one flake at a time." In a February 8 editorial headlined, "Snowmageddon is nigh," The Washington Times wrote that reports of more snow blanketing Washington, D.C., "must send chills up the spines of global warming adherents, for whom this winter has been marked by discontent." The editorial later added: "Those who value freedom should thank Mother Nature for her sense of humor, undermining the case for global warming one flake at a time. So although we're quite tired of shoveling, we say, 'Bring on the blizzard.' "
Hannity: "I'm sure the Climate Service will do a lot to ... help with the snow." From the February 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
SEAN HANNITY (host): Now, earlier today, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke tunneled his way through two feet of snow in D.C. in order to hold a news conference to discuss the threat global warming poses to the U.S.
He announced that your hard-earned tax dollars will be funding a new government agency on climate change that will be known as the Climate Service and will be headquartered in D.C.
And I'm sure the Climate Service will do a lot to get us out of this economic crisis, and, by the way, probably help with the snow.
Erickson said of D.C.'s snow: "You know what this all means right? We need a new federal agency to 'study and report on the changing climate.' " In a February 8 post on RedState.com, Erick Erickson wrote:
There are thirty inches of snow in Washington, DC. Here in Macon, Georgia, an area global warming scientists have long predicted would become a desert, we are 24 inches into a rain surplus in the past 365 calendar days.
You know what this all means right? We need a new federal agency to "study and report on the changing climate."
BigGov: "[A]nother 10-20 inches of snow ... Now THAT is some climate change." In a February 9 post to BigGovernment.com, a blogger writing under the pseudonym "Publius" wrote:
Yesterday, President Obama announced his plan to create a new federal agency tasked with climate change. Later that day, the National Weather Service announced that DC was due to receive another 10-20 inches of snow today. (On top of the 2 1/2 feet of snow over the weekend.) Now THAT is some climate change.
Reality: Snow in winter does not disprove global warming
FACT: Cold weather has no relevance to the climate debate. In a March 2, 2008, article, The New York Times reported that climate scientists -- including at least one who has disputed aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change -- completely reject the notion that short-term changes in weather bear any relevance to the climate debate. The article quoted Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA saying: "It's all in the long-term trends. Weather isn't going to go away because of climate change."
FACT: 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record. In January, major meteorological organizations throughout the world -- including NASA -- released reports showing that the past decade, 2000-2009, was the warmest on record. The reports undermine the right-wing media's numerous claims that recent snow and cold weather show climate change does not exist or has slowed over the past 10 years.
Media conservatives have a long history of using weather to deny global warming
Led by Fox News hosts, conservative media use weather patterns to claim the planet is cooling. Led by Fox News, conservative media figures have relentlessly turned to weather patterns in their ongoing assault on global warming science, despite reports showing the past decade was the warmest on record.
They pander to that stupidity.
That's what they do, That's ALL they do.
They ALL do...they ALL do....they ALL do.
It must be tough for you, living in a world so intellectually stunted.
what you might want to do, instead of treating the board to your tepid dime-store attempt at SARCASM, is to take notice of the generally fact-free and flat out simplistic so-called repudiation of the mountains of evidence pointing toward global climate change.
I'm not calling anyone intellectually stunted, but there are those who will look a little deeper than "It's cold in February in the northern hemisphere, therefore global warming is a crock"...
I find it quite ironic that you would use the term, "Mountain of Evidence". Fact: it has been widely reported that the Nobel winning "science" behind the Himalayas snow melt was IN FACT bogus. The science behind the report was based on anecdotal evidence of a few hikers an unscientific article written by an Indian junk scientist. Hasnain’s report contained no specific date by which any melting was forecast to occur, nor had it been peer-reviewed or published in a scientific journal.
Fact: This bogus, award winning, scientific report contained NO empirical evidence.
If you are concerned about FACT, which you are obviously are not, you would realize that MANY of global warming - oops, I forgot you changed that word - "Climate Change" scientific reports have not been generated for the purpose of science, but rather for the purpose of self preservation via government funding.
True Science is based in fact and methods, not emotion as you are so prone to rely on.
Thats what i like to hear.
"Denier religion"
I think its Interesting that you use that term on people who have claimed the science behind global warming is faulty for more than a decade; and now when the truth comes out that there have been serious methodological and reporting errors, you still DENY it.
Hypocrisy defines the left more often than any other characteristic.
Not a whole lot different from "It's one of the hottest years on record, therefore global warming is real."
Especially given that we have empirical data going back only 120 years or so. I don't know whether either of the above statements is true, but compared to a span of geological time, 120 years isn't much.
98% of small businesses aren't getting their taxes raised. But you still believe they are anyway, even now. It's because you're stupid. If you weren't stupid, you would be able to listen to a fact and adjust your thinking.
But they are remaining willfully ignorant of truth. Rush has told them Climate Change is a crock so the tens of thousands of climate related scientists who say otherwise just don't exist in their world. They refuse to see them.
Because if there is no warming we don't need to study anything climate related at all right? That's the point you are making? There are no other areas of climate to study, so they would be out of their jobs? Suuurrrreeeee.
I take it you are unaware that after all the sensational headlines, there was some actual analysis of the content of the stolen e-mails and it was found that there was very little cause for concern. No primary data was destroyed, the stuff they wouldn't release was not theirs to release for the most part, "hide the decline" referred to something sciency that you probably can't wrap your brain around that dealt with tree rings and accounting for data that is glaringly wrong for some reason, there was some satirical banter portrayed as serious too. Did I miss any you would like me to look up for you?
That puts Science in inevitable opposition to Fox News.
If you hate science so much, then I encourage you to eschew all of their products. No more medicine for you. No more motor vehicles, no more electricity, no more internal combustion engines.
You can live in a cave and rant on about how scientists are just glorified liars as long as you want.
Just don't come to us when you get the flu.
(there are some issues with doing it this way, but I'm not going to do your job for you.)
I claim 10s of 1000s, you ask for citation. I give you citation for 10 times the amount I originally stated and now you want to stand with what is a MINORITY 10s of 1000s?
It's even more obvious to the reader than you have never had to make a payroll either.
Again, well written for someone with your glaring intellect.
98% of small business owners don't make enough to be affected by the repeal of the top tier Bush tax cuts.
The rest of the Bush tax cuts aren't going to be repealed.
This is NOT rocket science.
You guys make me smile. :)
Before and after photos of glaciers taken over a 50+ years span
Glaciers are "built" from years, decades, centuries of the accumulation of snow where the snow that falls in winter does not fully melt during the summer. These photos showing glaciers taken in the early 1900's, then again near the end of the century show that now, melting in the summer is greater than the accumulation of snow in the winter.
Science ... observe the phenomena, formulate a theory/model, match data to the theory/model, make predictions based on the theory/model, perform experiments or make additional future observations to show that the predictions of the theory/model still hold. IF, data does not match the model, explain how either the data is not related or that the model is flawed. Rinse and Repeat until clean.
We aren't, well I take that back, I'm not disputing the fact that many of the earth's glaciers are shrinking, what i am disputing and the IPCC's tainted and guided science is helping to prove is that it is not caused by anthropogenic greehouse warming. (AGW)
Here is a study which according to your definition of science should dispel any belief you have in AGW. By your own definition...
"IF, data does not match the model, explain how either the data is not related or that the model is flawed. Rinse and Repeat until clean."
...you have to see that carbon dioxide caused global warming is not the most likely source of melting glaciers.
Why not quit spending billions of dollars on "political" science, IPCC, and lets redirect some of that spending to find out the real cause, and whether there is somethign we can do about it or not.
And I know a lot of scientists.
http://rmbl.org/rplan/researchplanresults.php?id=576
Notice the amount of money involved. Sort of makes the argument that the scientists are in it for the money, patently absurd.
Also, this how thousands of climate studies are done, amassing data, analyzing the data and THEN coming to a conclusion.
As opposed to the anti science method, come to a conclusion, cherry pick someone else's data, then have the conclusion broadcast to unsuspecting viewers of Arab owned media conglomerate.
You do realize that News Corp is owned by the Saudi royal family right?
Your words, not mine. I say we all STFU and accept what the scietific reasearch tells us is TRUE. Period.
That's not "progressive." S#!t, it's not even POLITICAL. It called: not beiong a fool. The science says the earth is getting wamrer and that our behavior is the cuase. It DOES NOT sya what we shoudl DO about it. THAT'S where the "opinion" comes into play.
If you want to debate about what to do next, fine. We can look at liberal solutions or conservtaive solutions. Free-market solutions, gov't solutions, or other solutions.
As far as I see it, the only reason you keep trying to confuse people on the science (pathetically non-scientficially, I might ad) is that you know your proposed solutions (basically: do nothing) would be indefensible if people accpeted the scientific evidence regarding what happening and why.
----------------------------------------------------------------
But, by all means, keep distorting our position and arguing (poorly) against strawmen. You may look misinfomred, but it'll make Limbaugh proud.
Well, when a sizable percentage believe that Obama should be impeached and that he is not a US citizen, then yes, it is tough.
This reminds me of a child in Kindergarden saying, "You're a big stupid head".
Perhaps you can elaborate on how FNC listeners are stupid by using some kind of fact?
Your conjecture and vitriol speak volumes.
"I can't see it and I don't understand it so it must be a liberal intellectual elitist plot."
Yeah, okay Sean.
It's a good thing the government is rolling in dough so they can justify setting up a new agency.
Government job = evil
Union job = evil
Just part of the wonderful wacky progressive world. Deficits are bad, spend more money! The earth is dying! Pass Cap and Trade to drive manufacturing overseas and raise the emission of greenhouse gases while taxing the U.S. energy infrastructure out of existence! Stimulate the economy by raising taxes to strangle small business and decrease the tax base. It all makes such perfect sense....yeah right....
Is this some type of parody? You rifle off a number of claims here, none of which are proven. For example, according to most economists, the stimulation plan passed by Obama *did* work, only it didn't go far enough. (Krugaman someone with a Noble in economics, has been arguing this all along.) Taxes were never raised on small businesses. And so fourth.
Obamas' stimulus plan WORKED! Instead of being in a Great Depression, we are in a recession. Too many people are too badly affected because the repugs only want tax breaks which have statistically been proven false over and over again. Just because it worked ONCE 25 years ago and has never worked since doesn't mean you try 20 more times! The Stim did save lots of jobs, bought lots of material to create those jobs. (when you say each job cost $100,000 so it is a failure, look at all the material they had to buy, overhead etc. and don't forget to include that) Once again an actual HUGE SUCCESS that thick people just will purposely not understand! There!
Well we damn sure can't have too much ignorance when it comes to this subject!
Lets kill the messenger and go back to sleep.
When roofs in the northeast that should last 30-50 years are failing from repeated freeze thaw cycles something is amiss. When 200-300 year old trees are getting shredded by "once in a lifetime icestorms" over and over again something is amiss. Then droughts tap "never ending aquifers" something is amiss. When 1 MILLION acres in Australia go up in flames in a week something is amiss.
WHEN will you anti-science fools stop listening to politicians and accountants and lawyers to plan for the future?
It cost a 10000000000000000's times more to be REACTIVE than to be PROACTIVE.
At least think of it that way. The cost....
NO, that won't happen. Only the Denial Cult has trouble understanding the difference between weather and climate.
You guys should really read over some of the older threads before posting these stupid comments.Maybe if you saw all of the other Cultists stepping on the rakes and wearing the clown noses, you could save yourself some embarrassment.
The sunspots are swing back up out of this minimum and I'm not looking forward to the summers in about 5 years.
They tell us we could never hurt our climate with all that burning we do, but then they get worried sick because gay people might get married, or banks might have to go back to the rules they had 15 years ago, or people making over 250,000 might pay more taxes.
Everything is fragile to them but the climate and the planet. Thats because for them any problem that isn't solved by tax cuts, deregulation, free markets, church, or firearms can't really be a problem.
Taking on responsibility is the last thing these conservatives want to do. A more unstable climate threatends livelyhoods, property values, quality of life, health, and even national security but since it is more fun to sit back and let the free market solve all our problems, we can only wish this problem away.
Yup... So repsonsible...
Please let's save the planet, but let's find a more efficient way to do it than the wrongheaded cap and trade approach which will only send more manufacturing jobs overseas to nations that pollute more than we do. The net effect will be to depress the U.S. economy, raise the cost of living in the U.S. and increase the net release of greenhouse gases worldwide.
Social Security, which is solvent for at least decades, and even longer with minor adjustments. Why, by the way, did you use the term "social" program instead of just program? If other non-social government programs work, then doesn't that mean that we simply underfund the social ones?
>>but let's find a more efficient way to do it than the wrongheaded cap and trade approach which will only send more manufacturing jobs overseas to nations that pollute more than we do.
But cap and trade is a way to correct an external cost; it is a capitalist solution. As to whether it would really send jobs overseas, that is debatable.
He's a member in good standing of the 21st century, 'Know Nothing' party.
He never knew!
I don't think the Army or Marine Corps have turned a profit for a while. Well, except for the right wing mercenary contractors.
The conservatives are the extremists of our era, and they have created nothing but chaos and destruction.
Now, at least you're honest that science is all pointing to global warming being man-made and catastrophic unless we do something. Please, if you don't like the present proposals, tell us what you would do. Or are you just farting in the bathtub again?
All from Bush.
Top that off with the fact that the Stimulus plan was "necessary" spending, and not excessive.
Ah... now this is an issue... harks back to the days when an educated Republican wasn't an oxymoron. What on earth has happened to the Right in America in the last decade or so? Sad!
I was always told that higher snowfall amounts were an indication of winters where there was more humidity and slightly warmer temperatures.
I was told that bitter cold temperatures lead to less snow during the winter.
Hmm.
http://climate.colostate.edu/climateofcolorado.php
Statewide average annual precipitation is 17 inches but ranges from only 7 inches in the middle of the San Luis Valley in south central Colorado to over 60 inches in a few mountain locations. WHILE TEMPERATURE DECREASES, AND PRECIPITATION GENERALLY INCREASES WITH ALTITUDE, these patterns are modified by the orientation of mountain slopes with respect to the prevailing winds and by the effect of topographical features in creating local air movements.
Sorry Purple State, but nice try.
Case in point. Buffalo is about 30% BELOW is annual snow fall totals. Because the only Erie is frozen over. The rest aren't. Erie is the smallest of the Great Lakes.
One month ago the northeast was in the 50's. All the snow melted and many areas flooded.
Where were you foolish deniers then? Strangely silent or embarrassed by your lack of knowledge?
From the NSIDC:
Is it ever too cold to snow?
No, it can snow even at incredibly cold temperatures as long as there is some source of moisture and some way to lift or cool the air. It is true, however, that most heavy snowfalls occur with relatively warm air temperatures near the ground—typically -9 degrees Celsius (15 degrees Fahrenheit) or warmer—since air can hold more water vapor at warmer temperatures.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The problem with the source you cited is that it is not talking about the effect temperature has on snowfall, but rather on the effect altitude has on BOTH snowfall and temperature. It is meaningless with regard to the question of the effect of temperature on snowfall. The science lesson to be learned here is correlation is not causation.
You're not very good at science.
What PurpleState is correct in this sense: colder weather is associtaed with high pressure systems, which are drier. Warmer weather is associated with low pressure systems, which produce precipitation.
One of the other most common misconceptions is . . .
Similarly, because a hotter atmosphere gathers more moisture, winter storms will be 'enhanced' by global warming which of course makes 'global climate change' a more useful term rather then an evasion.
This effect is magnified at higher altitudes and is a large part of the reason that correctly modeling the Himalayas is difficult. The same effect that would be expected to increase the rate of glacial melting is also working to increase the amount of snowfall.
Take note deniers, this demonstrates the very meaning of nuance and complexity.
He seems to have gone into hiding.
The colder it gets the more he disappears.
Really? That is your excuse for an argument? Did you even read the article, which mentioned that 2000-2009 is the warmest decade on record?
I drive by the National Weather Service on the way to work and the outside temperature sensor in my vehicle does not register a rise in temperature.
Then I read reports that the Farmers Almanac is reporting colder temperatures.
The problem with continuing the global warming hoax is that even the so called 'dumb' people know better.
Warmest on record? Who do you think you are fooling?
It's frightening to learn that they let you drive a car.
That is just plain stupid. The data shows it is the warmest on record. Do you believe in evolution and a round earth, or do you just look out the window and make your decisions on what you see?
There's no reasoning with a person like this. All you can do is point and laugh.
That's right- the National Weather Service is lying to you about the temperature. Adjust that tin foil hat so they can't mess with what you laughingly call a brain, don't let the gummint lie to you anymore!
Did you know that Flouride is being added to the water?
"Warmest on record? Who do you think you are fooling?"
Oh don't worry, I'm sure the gummint stopped trying to fool YOU a long time ago. It's us sadly misinformed sheep that THEY are after. You must feel like a lone voice of sanity in the wilderness, like Winston Smith in "1984." But I'm sorry to report that we are just beyond hope- we've been brainwashed by scientific evidence to the point where we don't take ice on our windshields as proof of global climate trends.
I suggest that you exit sadly, shaking your head at our stupidity. Trust me when I tell you that we all hope to grow up to be as smart as you are, even though we know that chances are, it will never happen.
Yes, the dumb people don't believe in global warming; and the smart ones do. There is no surprise there.
What you're talking about is that the Farmers Almanac, 19th century gossip and folklore, agrees with your local observations. Maybe your outside temperature sensor doesn't work, huh? Or that conditions exactly where you live aren't the same?
Or no, it could be that every meteorologist in the country is part of this big plot by China to force America backwards. Sure, that must be it.
If so, we'll all start praying for a heat wave.
We have a warming trend now. Go to this link and look at the graph. You can read a graph, right?
temperatures and overall global warming.
Get a grip.
"get a grip" indeed. How about "buy a clue?"
And then there are headlines like this from yesterday in Florida:
Record wildlife deaths from cold snap
The Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- State wildlife officials say deaths and injuries to wildlife from last month's nearly two-week cold snap are unprecedented.
It is much more difficult to conceal the bodies that pile up from record cold.
There are those people who you only realize are stupid after knowing them for a while, after a lot of conversation.
Then there are those who start their first sentence with " Duhhh,um, hey !"
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1419
How about a number! Am I supposed to believe this just because you say it - like you believe Beck and Rush? You really think there is enough money in 'the climate conspiracy' to come close to balancing the money in the the carbon fuel industries?
I'd help you but you either can't or refuse to, read.
A hotter atmosphere lifts more moisture and leads to bigger storms. As long as there is active weather it will be the result of interaction between (relatively) hot and (relatively) cold air masses. When there is no more active weather deniers and wing nuts will be extinct!
Unfortunately, we'll all be!
Conservative media can only dream of that kind of exposure for their message.
Record wildlife deaths from cold snap
The Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- State wildlife officials say deaths and injuries to wildlife from last month's nearly two-week cold snap are unprecedented.
Why don't you come back when you have both a clue and a point?
--------------------------------------------------------
You're failing miserably at your attempts to show you have either.
But sorry, go ahead and keep doling out the steaming pile, I mean advice.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brain freeze, indeed.
The only people spewing global warming are the ones who can gain financially or politically from it. Others like insurance companies are suffering from it.
Do a search in google news on a quoted string: "record cold"
---
The insurer estimates that with the UK experiencing its coldest winter in decades,
Houston wakes up to colder morning; rain returns Wednesday Houston Chronicle
Rain, chill returning to Houston after weekend respite Houston Chronicle
Next snowstorm could be a record-breaker | Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/09/2010 Philadelphia
Valley residents have seen many records broken this winter; record cold temperatures, record snow fall and record numbers of homeless seeking shelter.
Climate change movement dead?
Washington Times: February Snow Storms "Undermin[e] The Case For Global ...
Huffington Post (blog) - 19 hours ago
With global warming, he said, "we'll still have record cold temperatures. We'll just have fewer of them." This isn't a unique approach among conservatives ...
Tower Soudan Remembers Record Cold of Groundhog's Day 1996
Northland's NewsCenter - Feb 2, 2010
A major cold snap indicated Minnesota's record cold temperature would be set near Embarrass or Tower. Tower won the race by a hair at minus 60. ...
And of course a government news source:
RECORD hot days continue to outnumber record cold days, according to the Bureau of Meteorology. Bureau scientist Dr Blair Trewin says over the past decade ...
You are proving my point. You are claiming that because specific regions are seeing record cold spells, that means the entire earth isn't getting warmer. Putting aside that it is absolutely part of the AGW model that specific regions WILL, in fact, get colder, the FACT is that all of the themperature data being collected and historically available absolutley supports not only the REALITY of Global Warming but also the leading hypothesis that mankind is causing it.
You RW'ers keeping nitpiking insignificant details, none of which are neceassry to maintain the overal model or hypothesis. (Which get better every time a flaw is exposed - that's how science WORKS. And yet the model and hypthesis still stands.) You're shooting spitballs at battleships because you don't understand science and those few of you that do DON'T CARE.
The data says the earth's getting warmer. PERIOD. And not only is there sufficient evidence to accept the hypothesis that man's behavior is causing it, but every single COMPETING hypotheisis has failed to withstand scrutiny, as every other explanation has been corrected for in the models.
Only increased CO2 levels explain the WARMING trend that we've have OBSERVED, MEASURED and QUANTIFIED.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Say "Hi" to the Ostrich for me.
Putting false statements in capital letters does not make them true.
For now, it looks like divine intervention is preventing cap and tax legislation from passing this week with the shutdown of DC from the record snow. Even the few right wing progressives like McCain are backing away.
With the momentum slipping with each day, it looks like your cap and tax wet dream is slipping away.
Political will on climate-change bill buried under record snowfall in capital
By Alexander Bolton - 02/09/10 09:30 AM ET
Record snowfall has buried Washington — and along with it, buried the chances of passing global warming legislation this year
Cars are stranded in banks of snow along the streets of the federal capital, and in the corridors of Congress, climate legislation also has been put on ice.
Democratic senators say a bill that was once a top priority for the party and for President Barack Obama cannot be dug up again during 2010.
That there is debate about WHAT TO DO NEXT is both inevitable and irrelevant. What the best way to FIX IT is, will always be matter of opinion, and different parties will put priority on different areas. But the science remains solid. You don't VOTE on science. It is what it is.
Regardless of what you think of the various proposed solutions, you are still an idiot to argue that snow in winter means that the earth is not trending warmer, or that man is not the primary driver of this.
-------------------------------------------------
Try again.
So before public sentiment goes 90% against Congress they were going to try to fastrack cap and tax into law.
And since this is the warmest winter ever, it must be divine intervention that is making it snow in DC.
Just like the health care bill, the climate bill should be scrapped and started from scratch. Take CO2 off the list and focus more on harmful pollutants like sulfur.
Wrong. Sayng it over and over dsoens't make it true. This sentiment stems froma willingness to accept ANY flaw in the data or assumption in the modeling as reason to scrap the model in it's entirety. It's absurd. And you're wrong. Period. "Almost everybody else knows it?" You are speaking for far more people tha n you actually represent, and the only people who KNOW are the scientists doing teh reasearch. And they're all on my side of this.
Second, AGAIN you prove my point: The changing political winds has nothing to do with the qualityof the science. Just because th ewell funded energy concerns have done an effective job in convinciing the public that science if wrong, doesn't make the science wrong, or even "untrustworthy." All it shows is that the "burning stuff" lobby is making more noise, and the media is along for the ride.
These politicians are not seeking political cover because of flwaed science, their seeking it for the reason I've described above: The public has been pursuaded by the b*llsh!t and if they want to keep thier jobs they'd be toe the line, rather than do what's RIGHT. The fact that science prooves politically inconvenient does not discredit the science. It only provides motivation for politicians to crank up the junk-science for political cover.
Your depiction of politics is irrelevant to Science. Politians have a long history if ignoring science, as do the courts. Nothing new there. As for the FARMERS...? Pul-Lease. HOW MUCH of the world is in the middle of a drought right now? Oh... but I uess because you can find a few places where it's raining, that means we don't have water issues globally, huh?
------------------------------------------------
I have very little problem with WHAT you think. It's HOW you think that is the real issue. And the issure is that you don/t know HOW!
--------------------------------------------
LOL
Even if their awareness doesn't stretch to the southern hemisphere surely the lack of snow at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver might be a clue that something is going on. Then, of course, maybe they are unaware of the existence of the rest of America.
It's GLOBAL climate change.
Here in Utah (a 'blossoming' desert due to irrigation) we grow lots of Alfalfa - an African plant, cut as hay and used for animal feed. Alfalfa thrives in our combination of summer heat and applied irrigation and is one of our most productive farm crops.
In 2006 no one was surprised when the heat made it difficult to grow tomatoes but by the second (of three) alfalfa crops it was evident that it was even too hot for the alfalfa! Growing alfalfa in Idaho was very profitable that year as prices went through the roof!
Waitaminnit,grmce. Isn't S, Australia pretty arid and dry in the summer ? And yet you're sitting in a puddle ?? How can you be hot and dry, and yet producing moisture ???
(psss.... sorry, just thought I'd see if I could get the Denial Cultists even more confused)
It's easier to just blame everything on Global Climate Change.
All the events being held in and around Vancouver will be indoors in cliamte controlled environments.
But once again - weather does not = climate!
As for the posting from Australia (the Boxing 'Roo lives!), I read it as a counter-point to the topic of this thread.
The stupidity is on MMFA. The science is on the skeptic's side now, so you all can keep insulting the conservative messager, but the fact is that the man-made global warming movement is dying a slow, and well-deserved death.
That's why skeptics accept the AGW model!
You GW deniers basically HAVE NO SCIENCE on your side. Almost none of your evidence is scientific! And what evidence you DO have that is scientific is already being accoutned for in the models.
Science is not a matter of public opinion. The laws of the physical universe are not decided by popular vote. They are discovered by RESEARCH, MEASUREMENT and ANALYSIS. They are THEORIZED about and MODELED, and those THEORIESand MODELS are TESTED and that TESTING must stand up to the scrutiny of those who know what the hell they're talkign about! That a scietist can't convice the general public, over the competing noise of the moneyed interests who profits aren't served by his discovery, has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of his discovery.
Your side has done none of this, and there is overwhilming research that supports the AGW model. It won't "die" until there is a better, more accurate model that replaces it.
You are winning the political battle, not because of science, but becuase of more effective, better funded, propaganda. Why you should be HAPPY about that, however, is beyond me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Either you're brainwashed, or 90% of your portfolio is tied up in ExxonMobil. It's like I always say about the Right: They're either evil or stupid - Lying or Buying.
That is not science. It is politics.
The model is not kept secret.
In the code were comments about how the results were being altered to create the desired results!
The reason Congress wants to rush through legislation is because some of this malfeasance is eventually going to be generally known.
And WE'RE the stupid ones?
The IPCC ran with fake data from a STUDENT DISSERTATION! That is not science!
Please understand that the IPCC is a political organization.
There are TONS of credible scientific info that debunks the IPCC. Just take a second and do a search. It's out there, guys, but if you still want to keep your heads in the sand, fine by me.
See here:
link
There is not "tons" of science that refutes global warming. There are over 600 peer reviewed articles supporting AGW, and none refuting it.
But the so-called bad code was commented out, and anyway, has nothing to do with the graphs or any other climate models which are *peer reviewed.*
When you do a mathematical simulation, you create data according to a model.
The interaction between models and recorded data is the central feature of modern Bayesian statistics.
If I write a computer program to produce data according to a certain model, it does not logically follow that I'm going to turn around and tell people that my simulated data represents actual measurements.
You don't even know any scientists in real life, do you?
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(…)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
Yes, that might be the smoking gun if *this code were actually operational!* The code was never used.
What it certainly was not used for was the purpose that that drones say it was used for: falsifying data.
As my husband, who is the one who turned me on to what a fascinating subject sunspots can be BTW, said this morning when I told him about this article:
In a couple of years, there will be no doubt, none at all. The sunspot cycle is trending upward as we speak and once we hit the mid point of the rise, we are going to be in trouble with no way of denying it.
What the video basically indicates that it is only about 10% of the Earth that is colder than normal and the other 90% is warmer than normal. While Washington DC was buried in snow Canada was warm, up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal and 18 in some places. The whole Arctic was warmer than normal. Everything south of the US and parts of Europe/Eurasia was warmer than usual. The Southern Hemisphere, which was in summer mode, had record breaking summer temperatures.
Everyone interested in this issue and the whole subject owes it to himself to watch this video as well as the entire series.
villabolo
Which is a complete joke. The science says the globe is warming and man is causing it:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Until your side can start using the peer reviewed science instead of propaganda, you should not be taken seriously.
Everyone else should do the same.
My comment goes to a previous thread where that same poster claimed diabetics shouldn't be given insulin. That the drug companies do so to create an addiction and a customer forever.
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. ...
Basically someone in the government thinks we can raise taxes by putting a thermostat controller on the earth and keeping the temperature within a narrow range. The problem is no one knows what the ideal temperature for the earth should be.
Or perhaps, if you had not ended the quote where you did (although I'm guessing you don't know what the word "conjecture" means so this may still be a bit of a stretch for you) we would see...
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the mainstream scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.
And FYI - the words "we would see..." above contain a link to the page which you cut and pasted from.
Dare we say that jose knows that he's lying? It certainly seems like that to me.
Must be nice having a job where you're paid to troll web sites and spread disinformation.
Umm - could you back any of that up with any kind of source? Anything? A link to a website claiming it, perhaps?
Did you bother to read the article? Local weather is not climate. The decade 2000-2009 is the warmest on record.
Hey Jose, there is actually a way you can measure the average temperature of the earth and compare the result to previous decades.
I know this might sound really hard to understand, but the technique has nothing to do with looking out the window.
The correct answer is not written on Sarah Palin's hand, but there is a way to find out the truth, Jose.
The truth has nothing to do with politics, Jose. The study of climate is way over the head of someone who thinks that looking out the window is the way to determine if global warming is real or not, but if you wanted to know the truth, you could look into the various ways that temperatures are measured, the correlations with tree ring data, glacial core data, historical data, etc, and find out how rigorously the theories have been tested, and how well different independent techniques correlate with each other, and you could even find out the statistical probability of data being true or not.
Or you could just listen to an uneducated boob like Rush Limbaugh, who actually knows that you can't look out the window and draw a conclusion about climate change. He knows it, but he doesn't want you to. He knows you are dumb, and all he cares about is molding your thoughts, not giving you the truth. Think about that.
NOT up. It makes no sense. And you sound just as stupid to deny a documented long term trend in the graph by hand picking tiny zigs and zags over a minute timeframe compared to the overall trend to deny that trend. There is no logic to this, and those of you who try to deny it obviously do not care for, or understand, logic.
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(…)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
loadct,39
def_1color,20,color='red'
plot,[0,1]
multi_plot,nrow=4,layout='large'
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php
Programmers would normally add comments so that if some day the data supported the theory, they could go back and remove the fudge factor.
A lot of the discussion concerning the code is to dismiss the significance of it. What is significant is that they still won't release their data, model and source code so the scam continues.
The data has been released. See:
link
Like any science, climatology has undergone the rigors of peer review.
When you can start quoting peer review science, we will start to take you seriously.
Yes, in the same way the score of a basketball game has nothing to do with who won.
When your side is losing 600 to nothing, I can see why you would attack science.
http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/very-artificial-correction-flap-looks.html
This is funny. The code you quote was *commented out!*
Insults don't make an argument. The code you think was insidious was never used! It also has nothing to do with any of the models and graphs.
Again:
link
Our side: 600
Your side: 0
If you want to see the score, do a google news search on
climate legislation dead for 2010
Should read...
I can't post links cause I don't know how and have a crazy idea that I'm not allowed to.
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_0_0_t&usg=AFQjCNGnq_QZhj_-V3U3rlCoUt5HCXdN_A&cid=8797498289524&ei=bUdzS5jBO8f3lAfumPyoAw&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.triplepundit.com%2F2010%2F02%2Fis-climate-change-legislation-dead-in-2010%2F
http://www.frumforum.com/is-climate-change-legislation-dead-in-2010
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_3_0_t&usg=AFQjCNHtKZBGP8LJvZ8_avuB4Cd0s-xpqA&cid=0&ei=bUdzS5jBO8f3lAfumPyoAw&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Frobert-stavins%2Fany-hope-for-meaningful-u_b_457095.html
well that was sure difficult
Your text to link here...
Your links don't even come close to back up what you were claiming, which was that AGW was a fraud. You switched the argument to the state of the legislation.
Are you really serious, or you just trolling?
We all know (or should know) that the national debt is mathematically impossible to pay.
Climate change legislation was an attempt to tax people into oblivion. Bottom line is it won't make any difference.
You lose, America resets, be happy, live long an prosper.
bye bye
No it doesn't. It shows that the legislation is dead for this year; it says nothing about the "hysteria."
More to the point, you are trying to switch the subject. The legislation may fail, but the science is as robust as ever.
You apparently don't know what "mathematically impossible" means, either.
>>Programming comments are always commented out. That's what makes them comments you idiot.
This implies that you knew all along the code you posted was never actually used, that is was just a comment. However, earlier you commented above:
>>Here is an example of how the code was modified to get the model to work:
So above you didn't believe the code was a comment, but real, working code! And you call me an idiot?
The offending code is immediately below the comment:
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
An insult isn't an argument. My argument stands: you either don't know how programming works, or you are being outright dishonest.
So now you are presenting yet *another* argument! You first claimed that the code modified the results, you then admitted it was just a comment and tried to deflect my insulting me, and by saying all the code needed to be released, and now you are back to making a back to believing the code is operational!
At any rate, *none* of the code points to anything.
Who do you think you are fooling by posting a bunch of code?
Again:
our side: 600
your side: 0
Exactly what side is your side?
The side that wants to tax everyone into oblivion such as taxing farts?
Really? Let be again point to the link:
link
I'll even quote it for you:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Of course, I *understated my case.* It is more like 700 to 0.
Where's your science, Jose?
Why don't you link to a neutral source?
In the study, Menne evaluated and compared temperature trends of poor vs. well suited U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) sites in response to photo evidence by surfacestations.org of widespread poor siting conditions of these sites across the country.
Anthony Watts (Watt's Up with That), in particular, has speculated that U.S. surface temperature records from the USHCN from the past 30 years or so are likely biased high due to poor siting near buildings, asphalt, A/C, etc....., which is artificially enhancing the magnitude of observed temperature trends.
Here it is.
You STILL can't figure out how to do it! I guess when you are this stupid you don't even realize how you are embarassing yourself.
Keep it up though - it gives me at least one good laugh a day.
jose2
You get 600 votes from recipients of government money to say AGW is real. That still equals zero.
Your climate tax is dead.
I still don't know what side you think you are.
Are you the side who thinks we can tax and spend our way to prosperity? That is retarded.
I have a solution for you. Lay off half of all government workers. That may stop the downward spiral.
And how about getting all those diabetics off that nasty insulin habit!?
Here's a tip - when that actually happens (and I'm not convinced it does, cause we haven't seen it) why don't you back then and post. It might save yourself some embarrassment. Oh who am I kidding, that would take a certain degree of self awareness.
Calculate how much longer the government can keep taxing and spending before it goes into default.
Social Security is now paying out more than it collects.
Medicaid and Medicare needs to be shut off immediately.
AGW should be so far down on the list it shouldn't even show up on the radar.
Perhaps if you were able to support your hypothesis (we'll wait while you look that up) using some sort of fact based source, you could post a link for back-up.
Oh wait YOU CAN'T!
Now I'm starting to think you are on insulin.
Your Link for retard
I don't think I ever heard Sarah mention it.
I for one will be burning lots of firewood and producing lots of CO2 if the economy breaks down.
Are you really a 7th grader who is just trolling? Farts? Really?
You still haven't explained what your side is.
By the way, even that statement is false. The code most likely has to do with a paper "Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?" The program tackled the problem of why tree rings diverged from the rest of climate records and was honestly and openly discussed in a peer reviewed paper.
You have never evaluated the data, and wouldn't understand it if you tried, so you have no basis to call it, or the peer review process, which is extraordinarily rigorous by the way, a joke. Comments from your heros Hannity and the big fat drug addict on the other hand, don't stand up to any scrutiny. They lie and provide no data, and you believe them. that makes YOU the joke.
When we get days this spring and summer with temps like that, will Hannity and his minions say that's proof of global warming? By his logic, he should.
But that's the difference. Scientists study climate in terms of decades, centuries and millennia, author papers, submit them for review and critique, discuss findings, reject findings, fine tune their methodology, have conferences to discuss the issues, share notes, repeat experiments, and so on.
Meanwhile, the ignorant naysayers glance out their windows.
Randy
I guess the American Main Stream Media'a refusal to cover the revelations of various frauds and conspiracies regarding AGW's .. (including Climategate), scientists and data had an effect. More stupid and ignorant AGWs.
What a surprise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/science/earth/19climate.html
THIS IS NO LONGER HEARSAY WISHFUL THINKING MY FRIEND
Inside the Climate Bunker
How global-warming deniers are running circles around the U.N.'s top climate body.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/09/inside_the_climate_bunker
And, yes, anthropos are really scary.
"More stupid and ignorant Anthropogenic global warmings."
I was trying to be fair.
WARM WEATHER
COLD WEATHER
RAIN
SNOW
FOG
SUNNY DAYS
CLOUDY DAYS
HURRICANES
TORNADO
EARTHQUACKS
VOLCANOES
A WOBBLE SPINNING EARTH
SUN SPOTS
SOLAR FLARES
MY DOG TO ACT CONFUSED
MY CAT TO ATTACK THINGS THAT AREN'T THERE
Ok I know I missed a few, add your own.....
Keep the wingnut "satire" coming.
Fair minded people need to exude a serious, thoughtful comprehension and analyses of the man caused global warming hoax. They can greatly strengthen their credibility by learning a little about the issues behind “man caused global warming”. This is strictly an anticapitalist, income redistribution hoax.
Why do global warming advocates keep saying there is “scientific consensus” that man’s CO2 emissions are causing global warming? Answer: Scientific peer review of these claims has failed to support them. Many scientists vehemently disagree with the whole notion, let alone concur that such a consensus exists. Scientific analysis is in fact at odds with the notion that human activity causes global warming.
Why do global warming advocates always insist “the debate is over”? Answer: Because they have no evidence to support their position, their only tactic is to preempt discussion of global warming to avoid the embarrassment of losing a debate. And if there ever were a scientific debate dominated by the notion that human activity affects global temperature, where and when did it occur? Answer: There has been no such debate on a scientific level.
Why do global warming advocates refuse to talk about the actual effect of solar activity, natural historical temperature fluctuation cycles, volcanism, etc and show they are not by far the only significant factors affecting earth’s temperature variations? Answer: These powerful factors make man’s CO2 emissions almost irrelevant.
Why do global warming advocates refuse to talk about the rise in temperature of Mars and other solar system objects? Answer: Admission, even obliquely, that extraterrestrial events affect earth’s temperature would destroy their claim that human activity is affecting earth’s temperature.
Why do global warming advocates not post charts of earth’s temperature changes over the past years? Answer: Measurement of earth’s temperature is inexact, but data shows earth’s temperature has risen and fallen as long as humans have tried to record it. And earth’s temperature, as well as can be measured, has actually been cooling for over a decade now.
Why do global warming advocates ignore the effect of other so called “greenhouse gasses”? Answer: Carbon dioxide is practically insignificant compared to the major greenhouse gas, water vapor. Water vapor constitutes up to 4% of our atmosphere, lower at the poles, while CO2 from all sources is about 0.038% of our atmosphere, relatively insignificant as greenhouse gasses go.
Scientists have no stronger morals than politicians or any other class of people. Some will always do and say anything they think will enhance their position. There are corrupt and dishonest scientists, just like there are corrupt and dishonest people in all areas. The recent scandals in which leading scientists advocating global warming were caught falsifying data, ignoring data, dumping data, and slanting analyses to wrongly create the impression the earth’s temperature was rising is a good example of this problem. Non-scientists should never be intimidated by claims that any scientist makes, unless those claims have been substantiated by peer review, unlike the discredited global warming hoax.
Why have global warming advocates usually abandoned the phrase “global warming”, and now talk instead of ‘climate change”? Answer: Because they know full well that there is no credible evidence that shows human activity has any impact on global temperatures, or that global temperatures are likely to rise dramatically. This also reduces the likelihood someone will ask for proof global warming is occurring.
It is abundantly clear that global warming environmentalists are in fact just using that ruse to attack capitalism and effect large scale forced income redistribution. That is the only reason Cap ‘n Trade was proposed constructed. That is the goal of the infamous Copenhagen conference that seeks to strip $100 billion per year from developed countries, read the United States, and dole it out to countries that work hard to kill economic progress with their corruption and socialism.
Sometimes, hard as it is, people should relax a little and just enjoy talking to like minded people about their man-made global warming religion, so they don't stress out when facts are presented. Or better yet, feel free to think!
Randy
Of course, it 's too cowardly to straight-up name call, framing it's baseless name-calling as accepted facts, and it's massive projection, but that's what makes it Wingnut Gold.
The best writers in the world couldn't make up the comedy the wingnuts do accidentally, and the Denial Cultists are some of the funniest.
Feel free to think instead of just spewing venom!
The main problem I have with your rant is that your premise seems to be that environmentalists are using the AGW debate to push and anti-capitalistic agenda. Personally, I find most such conspiracy theories pretty unconvincing. You seem rely (much too heavily) on your political opponents having the most venial possible motives. That's the way little kids think about things.
"leading scientists advocating global warming were caught falsifying data, ignoring data, dumping data, and slanting analyses to wrongly create the impression the earth's temperature was rising is a good example of this problem."
Perhaps you could start with an interpretation of the code at this link and let us know where the flaw is (if indeed there is one). Also let us know how you would have handled the programming to correct for the divergence problem differently. Because, you see, unless you can explicate this code and show that it produces a spurious output (and was constructed with malevolent intent)I would argue that the only thing you know about the topic is what you heard emanating from Spaceship Limborg (or perhaps Teabagger in Chief Glenn Beck is your hero). Venom? No venom yet--just blunt. But keep trying for the venom if that is what you really want.
And your name calling! Wingnut, teabaggers (god, you are a classy person!), Spaceship Limborg, Teabagger in Chief Glenn Beck - you people must be very proud of your well reasoned, clever retort!
Why can't you even attempt to rebut anything I said?
Just for fun, why not read a little about Climategate, for instance:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?4918d95e-35de-4f8a-b2a4-e720e1bdca27
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/01/another-ipcc-scandal-is-fully-exposed.html
Maybe instead of responding yourself, you should ask for help to formulate a meaningful respose.
You need to inform yourself. I'm fine thank you...I prefer the observations of real scientists. You can then do your own analysis. This should get you started.
•Climate data (raw)
•Climate data (processed)
•Paleo-data
•Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
•Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
•Large-scale model (GCM) output
•Model codes (GCMs)
•Model codes (other)
•Data Visualisation and Analysis
•Master Repositories of climate and other Earth Science data
Do a little analysis then when you actually know WTF you are talking about get back to me. Or remain a pathetic ignorant troll. Oh my God--he called me a name. Grow up and get over it. If you want to stick your foot in the political waters and act like a moron you will be called a moron. Your assertiona and allegations are political--not scientific. Get used to it.
add to that mans approach of waiting until we have sucked the last drop of petroleum from the ground and burned it before we take advantage of solar-wind-bio-nano technology. i have very little faith that we wont approach the edge of anthropogenic extinction.
Go ahead! Keep denying the truth that Global Warming data was "cooked" up by liberals with an agenda who used a college thesis for their "proof."
Too bad all those emails were leaked that show so-called scientists using phony data to support their claim that we are heating up the planet.