Today on Blogcritics
Home » Enjoying the Cold Weather? Thank Global Warming!

Enjoying the Cold Weather? Thank Global Warming!

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The biggest winter storm in decades is crawling across the heartland of America…and conservatives are using it to “prove” that “global warming” is a fake, a liberal conspiracy, bad science, et cetera, ad nauseum.

But the winter storm is very much due to global warming, and it’s fairly easy to see why. Let’s make it simple by going through a few questions:

#1 – Which region on the planet has had the greatest increase in temperature over the past couple of decades?

Answer – the Arctic, as is shown here, here, and here; when the earth’s overall temperature rises, the Arctic’s rises significantly more.

#2 – So what happens when the Arctic temperature rises so much more than the temperature on most of the rest of the planet?

Answer – Easy. Ask yourself what happens when any gaseous substance is heated. Its local pressure increases and as a result the gaseous substance EXPANDS. In the case of the Arctic, we’ve got several million cubic miles where the temperature has risen significantly more than it has in the sub-arctic areas…and as a result, the warmer Arctic (which is STILL very cold to us, mind you) is expanding, pushing colder sub-Arctic and even Arctic air down to lower latitudes. That’s why, people, that we’re getting historically-bad winter weather not only here in America but also in the rest of the world that shares our general latitude, i.e. Europe and Russia.

I first saw this forecast by climatologists this past summer (and I lost the link to it). And you know what? It’s going to continue this way for most winters for the foreseeable future, all thanks to global warming.

But I don’t expect this to change the mind of a single conservative reader. Why? Because anything a liberal says or supports must be wrong, so anything a conservative says, no matter how silly or nonsensical—like “Global warming’s false because God wouldn’t allow it!”—is more patriotic and better for America than anything that 98% of the world’s climatologists say is proven by hard data year after year after year.

Powered by

About Glenn Contrarian

White. Male. Raised in the deepest of the Deep South. Retired Navy. Strong Christian. Proud Liberal. Thus, Contrarian!
  • Glenn Contrarian

    To the editor –

    I understand why you moved this article to the Sci/Tech section (and we’ve had this discussion before)…but while global warming is a scientific matter, it is very much a political issue as you well know.

    But if the quite scientific issue of abortion be allowed on the politics section instead of the Sci/Tech section only, if the quite cultural issue of racism be allowed on the politics section instead of the Culture section only, then the scientific issue of global warming should also be allowed on the politics section instead of being restricted to the Sci/Tech section only.

    But it is of course your right, your call and not mine…and I respect that. I hope that perhaps some others whose complaints to you are (to put it very mildly) less savory can get a clue that one can express disagreement with the editor(s) without going off the deep end.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Glenn, I agree with you that this one belongs in Politics. It’s not one of your best – science vs. strawman never goes down well – but the general thrust of it is political.

    If you had written a straightforward rebuttal of some ‘skeptic’ arguments about AGW, without touching on whatever political motivations may or may not be behind them, then it might have sat better in Sci/Tech.

    Articles of the species Abortius frothimouthii almost without exception belong in Politics. Science can describe the human life cycle, but it can’t pinpoint a precise instant at which potential life becomes actual life. That doesn’t, however, stop there being plenty of opinions on the matter.

    As far as racism is concerned, the topic is so inextricably bound up with politics in this country that it’s difficult to place it anywhere else.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc – I don’t know whether to argue with you or agree with you, but I’ll smile and accept the constructive criticism and the Latin sobriquet.

    But the massive winter storm IS due to global warming.

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    Honestly, I think more people have a problem with the picture that Gore & Co. painted about Global Warming rather than the scientific evidence that backs it up.

    I could care less what political party raises awareness as long as it isn’t a scare tactic. Personally, I believe there is a serious climate change happening but I also believe that this could be a natural cycle and our scientists don’t have enough evidence to prove it because we haven’t been around as long as this planet has.

    As for God, this syndrome is a disease that permeates the brain and causes delusions that we are of utmost importance to the universe. Thus, it prevents its victims from being able to handle reality and for them to realize that such events in nature cannot be explained away as the force of some greater power.

    In essence, anyone who says that such natural events don’t exist because of a “God” is basically sick & needs immediate medical attention.

  • Clavos

    Personally, I believe there is a serious climate change happening but I also believe that this could be a natural cycle and our scientists don’t have enough evidence to prove it because we haven’t been around as long as this planet has.

    Quoted for Relevance and Common Sense.

    [Scientists do have quite a bit of historical evidence — some of it relevant, some not — much of the evidence they do have points to a cyclical alternating of cold and warm periods going back for millenia. What climate scientists also have is an abiding, deep interest in keeping the multimillions of dollars in GW-related research grants going — aka “job security”]

  • STM

    Yeah, I’m enjoying the cold weather … it’s 2am here in Sydney, about 30C in the house after hitting low to mid 40s all week, and humidity has to be about 90 per cent. You just can’t escape the mixture of the two things. The aircon cools about a 10th of the house, the ceiling fans are next to useless.

    And did I mention Tropical Cyclone Yasi, about the size of Hurricane Katrina, is battering the North Queensland coast as I type. It’s a category five, the highest category, and is the most destructive since 1918.

    And just like everything that happens weather-wise on this continent – floods, fire, drought, rain and storm – it’s cyclical. This current east coast weather pattern down under is due to the South Pacific basin’s La Nina phenomenon, which is the direct opposite of El Nino.

    In parts of Peru and Chile right now, it’s dry as buggery. This is a cycle that’s been documented for many centuries on at least one side of the South Pacific rim, so we know it goes in cycles.

    Until a year ago, we’d been in drought for a decade. This is how it is, and I bet if you looked back through North American or European weather patterns you’d find similar cycles.

    Sorry guys, I don’t buy the entire, man-made global-warming argument.

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    @ Clavos,

    Unfortunately, I, too, feel that the IPCC has its own financial agenda that is based on misinformation,fear & intimidation and not the actual concern for this planet.

    Again, I most certainly do believe in a serious climate change. I just don’t believe that it, necessarily, has anything to do with mankind.

  • Clavos

    Brian,

    I agree with you. Only a fool would doubt that the climate is changing, but the point is, the climate is always changing and the evidence shows it always has.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ah, yes, the climate’s always changing –

    And hundreds of millions of cars pumping carbon monoxide into the air each and every day can’t have anything to do with it.

    And 14,000 air flights over the US alone each and every day can’t have anything to do with it (note – when air flights nationwide were canceled for three days after 9/11, surprise surprise, the nationwide temperature ‘inexplicably’ DROPPED by more than a degree…but I’m sure this was only a coincidence, too).

    And the hundreds of thousands of factories throughout the world supporting 7 billion humans can’t have anything to do with it.

    And the thousands of coal power plants pumping exhaust into the air each and every day can’t have anything to do with it.

    And the 98% of climatologists who point out that human-caused global warming is real, that there are no other current external causes that can explain the worldwide rise in temperature…yeah, all these are weak-kneed crackpots, and the other 2% of climatologists (most of whom are at least partially on the payroll of Big Oil) are Real Patriots for standing against the rest of their colleagues.

    And the climatologists who predicted way back in the 1990’s what’s going on now, including the continual rise in global temperatures were just lucky, and the fact that their predictions turned out to be true was just a wild coincidence.

    Riiiiight.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Hey, billions of fish piss in the ocean EVERY SECOND. How come the ocean doesn’t just turn into a big toilet?

    Just wondering…care to somehow validate that 98% number? i’ve seen plenty of climate folks that don’t support what you’re saying, so I doubt that number is accurate.

    When I was growing up it was global cooling, now it’s global warming…nobody ever seems to mention the cycles that I’ve seen discussed here.

    But yeah, let’s just shut the entire fucking world down, shall we? We’ll halt all the plane travel and we’ll all crush our cars and then we can all go live in fucking caves again…yeah yeah, that’s the ticket!

    You want people to drive electric cars then make one that travels more than 90 miles without a 4 hour minimum recharge! I think that’s how capitalism is supposed to work. People make stuff that actually works and then other folks buy it from them…or we could go the libtard way and just have the govt mandate it…that always works so well…

    Or we could all just pile into some place like NYC…all of us…and leave the rest of the planet to the endangered effervescent blue tree frogs of the earth…would that be sufficient?

    Just a thought…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Andy –

    Authentication of the 98% is here

    And when it comes to fish, those fish have been there for hundreds of millions of years and are part of the natural cycle. Cars and factories and jets and coal plants have NOT been here for hundreds of millions of years, and are NOT part of the natural cycle.

    Try again, guy.

  • Clavos

    And Glenn, ALL — ALL — of the world’s climatologists are on SOMEBODY’s payroll…

    When I was growing up it was global cooling…

    Bingo, Andy! And, if memory serves, it didn’t cool at all, did it? No, instead, it (gasp!) got hotter.

    So, that bandwagon got jumped on, and now it’s gospel and everyone’s making money on it — in some cases, (algore comes to mind), MILLIONS AND MILLIONS…

    Hmm.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Hey! I wasn’t “trying” anything. I asked a couple of questions.
    It’s nice to complain about how no one believes you because you’re a liberal, but how ’bout you come up with maybe just one solution!

    I mean do you really expect the world to shut down? Does EVERYONE need to be poor? That’s what would happen if an iota of what global warming alarmists want to happen did happen. We’re already paying $5 a piece for foreign fucking light bulbs! My house is full of flourescent lights and my ‘lectric bill hasn’t dropped a lick! And they don’t last any longer either!

    The same people that scream about coal fired power plants whine about nuclear power!

    Just look at what ethanol production has done to the price of corn. And that shit’s subsidized!

    So really, it’s nice to be all warm and fuzzy on the environment, but without concrete, WORKABLE solutions it’s nothing more than hot air.

    Think of all the electricty we’re wasting here arguing about it!!!

    But you know what? the world would be a better place if we just shut the whole thing down…let’s do it!!!

  • Clavos

    Cars and factories and jets and coal plants have NOT been here for hundreds of millions of years, and are NOT part of the natural cycle.

    Absolutely true, and yet…

    before there were cars and factories and coal plants and..and all them nasty thangs — the climate…you guessed it!

    The climate warmed!!! Then it cooled!!!

    Then warmed again and cooled again, and it’s still doing it!

    The following, from the website, junksciencedotcom, helps to put the effect of all CO2 and especially manmade (MM) CO2 on the atmosphere into perspective:

    CLIMATE SENSITIVITY

    “The sensitivity of the climate system to a forcing is commonly expressed in terms of the global mean temperature change that would be expected after a time sufficiently long for both the atmosphere and ocean to come to equilibrium with the change in climate forcing. If there were no climate feedbacks, the response of Earth’s mean temperature to a forcing of 4 W/m2 (the forcing for a doubled atmospheric CO2) would be an increase of about 1.2 °C (about 2.2 °F). However, the total climate change is affected not only by the immediate direct forcing, but also by climate “feedbacks” that come into play in response to the forcing.”

    “As just mentioned, a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide (from the pre-Industrial value of 280 parts per million) in the global atmosphere causes a forcing of 4 W/m2. The central value of the climate sensitivity to this change is a global average temperature increase of 3 °C (5.4 °F), but with a range from 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C (2.7 to 8.1 °F) (based on climate system models: see section 4). The central value of 3 °C is an amplification by a factor of 2.5 over the direct effect of 1.2 °C (2.2 °F). Well-documented climate changes during the history of Earth, especially the changes between the last major ice age (20,000 years ago) and the current warm period, imply that the climate sensitivity is near the 3 °C value. However, the true climate sensitivity remains uncertain, in part because it is difficult to model the effect of feedback. In particular, the magnitude and even the sign of the feedback can differ according to the composition, thickness, and altitude of the clouds, and some studies have suggested a lesser climate sensitivity.”

    Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, pp 6-7,
    Committee on the Science of Climate Change
    National Research Council

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Actually, about two-thirds of the scientific papers on climate change published between 1965 and 1979 predicted warming – more than six times as many as the ones that predicted cooling.

    But the cooling predictions were more dramatic as far as mainstream news organizations were concerned (i.e. they would sell more newspapers), so they ran with those and exaggerated them into an Ice Age.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    before there were cars and factories and coal plants and..and all them nasty thangs — the climate…you guessed it!

    The climate warmed!!! Then it cooled!!!

    Then warmed again and cooled again, and it’s still doing it!

    I think I’ll go out into the woods this summer, light a big old fire and leave it unattended.

    It can’t do any harm. After all, we know that forest fires have started naturally in the past. I’m just one guy with a box of matches. I can’t possibly start one.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Andy –

    You say you see “plenty of people” who doubt global warming…so why don’t we listen to those who are best QUALIFIED to speak on the matter…like scientists!!!!

    Here is a short list of scientific institutions who agree that global warming is REAL – on this reference you can find their organizations’ official statements concerning the reality of global warming and how it is affecting their particular fields of study.:

    – American Association for the Advancement of Science (the world’s largest general scientific society)
    – American Chemical Society
    – American Institute of Physics
    – American Physical Society
    – Australian Institute of Physics
    – European Physical Society
    – European Science Foundation
    – the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS)
    – American Geophysical Union
    – European Federation of Geologists
    – European Geosciences Union
    – Geological Society of Australia
    – Geological Society of London
    – International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    – National Association of Geoscience Teachers
    – American Meteorological Society
    – Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    – Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
    – Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    – Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
    – World Meteorological Organization
    – American Quaternary Association
    – International Union for Quaternary Research
    – American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
    – American Institute of Biological Sciences
    – American Society for Microbiology
    – Australian Coral Reef Society
    – Institute of Biology (UK)
    – Society of American Foresters
    – The Wildlife Society (international)
    – American Academy of Pediatrics
    – American College of Preventive Medicine
    – American Medical Association
    – American Public Health Association
    – Australian Medical Association
    – World Federation of Public Health Associations
    – World Health Organization

    On the same reference page is a MUCH shorter list of organizations – five, to be exact – who gave non-committal statements, and NONE that have a currently dissenting statement. Four of those organizations were Earth Sciences and geological organizations, and one was a SMALL organization of climatologists. Note that ‘non-committal’ does NOT equal ‘dissenting’.

    Most important of all, perhaps, is this statement:

    No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

    Hm. The AAPG – the association of geologists who work for BIG OIL – was the last one to reject global warming…and even they no longer reject the reality of human-caused global warming.

  • Clavos

    Because, with all the hysteria over AGW, there is more money to be made “studying” it, and who would be so foolish as to kill the goose laying the golden eggs?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Glenn – that’s all great!

    Now, what the fuck am I supposed to do about it?

    What are YOU gonna do about it?

    Bitchin’ ain’t fixin’ it!

    That’s great that you can site all the OTHER alarmists, but you still haven’t answered the question I’ve asked 3 times now…

    What do you expect us to do about it?!??!??!??!

    In case you missed the question the last 87 times, here it is again…

    What do you expect us to do about it???

    Would it be sufficient if we all bitched about it like you? Would that make you happy? No, I suspect that you won’t be happy until you get what Dave wants…$5 a gallon gas…how fucking sad is that???

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Andy –

    What can we do about it? That’s why we tried to do cap-and-trade…but that was derided by the Right as another tax. We tried to use regulations to decrease emissions…but even NOW the Republicans are trying to limit the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. And did you notice in the SOTU address, when Obama mentioned getting rid of the taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil (like Exxon which paid NO tax in return for those subsidies in 2009), Speaker Boehner and the Republicans didn’t clap at all? Especially when Obama mentioned using the money instead for green technology? Since when did it become patriotic to give taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil and NONE to technology for renewable energy such as solar or wind power?

    What it is, Andy, is that the Right see that anything that could possibly slow business down is a BAD, evil thing…and in their eyes any form of regulation is therefore bad.

    Problem is, that’s a very shortsighted point of view, because allowing global warming to accelerate without even trying to slow it down is going to harm the global economy as a whole FAR more than any regulations hitherto proposed.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    with all the hysteria over AGW, there is more money to be made “studying” it

    Yes, screw all those filthy rich climatologists in their palatial mansions.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I honestly thought that was the best line in the SOTU! But as I recall it, there wasn’t a lot of applause from either side. Could have been a little more difficult to see the way they were all holding hands, but it seemed to be an indifferent response from both sides.
    The problems I see with the EPA, currently, is the pres. using this agency and others, as an end-run around legislation he couldn’t get passed. And if I was part of one of the other branches of govt that’d piss me off too!

    I’m not familiar enough with cap and trade to talk about it…the one thing I do know is that it couldn’t get passed when the dems had control, so both sides seem to think it’s hosed…
    And the other thing I remember is how everyone gave W shit for not signing Kyoto, but it was Wild Bill who refused to sign it first…he said it would hurt America…with that in mind, I think it’s unfair to put the blame entirely on the republicans.

  • Clavos

    That’s why we tried to do cap-and-trade…but that was derided by the Right as another tax.

    Probably because it is, and one that would affect virtually everything consumers buy, at that. Not only that, as structured, it would have done little to reduced carbon levels in the atmosphere.

    but even NOW the Republicans are trying to limit the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.

    Perhaps because the EPA is not empowered to regulate greenhouse gases, it’s mandate is to enforce what the legislative branch regulates.

    allowing global warming to accelerate without even trying to slow it down is going to harm the global economy as a whole FAR more than any regulations hitherto proposed.

    An unsupported assumption.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Andy –

    There was applause from the Dems including Biden – but Boehner stayed stock-still and the rest of the Republicans took their cues from him all night long.

    And the reason cap-and-trade didn’t get passed was because of the ‘blue-dog’ dems like Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas…and I just read this morning that she just got hired on by an energy company….

    When it comes to the EPA, were you around to see how much exhaust our cars put out in the sixties and seventies? Do you remember how much the conservatives (both Republican and Democratic) cried about how emissions standards were going to ‘destroy’ America’s economy? IIRC, it was Nixon who implemented the EPA…and how’s the smog now compared to a couple decades ago in, say, Los Angeles? And I can tell you from personal experience that our biggest cities have FAR less smog than major cities in third-world countries. Why?

    Enforced regulations…that the Republicans say are a bad, bad thing.

  • Clavos

    Doc, you’re getting to be a sniper, like me.

    Stop it.

    Now.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    An unsupported assumption.

    Unless you talk to any of the scientists from any of the organizations I listed above.

    Ah! But I forgot! Limbaugh and Beck and Boehner and Cantor and DeMint ALL know so much more than the scientists do, ’cause all the scientists’ are part of a GRAND conspiracy to destroy the world!!!!!

    You like to think you use logic, Clavos – so why is it that on this scientific issue alone are the professional opinions of the VAST majority of the world’s scientists (and 98% of those most qualified to speak on the matter) are ignored? You don’t question the scientists’ research concerning relativity or evolution (except for religious freaks) or astrophysics or chemistry or energy or any other scientific issue…except for global warming, and on THAT issue, well, all the scientists are just flat wrong!!!!!

    Of course it’s impossible that Big Oil and its subsidiary known as the Republican party would actually try to discredit the vast majority of the world’s scientists just so Big Oil could make more money, isn’t it? That’s just flatly impossible, huh?

    Clavos, why don’t you apply your precious cynicism and skepticism to the statements of global-warming deniers? And don’t try to tell me that you already do – because you don’t.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Clav, I’m (a) in a filthy mood this morning and (b) just pointing out some fallacious arguments on your part.

    I’ll just mention here that I don’t really give a fuck what Al Gore or Rep. Shimkus or the American Association of Egregious Polluters or whoever thinks about global warming. Let’s get that out of the way for starters.

    Just because climate has changed in the past without human agency doesn’t mean that’s what’s happening now.

    Glenn is right: if human activity isn’t causing the climate to warm, then you have to show what is. There are and always have been causes of climate change: it doesn’t just do it because it’s bored.

    Volcanism, impact events, solar activity, shifts in the Earth’s orbital and axial motion, interstellar dust and plate tectonics have all been factors in previous climate shifts, yes.

    But the only theory which adequately accounts for what’s going on this time around is AGW.

  • Clavos

    Follow the money, Glenn. There’s FAR more going into the promotion of AGW than is being spent by the oil companies (who will, once they’re viable, buy up all the alternative fuel technologies and continue to be our primary energy suppliers — you heard it here first).

    Follow the money.

  • Clavos

    But the only theory which adequately accounts for what’s going on this time around is AGW.

    I’ll believe that when I see evidence from sources I trust — and I don’t trust the “98%” of scientists Glenn claims are right, for reasons stated above.

    And I don’t trust them simply because they are the Establishment, the Authority.

    My father, whom I admired and respected deeply, and who was (in my mind at least) the world’s greatest unknown iconoclast, always taught me to question authority at every turn.

    And I do.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Good for you, Clav, but there’s a big difference between trusting people and trusting the facts, and I think you’re getting that distinction dangerously confused.

    What if the question you ask Authority is: “Is that an out-of-control Boeing 747 I see hurtling directly towards my house? And if so, should I get out?” and Authority answers “Yes and Yes”?

    Are you going to stay put just because of who the messenger is?

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    “Glenn is right: if human activity isn’t causing the climate to warm, then you have to show what is.”

    If Science can prove that climate change is occurring, naturally, all the time but can’t explain why and then a new theory is presented to explain the climate change (like “Man-Made Global Warming”) then whomever is producing that theory has the burden of proof.

    IMHO, the IPCC & Co. haven’t produced a single ounce of non-controversial evidence to prove that theory.

  • Clavos

    There are and always have been causes of climate change: it doesn’t just do it because it’s bored.

    No, but the atmosphere is dynamic and constantly in motion and undergoing change. The Junk Science link I posted above points out just how little the total content of CO2 in the atmosphere has actually increased since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and even mentions periods prior to ours when CO2 content was at or above today’s.

    But that’s just details, and we could argue over details all day long with no resolution.

    Glenn’s consensus argument is not compelling to me; science is not a popularity contest.

    Just because climate has changed in the past without human agency doesn’t mean that’s what’s happening now.

    True, Doc, but I have yet to be convinced otherwise; it also doesn’t mean that it isn’t. I have read the works of the better-known skeptics and have found their arguments to be compelling.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    “…science is not a popularity contest.”

    Apart from my being noncommittal to either side of the debate, unfortunately ’tis so. It is the community of scientists that decides on the relative validity of conflicting paradigms. Just like in virtually anything else, politics always plays a role.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    If Science can prove that climate change is occurring, naturally, all the time but can’t explain why and then a new theory is presented to explain the climate change (like “Man-Made Global Warming”) then whomever is producing that theory has the burden of proof.

    But science can explain why. (See my 27, penultimate para.)

    AGW theory explains, with the support of millions of pages of data and other evidence, the climate change which is happening now. It has nothing to do with, for example, the causes of the Medieval Warm Period.

    Now where’s the burden of proof?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos and Brian and all the other deniers –

    In other words, your answer is “NO, I won’t believe no matter how much proof the scientists show me – ’cause I’ll just deny that it’s proof and then say they haven’t shown me anything! Besides, the scientists MUST be wrong because they’re on the side of the lib’ruls and the Dem-o-crats!”

    You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

    And Clavos – yes, DO follow the money! Who is it that’s financing the VAST majority of the global-warming-denying crowd? The owners of the largest privately-owned company in America, the Koch brothers…who (along with the rest of Big Oil) would stand to lose BILLIONS in subsidies and tax breaks and tax cuts if the American government actually accepted what the scientific community’s been telling them for years.

    But you won’t accept that either. Here’s your chain of ‘logic':

    1. Democrats and liberals must be wrong.
    2. Therefore, anything they propose or support must also be wrong.
    3. The scientific community agrees with the Democrats and liberals, therefore the scientists MUST be wrong.

    All because you can’t accept the notion that the liberals and Democrats might be right about something. Yep, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    Your discussion with Clavos reminds me of another discussion I had with him a long time ago. I pointed out to him how life expectancy rates, birth mortality, crime rates, murder rates, income rates, divorce rates, and levels of education are generally better in blue states than in red states…

    …and then pointed out that the biggest difference between the two is the level of urbanization: blue states are almost always more urbanized than red states. I said that was the obvious reason for the longstanding disparity between the quality of life between blue states and red states despite the fact that blue states nearly always have higher tax burdens and pay out more federal tax dollars than they take in while red states have lower tax burdens and take IN more federal tax dollars than they pay out.

    What was Clavos’ reply? That there was no connection there whatsoever, essentially that the level of urbanization and type of governance had nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of life of the people!

    So I asked him to give HIS explanation for the disparity…and what was his (and Dave’s) reply? In so many words, that I had to prove what I claimed, that he didn’t have to prove anything.

    And that’s what’s happening with your discussion with him – he’s simply going to deny any proof shown him, and when asked for an explanation of his own, he’s going to refuse to do so, saying that he doesn’t have to.

    To Clavos, the world is as he thinks it is…and he thinks that those who ask why something is the way it is are simply wasting their time; he apparently sees no use in such intellectual rigor.

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    I’m sorry, Doc, I’ve read quite a bit about AGW theory, a little while back, and as far as I’m concerned the supposed data doesn’t outweigh the explanations, from scientists as well, that AGW Theory is just that… maybe an inaccurate one but still a theory.

    @Glenn & Doc,
    My OPINION, based on what I’ve read, has nothing to do with anyone’s political stance and I would hope that something this important would be excluded from such shallow alignments.

    Still, I believe the data that has been presented FOR Global Warming has been tainted by a board (IPCC) whose ulterior motives have little to do with the truth and, as Clavos has mentioned, more about job security & power plays in our Government.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Brian –

    Remember the e-mail “scandal” concerning the IPCC a couple years back? Did you actually READ the e-mails? there were lots and lots…but I read the ones that the Right was using as ‘proof’ that global warming was all a hoax…

    …and you know what? The only hoax was the claim of the Right! There was NO conspiracy, no sweeping contradictory information under the rug. All there was, was some data that at the time seemed a bit confusing, but was easily understood in time.

    The IPCC “scandal” was simply another scam by the Right, just as they bought into falsified and deceptively-edited videos to discredit ACORN, and trumpeted deceptively-edited videos to take down Sherrod.

    You need to look at news other than what the Right feeds you.

  • Clavos

    To Clavos, the world is as he thinks it is…and he thinks that those who ask why something is the way it is are simply wasting their time; he apparently sees no use in such intellectual rigor.

    That’s simply risible, since asking “why” of all but a small handful of scientists is exactly what I’m doing.

    The oil companies do not need to pay off anybody; their oil will continue to be bought, at ever increasing prices as the supply diminishes, until smaller entrepreneurs and so-called “green” manufacturers actually develop sustainable, competitive and adequate sources of alternative energy, at which point those oil companies, with their billions you’re so angry about, will use that money to buy up all the viable alternatives and thus continue to be the primary providers of energy to the world, a tactic that will be a lot cheaper and in the end, a lot more profitable than what you think they are doing.

    And it is precisely your lack of “intellectual rigor” that prompts me to question your far-fetched conclusions about the superiority of all things Democratic over all other political philosophies. Your blind, uncritical and slavish acceptance of nearly everything espoused by the Democratic party, no matter how partisan and hare-brained (Obamacare), shows you to be far more of a partisan than I.

  • STM

    Glenn writes: “all the other deniers”.

    Denier is an awfully emotive word Glenn. We know what word it was associated with prior to it being used by warmenists.

    You can be a sceptic or a doubter, or an outright denier. Our wonderful loony left, in-bed-with-the-Greens PM said recently that to doubt is to deny.

    She is wrong, and so is her chardonnay socialist alarmism. And so is her decision to bring in a carbon tax (cap and trade) before the next election.

    I seriously even doubt the climate is actually changing to any great degree. Whatever the case, I’d at least like to see more evidence. And I certainly don’t want it rammed down my throat by the loony left Greens, who have irrationally and publicly blamed the recent Queensland floods AND Tropical Cyclone Yasi which hit the north Queensland coast overnight and all our other cyclical weather patterns, including bushfires and drought, on global warming.

    Except, all these things have been happening on this continent and with about the same regularity since before humans arrived.

  • Clavos

    Except, all these things have been happening on this continent and with about the same regularity since before humans arrived.

    True of pretty much all of the world, mate.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    To STM and Clavos –

    As Doc pointed out above, yes, changes do regularly happen…and in every case there is an IDENTIFIABLE REASON – or at least strong indications of the reason – for the change.

    But this time, there is no other identifiable change, no other strong indication of such a reason. The Right tried to blame it on the sun…but the sun is just coming out of a solar minimum. There hasn’t been a huge amount of volcanic activity or any other source widespread enough or powerful enough to effect such a change.

    But none of this will make any difference to any of you. Why? For the same reason that only 6% of scientists are conservative – because conservatives are very, very uncomfortable with intellectual rigor, with questioning what they think they know.

  • STM

    Except you don’t have a political party that has entered into a coalition with the government and a couple of self-serving independents so it can hang on to power when the people clearly wanted it out and gabe the Opposition a higher rimary vote to govern in its own right, and who are leading the charge and blaming tragic events that have hit this country recently on global warming.

    Did I mention the Greens will soon hold the balance of power in the senate here when the new senators take up their terms?? God help us.

    Greens = Reds. No doubt about it. And they’re bullies. If your view doesn’t coincide with theirs, they don’t want to listen. I like a bit of democratic socialism as much as the next guy, especially when it means fairness in such areas as education and universal health care, but I despise the intellectual bullies of the looney left as much as I do the nutcases on the far right.

    I’m sick of polarised politics in this country … what about all those in that vast middle ground who form a very broad church stretching from the right of the Labor Party and the left of the (admittedly misnamed) Liberal Party.

    Labor has moved to the left and no longer represents the real interests of working Australians; it has an agenda driven by inner-city trendies, intellectuals and people in lycra bike shorts and sandals.

    The kind who think a man-bag is for more than carrying a pizza.

    The Liberals aren’t liberal any more … the right of the Liberal party is not even conservative; some of them hold views that were formed in the blackshirts and would love a return to the White Australia Policy.

    We need a new political party here that represents that middle ground … people who actually stand in the middle, not sit on the fence; we want our borders protected properly but don’t want asylum seekers locked up in camps for eons, and we want the loony left to drop off idiocy like a government-funded high speed broadband network (at $42bn), a price on carbon when the cost of living here is already skyrocketing, changing the flag, republicanism and removal of inner-city car parking so a hundred people on pushbikes can ride their bicycles to work.

    The middle will rise up! We are the new revolutionaries.

    Even in Sydney, we’ve got worm farms at Town Hall and a ban on Australia’s favourite chocky biscuit, the Tim Tam, because they’re allegedly made from non-sustainable, non-fair-trade chocolate.

    Who gives a rat’s. They taste good.

    On Australia Day, the Australian of the Year thought that would be a good day to open a debate for a new flag (without the Union Jack, obviously) and to talk about turning us into a republic.

    What these people don’t realise is most of us like the Union Jack on the flag, and don’t want a new bloody flag ’cause the old one is pretty good. Plus, it’ll be designed by a committee and so will be a camel flag that will probably have a kangaroo on it.

    Most of us were driving around on Australia Day with our current flag on our cars, or using it as a motif for beach towels, or featuring it on hats, board shorts and bikini bottoms.

    We don’t need your interference, guys. We like our icons just the way they are.

    Democracy is already at work. Most of us like what we’ve got and we don’t need chardonnay socialists, latte sippers and (Red) Greens trying to impose their will on us, the people they obviously consider the great unwashed.

    Drop off … we’re over it. Leave us alone or suffer the consequences.

    We’re fightin’ mad.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Your rhetoric is undergoing a shift, STM.

  • pablo

    Hey Chicken Little, your sounding more and more hysterical. Your arguments as usual are lame, and very typical of most warmer mongers.

    Now I see why the warmer mongers changed the verbiage from global warming to climate change, that way no matter what the climate does hot or cold it can be blamed on that poison that plants breathe.

    As far at the EPA goes, in Chicken Little’s (Glenn) mind I am of the opinion that virtually anything that he himself supports politically can and should be done by executive fiat. To hell with democracy. In fact that is what many of Glenn’s fellow warmer mongers are advocating. He knows it, I know it, and so do many others following the hysterical warmer mongers arguments.

    Poor Glenn gets more hysterical and irrational by the moment. Man made global warming has been a scam from the word go.

  • STM

    Rog: “Your rhetoric is undergoing a shift, STM”.

    I’m sick of being bullied by the looney left and the rabid right, Rog … they’re as bad as each other. Neither have any interest in listening to anyone else’s opinions, because they don’t believe in that wonderful word: compromise.

    It’s about “my way or the highway”, which is what I hate.

    Luckily, I’m not the only one.

    I think I finally saw red (green?) on Australia Day in the comments about the flag and us becoming a republic (we had a referendum on that not that long ago, and it didn’t work out in the republicans’ favour, so you’d think they’d drop off, but no, they can’t help themselves…).

    If they want to be chardonnay socialists living in a republic, perhaps they could go and live in America and join the latte-sipping left there. They’re needed right now in the American liberal cause.

    And leave the rest of us alone on the we-get-our-hands-dirty left. Nothing wrong with being far right, as long as it’s on the far right of the left.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    There is a lot of evidence to show that our climate pattern is changing and that is the geological record.

    It is a proven fact that the planet has had a regular cycle of warming and cooling, taking about 100,000 years to go through the cycle.

    The last such cooling was over 100,000 years ago but there is no sign of it happening.

    Can a global warming sceptic explain why not and what has changed to stop this cycle in its tracks?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I still want to hear how hundreds of millions of cars, hundreds of thousands of factories, and thousands of coal plants all in operation every day of every year is somehow NOT supposed to have any effect on the atmosphere….

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Glenn – you say that nothing different has happened to the earth that can account for this…
    I just heard a story the other day about the Tampa airport having to close down while they repainted the numbers at the end of the runway. Apparently the earth has tipped enough on it’s axis that the heading indicators were too far off for planes to navigate to them. I’d call that a significant change in things…

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    And as I was perusing Drudge I found this which might explain why people have a problem with the EPA…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    I perfectly understand your aversion, STM, especially the part about being let alone.

    How does the flag and the referendum issue figure into the mix?

  • Clavos

    Here is a bullet point summary of a lengthy discussion of the effects of increasing greenhouse gases (especially CO2)in the atmosphere, as well as of other anthropogenic effects on the climate. The website is ancillary to a well-known site called Junk Science. The full discussion is quite lengthy and detailed; the first link takes you to the discussion, while the second is to the main Junk Science website, which also has a lot of discussion about AGW.

    “* The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
    * The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century – perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C.
    * The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on “feedback” (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these “feedback” mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
    * The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
    * There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend — global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
    * The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
    * Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
    * Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
    * Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a “pollutant” it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
    * There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures – there is no known “optimal” nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
    * Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
    * Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.”

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    @ Clavos,

    Thanks!

    I would also like to include that water vapor makes up 95% of the Greenhouse Gasses. While, C02 only makes up about .04%

  • Clavos

    That’s absolutely correct, Brian, and is discussed at some length in the longer discussion to which I linked.

  • Clavos

    It’s also worth mentioning that virtually all the doom-and-gloom predictions being bandied about are based on computer models.

    Here’s what the longer discussion linked to above has to say about those models:

    …the big warming numbers come not from measurements but from computer models. These computer models and their output are passionately defended by the modeling clique and frequently derided by empiricists — but the bottom line is that models make an enormous range of assumptions. Whether all the assumptions, tweaks and parameter adjustments really collectively add up to a realistic representation of the atmosphere is open to some conjecture (current climate models do not model “natural” climatic variation very well), but there is no evidence yet that they can predict the future with any greater certainty than a pack of Tarot cards. (Emphasis added)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    The folks who criticize models like to pretend that the climatologists who use them take them at face value and explore no further. That’s a strawman.

    Climate models are tested by using them to ‘predict’ the changes that have taken place in the past. If they work on that basis, there’s no reason to think they aren’t reliable indicators of future trends.

    What happened when climatologists did this was that the models didn’t work unless the extra CO2 we’ve been farting into the atmosphere was factored in.

    The crucial word here is ‘trends’. Climatologists know perfectly well that the atmosphere is a dynamic system. (If I was in as foul a mood as I was yesterday, I might have phrased this observation ‘no shit, Sherlock’.) The so-called ‘assumptions, tweaks and parameter adjustments’ aren’t plugged in to make the facts fit the theory, but to allow for a spectrum of variables (‘what happens if we churn out x amount of extra CO2, rather than y amount?’). This gives you a range of estimates, from conservative to radical.

    And the models that have been running long enough to now be compared against real data returns turn out to be accurate.

    Unfortunately, a lot of them are turning out to be accurate at the upper end of their prediction range, rather than the conservative end.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Apparently the earth has tipped enough on it’s axis that the heading indicators were too far off for planes to navigate to them.

    Brian, the Earth hasn’t tipped on its axis but the North Magnetic Pole is currently wandering north-westward towards Siberia at a rate of about 40 miles per year. (Perhaps it pissed off the climate change czar.) This is what plays merry hell with airplane nav systems and necessitates the redesignating of runways, which basically just means someone gets to go out there with a pot of paint and change the ’10’ to ’11’ or whatever.

    Oddly, the South Magnetic Pole isn’t following its northern brother’s lead, and is drifting at a much more sedate 10 miles a year.

    Does this affect climate? Possibly, because the Earth’s magnetic field affects how many cosmic rays we get clobbered with, and those cosmic rays in turn play a role in cloud formation. But I don’t think the polar shift can explain what we’re seeing. Over the last 30 years, the correlation between cosmic radiation and the temperature of the planet has gone out the window.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I see some real problems with your source and your claim, but I don’t have time to give a detailed reply yet. I’ll reply tomorrow.

  • STM

    Roger asks: “How does the flag and the referendum issue figure into the mix?”

    They are one and the same issue and it is an ongoing agenda of the left. Very few on the right support it, but there are some.

    They want us to become a republic and want us to have a new flag.

    We don’t need to be a republic. It will change nothing. It’s just bloodyminded fiddling for the sake of it. We are a sovereign independent nation with only traditional ties to Britain, the same as Canada. In reality, the monarchy or the British government have no sway at all over what goes on in this country. The Queen (or her representative) is simply part of the executive branch of government and has no real power. She is bound by convention, which is part of the law, not to interfere. On only one occasion has a governor-general sacked a government in this country and, in hindsight, they deserved it as they were lurching from crisis to crisis. I did not like it at the time, but today I see it was probably the correct decision. In those cases, it always then goes back to the people to vote, and the sacked government were soundly thrashed at the poll and the caretaker government were elected in a landslide. At the time, I believe the Queen was mortified upon learning the G-G had sacked the government and would not be dragged into the crisis, saying pretty much only that it was the business of Australia, not her.

    The lefties and trendies and republicans don’t like our flag because it’s got a Union Jack in the corner. I say with the inclusion of the white stars of the southern cross, and the large star and its points indicating the states, on a deep blue background, it actually tells the story of exactly who we are … a colony settled by Britain in the South Pacific. It’s also a really nice-looking flag.

    I would think there’d be rioting in the streets if any government were stupid enough to try to change the flag, but someone will eventually be that stupid.

    A republic might sneak in one of these days, despite it being rejected a few years back in a referendum, but to what end? The system of government would be identical, but with a figurehead-style president in place of the Queen. Unlike in the US, the Prime Minister would still have the top job and be head of government.

    On that score, I’m of the ain’t broke, don’t fix it school. Why change what works? Doesn’t make sense.

    As for changing the flag, well, it’s bollocks … most of us love it. I like to point out to republicans that the state flag of Hawaii, like ours, has a Union Jack in the corner as well.

    And like ours, the Union Jack is just part of their story.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    On that score, I’m of the ain’t broke, don’t fix it school.

    Eminently sensible.

    Are the republicans able to explain exactly how Australia will be a happier and more prosperous place once a constitutional monarchy is done away with?

  • STM

    No, they’re not. Their main reason appears to be about us “growing up”, and becoming a republic would reflect the changing face of Australian society and its place in the modern world … Lol.

    They also talk about having an Australian head of state. We’ve already got one of those: under our constitution, The Queen is the Queen of Australia, not the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    Since the excutive role is effectively split between her and the governor general, and the G-G is really the one exercising any power (no matter how limited that is in reality), the G-G is effectively head of state.

    She’s Australian: she was born in Brisbane.

    The great thing about this is that it provides a fallback position for any government acting unconstitutionally or illegally. Since the Prime Minister is head of government and therefore has the power as leader of an elected government, you need a mechanism designed to keep the bastards honest; the Queen and the G-G fulfil that role.

    I’m not telling Doc anything he doesn’t know, but in case Rog was wondering …

    Interesting too that it’s the left pushing republican ideals (what would we become, the South Pacific Soviet?) and the right supporting constitutional moncarchy – direct opposite on the surface of what seems to be the position in the US.

    In reality, appearances can be deceptive. Conservatism can be a good thing some times as it seeks to maintain the status quo and preserve important icons … like the constitution and the most successful and stable system of democracy ever known (the Westminster system).

    What the loony left forget is that there is a vast swath of ordinary Australians occupying the middle ground who hold both conservative and small “L” liberal ideas at the same time. A bit like the US, the polarised camps of the looney left and the rabid right have no concept of how anyone could support a position somewhere between the two.

    Well, I have news for them: the vast majority of voters DO fall into that category.

    Which means we are the ones with the real say, not a couple of intellectuals or the members of a weekend bushwalking group that likes wearing lycra and cycling to work.

    When are they going to work that out and quietly accept it?

  • STM

    Rog, just in case that isn’t clear, the Queen and the G-G aren’t the only members of the executive branch of government.

    Wikipedia (as good as any explanation): “The Federal Executive Council consists of the Governor-General, the Prime Minister and Ministers. It is a formal body which exists to give legal effect to decisions made by the Cabinet, and to carry out various other functions.”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    A bit like the US, the polarised camps of the looney left and the rabid right have no concept of how anyone could support a position somewhere between the two.

    Quoted for troof.

    How often have we seen one of us right here on BC mention that, well, you know, another way of looking at it is… and immediately get accused of being a commie or a racist or a fascist scumbag (or all three)?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Oh, and BTW, Stan, I actually do possess a man bag. (Here in the Untied States, it’s called a murse.) It’s made out of recycled hiking boots and camping equipment and is dashed useful.

    I resent your association of the accessory with the loony left.

  • STM

    My favourite flag of any US state, the state flag of Hawaii, and the world’s best flag, the Flag of Australia, (aka The Southern Cross).

    Notice there is a hugely important common theme in the top left-hand corner of each :)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Just noticed that my #57 should have been addressed to Andy, not Brian.

    Apologies, gents.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Fair enough. What conservative and small “L” liberal ideas, though? An example?

  • STM

    Doc: “I resent your association of the accessory with the loony left:.

    Of course you do Doc, but this being Oz, not the US, where the rules of what is acceptable male behaviour are slightly different, I am absolutely certain you know exactly where I’m coming from. BTW, what size pizza does it fit, regular or family? And does it have a beer holder on the side?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    You could probably squeeze a regular size pizza in there. But why would it need to have a beer holder when I’ve got two perfectly good ones at the ends of my arms?

    This is the little beauty.

  • STM

    Small L liberal ideas … support of universal health care (but with the option of having private insurance), the same standard of education for everyone (but with more likellihood that you’ll send your kid to a private school as a small-L liberal). These are people who might be the wives of doctors, for instance, and who have some degree of compassion and liberal ideas when it comes to social policy, despite not going so far as actually voting for the Labor Party. In fact, there was a supposed grouping known as “the doctors’ wives” (of course, not all were, literally) who were angry about two policies of the previous conservative government and in 2007, turned on it and may have helped remove it from power: the undoing of 100-year-old workplace rights and wages laws that took the power to rule on these things out of the hands of the courts and gave it back to employers (’cause you can always trust them not to screw you), and the treatment of refugees to this country, mostly asylum-seekers arriving by boat, who were left in immigration detention sometimes for up to three years or so while their cases were ruled upon. The previous government also had a “temporary protection visa” for asylum seekers. They were granted this and could stay in Australia until things settled down in their own countries, at which time they were sent home (at the expense of the Aussie taxpayer).

    It DID cut boat arrivals almost to nothing.

    But the truth is, some of these people are from war-torn countries in the mid-east and Africa, and really do need permament asylum.

    I have no problem with that, provided the fakes – the economic refugees who stop real refugees from coming by taking their places – are weeded out and sent home, and law enforecement agencies target people smugglers in south-east Asia who are ripping off people’s life savings to send them on leaky boats to a better life in Australia – often with fatal results.

    My whole point, I guess, is that politicians are mistaken if they think the majority of voters take any one position and stand at opposite ends of the spectrum. Most have a mish-,ash of views, most of are also perfectly legitimate even if they cross from one end of the political spectrum into the other, and back. spectrum

    These are well-to-do, wealthy conservative voters with some liberal views and who have sought to disassociate themselves from the rabid right.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    In what sense are they conservative, though?

  • STM

    Doc, very nice murse, that. See those two pockets with flaps on the side? They are the beer holders.

    You need to be able to carry them home whilst keeping your two arms free for other pruposes … like fending off muggers.

    Mind you, can you imagine a mugger’s disappointment when he got into a dark side street and started going through the bag to check his haul.

    “WTF, man … cheese pizza, not even fucking pepperoni, and two cans of Foster’s?”

    I have a great story in regard to something like that which I’ll tell you one of these days, Doc. Please remind me to do so. It’s absolutely hilarious.

  • STM

    Rog: “In what sense are they conservative, though?”

    I t5hought I’d explained it Rog. As a starting point, you must remember that except for the rabid right, the politics of the right in this country are probably quite to the left of what they are in the US.

    Many on the right in this country probably fall into the category, regarding some aspects of their political stance, of what Americans call liberals.

    They won’t vote for the Labor Party for a start, which is the party opf the worker in Australia. They still vote for the conservatives, despite holding some liberal views.

    They would favour smaller government, for a start, which is a conservative position. They are also far more likely to fall into the top echelon of the socio-economic strata and live in very nice homes in beautiful suburbs, and would be unwilling to rock the boat on anything that might threaten the wellbeing of such sanctuaries – such as high-density residential ribbon development encroahing off the main throughfares, where it has traditionally been, into their quiet streets. Come on Rog, I’m sure you get my drift here.

    They would be more likely to send their kids to expensive private schools and argue for equal government funding for those exclusive schools, while still – genuinely – supporting the notion of equality in education through a state-school system (for those who can’t afford private schools) that theoretically offers the same opportunities. We know it doesn’t, but still …

    They probably also drive large European SUVs subject to a hefty import tax, and while being able to pay it, might argue that they shouldn’t have to.

    OK, I’m being facetious on that last one, but I’m sure you get my drift.

    They are often people with largely conservative viewpoints but who are imbued with a degree of compassion on social justice issues and will support them whilst not necessarily wanting to be. or even seen to be, a part of them.

    In that way, they differ hugely from the equally wealthy chardonnay socialists who infest the loony left.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Well, I’d call it conservative with a small “C,” wouldn’t you? Kinda of reminiscent of the American middle class when there was still a middle class to speak of and prosperity was aplenty.

    You do know where I’m going with this, surely.

  • Clavos

    Don’t call him Shirley, Roger…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Granted, Clav, I threw him a curveball. But then again, I’m more than confident in Stan’s ability to make a perfect catch.

    Mr Natural that I am, I wouldn’t throw the pitch to a novice.

  • STM

    Ah, yes, small C conservative. I should explain: the conservative party here id known as The Liberal Party, hence when we talk about small L liberals, we mean members of the Liberal party who are more liberal in their thought, rather than large C conservative.

    OK, I think we’ve sorted that out.

    Cheers boys, off to work. It’s about 50C in the shade here today with over 90 per cent humidity. Can’t wait to get to work and into the cool. My aircon’s on the blink. Car one’s working all right though, thank God. See youse.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Point taken. Still, don’t you think you’re generalizing from a rather limited, parochial experience? You’re still at a stage of the industrial development we’ve long passed, not yet signs of trouble on the horizon. The question is, will you remain unaffected and for how long.

  • STM

    Rog: “You’re still at a stage of the industrial development we’ve long passed”.

    Roger, there are only 20 million of us, we have a higher standard of living than the United States, we build our own cars etc, our economy is currently the strongest and best-performing of all the developed western economies (including that of the US), the Aussie dollar is worth more than the US dollar at the moment and is in the in the top five of the world’s most traded currencies – and Australians on average get paid more than Americans (although they need to, because it’s a very expensive place to live).

    Just in case you were in any doubt about this being a backwater. It’s quieter and more laidback, I’ll guarantee, but the place is going gangbusters at the moment. It’s all the iron ore we’re digging up and selling to China, Japan, India and South Korea.

    Don’t see how we’re any different to you at all in terms of industrial development. We DO have TV, running water and electricity. Lol.

    Sure you’re not thinking of Argentina, which hasn’t been going that great these past 50 years or so??

  • STM

    And yes, I’m being parochial. I was talking specifically about what I’m pissed off about in Australia – including climate-change nazis.

    Climate change I can deal with, but people shouting at me about it and calling me a denier when I’m merely a sceptic is different. We are big polluters per capita industrially in this country, and are one of the world’s largest coal producers, but compared to the rest of the world, it’s a drop in the ocean. Regarding a carbon tax … I think because of that fact, we need to come to some agreement with everyone else. Us doing it on our own means absolute diddly squat, and just puts more impost on cost of living for the average Australian that is already astronomical. Yet they are determined to do it.

    Case in point regarding high cost of living: an ordinary family car will cost more than $30,000. Expect to pay $50,000 at the very least for a reasonable Euro import.

    You can’t buy a decent house here for under $700,000. My wife’s weekly grocery shopping bill for three of us can hit $450 easily. My quarterly electricity bill over winter was $1600, my gas bill $800.

    Lucky we have “free” health care … pay for that too in your taxes.

    And now we are going to get slugged with a carbon tax (cap and trade) that will push up the price of everything again.

    That’s US dollars BTW.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Cap and trade is such a scam it’s not even funny. It allows companies to pay to pollute and pushes the expense down on the population instead, forcing them to do all sorts of minimally useful things like changing light bulbs and the like.

    You’ve got monstrous corporations like Monsanto and Smithfield Foods dumping millions of gallons of pollutants (in the case of Smithfield, we’re talking millions of gallons of untreated hog shit) into water supplies like state rivers and lagoons. They’re allowed to “offset” that massive pollution thanks to the cap and trade scheme, however, and literally pay to pollute more because they have more money.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us are not only saddled with a “carbon tax” or some variation of it but we’re told to turn off our lights, etc.

    It is vital, however, to not confuse the vile political and corporate attitudes towards climate change with the scientific reality of it. Too many people are doing that.

  • STM

    And because our government has had to form a coalitionn with the Greens to remain in power, they are determined to force cap and trade through. Like I say Jordan, us doing it without anyone else doing it is absurd … and it passes the cost on to cosumers while allowing companies to pollute. Reducing pollution period is the answer.

    And yes, my beef is not wholly against the notion of climate change; my scepticism lies mainly in how we’re being forced as consumers to deal with it as part of a political agenda the government is determind to push.

    I think my fury hit a new peak when the PM said: “To doubt is to deny”. So far, it’s only the doubters in parliament who have saved us from already having a carbon tax.

    The previous PM was determined to push it through BEFORE Copenhagen. And to what end?

    We all suspect it was so he could go there and say, “Hey, look at what we’re doing … we’re from enlightened Australia, the first place to put a price on carbon”.

    The only thing our massive delegtaion did over there was to generate even more huge amounts of hot air.

  • Jordan Richardson

    my scepticism lies mainly in how we’re being forced as consumers to deal with it as part of a political agenda the government is determind to push.

    Mine too, but that’s got nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with a government (any government) and its inability to handle anything without making a royal mess of it.

    And that, my friend, is some well-founded scepticism indeed.

  • cindy

    (Roger, Umberto Eco is involved in a protest in Italy. I emailed a link.)

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Glenn – I know you really seem to be in love with the EPA, but I was wondering if you’d care to comment on the waiver they issued to Obama’s new best friends company…if you need a link to the story of how GE received a nice waiver from the EPA I can provide it for you, but I’m sure you have your own sources.

    It really is amazing how all these awesome programs that have recently been started require all these waivers. If they were really that good, something tells me they wouldn’t need all that…but that just might be me…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    @79 & 80

    No belated response, Stan baby, just a different time zone.

    I wasn’t being pejorative when I used the term “parochial,” simply meant local. And when I spoke of a different “stage of development,” meant you’re not past your peak and are experiencing a decline, so optimism is a natural response.

    Do you think, however, that you’re not subject to the cycle? And if don’t believe in cycles, how long do you suppose you’ll be able to withstand outside pressures before you’ll be dragged by global economic crisis still prevalent in the West

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Must have misdirected that email, Cindy. Didn’t get it.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I wish you’d follow your own advice and FOLLOW THE MONEY!

    First off, you got your info from junkscience.com…which is NOT a non-partisan site. If you’ll do some research, you’ll find the site is owned by Steven Milloy who, among other things, has claimed that radiation in Washington DC is 65 times higher than what was going to be expected at Yucca mountain (which was of course readily debunked). You can read here how Milloy has a history of picking out a single anomalous report (while ignoring the vastly greater number of studies that refute that report) and claiming that single report debunks everything. And you can read here how he has a habit of, let’s say, forgetting to tell the rest of the story (to put it VERY kindly).

    And Mr. Milloy doesn’t stop there! He got his start working for Philip Morris claiming that second-hand smoke’s link to cancer was ‘junk science’ (during which time he was getting paid 100K/yr for making that claim). On the same reference you can find a link to a .pdf file which states:

    Milloy’s Junk Science Home Page does not disclose its specific funding source, the website, CFIS [in 1999], and the defunct TASSC share the same address at 1155 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300 in Washington, DC.

    CFIS and TASSC, btw, got their funding from 3M, Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lorillard Tobacco, Louisiana Chemical Association, National Pest Control Association, Occidental Petroleum, Philip Morris Companies, Procter & Gamble, Santa Fe Pacific Gold, and W.R. Grace, the asbestos and pesticide manufacturers.

    And these are ALL companies that believed they would lose untold millions due to EPA regulations of second-hand smoke, pesticides, Big Oil, asbestos…need I go on?

    YES, CLAVOS, FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Clavos – here’s a couple more things about your reference site’s author:

    1 – Steven Milloy claimed that asbestos regulations were what caused the WTC towers to fall on 9/11, and Milloy’s motivations are exposed here.

    2 – here’s a list of global-warming deniers financed by ExxonMobil, including Milloy.

    And here’s another list of the leaders of the anti-environmental “sound science” movement (including Milloy, of course)…and the industries that fund them. I really recommend the outright fabrication that former-ABC-and-now-Fox newsman John Stossel foisted on America (“Buying Organic Can Kill You!”) until he was exposed by the New York Times.

    FOLLOW THE MONEY, Clavos!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Now, as to your reference’s “science”:

    1 – Atmospheric CO2 is higher right now (@385 PPM) than it has been in at least 800,000 years (that’s four ice ages ago). The previous peak – at about 300 PPM was about 325,000 years ago…and we passed that level sometime before 1950. The same reference will show you the effects of worldwide ocean acidification (Hey, Milloy didn’t address that little side-effect of high CO2 concentration, did he?) – which is likely to be devastating to mollusks. Enjoy your oysters while you can.

    2 – Here’s a study by the NIH (which most Fox News watchers Just Know is a communist front) that states: “Our study points to an emerging consensus that the physiological effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on land plants will increase global warming beyond that caused by the radiative effects of CO2.” In other words, while yes, plants will like the extra CO2, the worldwide physiological effect will increase global warming even more! Did Your Boy Milloy cover this one, too? Doesn’t look like he did.

    SO NEXT TIME, Clavos, use your vaunted command of ‘logic’ to FOLLOW THE MONEY and realize that maybe, just maybe the VAST majority of scientists in the world DO know what they’re talking about, while it looks REAL bad for those ‘denier’ and ‘skeptic’ scientists who draw their funding from Big Oil, chemical companies, and Big Tobacco.

  • Clavos

    The documents to which I linked are very compelling on their own merit, irrespective of who is paying Milloy.

    And, in any case, there’s a great deal more money going into research affirming AGW than is being paid to the handful of scientists with enough guts to stand up to the establishment.

    the VAST majority of scientists in the world DO know what they’re talking about…

    Reading statements, books and papers by both sides, as I have for several years now, I have yet to be convinced that they do.

    …while it looks REAL bad for those ‘denier’ and ‘skeptic’ scientists who draw their funding from Big Oil, chemical companies, and Big Tobacco.

    So people who don’t buy the alleged anthropogenic sources for GW are Nazis, Glenn?

    Everyone working in that industry, regardless of which side they’re on, is being paid by one entity or another; they all have a vested interest in maintaining their jobs and cash flow.

    As to the quantities of money on either side, see above. But you’re right I forgot that “vast majority” are pure as the driven snow and totally immune to the temptation of money. They don’t have to worry about keeping the grants flowing, they work for the government (either directly or by receiving government grants), which never runs out of money, it just gouges us more — or worse yet, simply prints more.

    2 – Here’s a study by the NIH (which most Fox News watchers Just Know is a communist front)

    You’re right, those FN watchers are stupid if that’s what they think — they should realize that the NIH is much more sinister and dangerous to the American people than a “communist front,” it’s a United States federal government agency.

    1 – Atmospheric CO2 is higher right now (@385 PPM) than it has been in at least 800,000 years…

    Which, of course, is pointed out in my link. Also pointed out is that the current quantities of it present in the atmosphere are STILL near infinitesimal — water vapor, which is, as someone pointed out above, far more prevalent (+90%) has far more effect than CO2, yet your government wants to undertake measures to control the economy (and thus the people) to reduce a gas that, in trace amounts MUST be present in the atmosphere in order to sustain life — but what do the zealots care? They want to control, prove they were right (they think) and if it bankrupts the country or (more likely) puts it at a huge disadvantage vis-a-vis the competition (e.g. China, India, Brasil) that’s not important; what’s important is controlling the “pollution” and the “deniers” at any cost.

    On the part of those working in the “green industries,” including the scientists, it’s very much about the money; on the part of the government, it’s the same old story: power and control.

  • cindy

    Roger,

    Try googling Umberto Eco, Italy, protests, condoms, pans.
    Reuters didn’t send the link I guess. And so far I can only copy but not paste text on this phone.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    No amount of evidence could prove it to you. You’ve made up your mind, and discussing this with you is like arguing with a kid who covers his ears and yells “NONONONONO!” so he can’t hear what I’m saying.

    I wish unhappiness for no one, not even for those who have gone out of their way to do ill to me and mine…but I do hope you live long enough to watch what’s coming in the decades hence.

  • pablo

    Glenn Contrarian,

    No amount of evidence could prove it to you. You’ve made up your mind Glenn, and discussing this with you is like arguing with a kid who covers his ears and yells “NONONONONO!” so he can’t hear what I’m saying.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    that’s the difference between you and me, pablo – I included the fact that I wish unhappiness on no one…but that’s the only part of my comment that you chose not to copy.

    speaks volumes….

  • STM

    Rog: “global economic crisis still prevalent in the West”.

    We are part of the West Rog, if you’re grouping us with places Britain, Europe and North America. We were affected by the GFC, but clever prudential regulation on the banking and finance industry meant the impact was far less for us, and we’ve come out of in a much better position than anyone else.

    We’re lucky that our big trading partner is China and it’s buying our iron ore and other goodies at a massive rate. However, we are still subject to problems caused by the highs and lows of what happens overseas.

    Anyway, it’s not about that.

    It’s about a nation of 20 million that is a a large polluter per capita but a small polluter on a world scale having a left-wing government that is determined to put a price on carbon because it has an agenda pushed by its Green coalition partners.

    I would be pissed off if I lived in the US or Europe and a government was doing that too. However, if the entire world decides it should be doingg something about it, that’s a different story.

    But they’re not. So why should I pay through the nose for the bizarre whims of a bunch of loony left ideologues?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Also pointed out is that the current quantities of it present in the atmosphere are STILL near infinitesimal — water vapor, which is, as someone pointed out above, far more prevalent (+90%) has far more effect than CO2

    Except that carbon dioxide is particularly good at absorbing heat. And that measurements show less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Nice how Glenn, one of the prime culprits around here of picking little pieces of comments to respond to is whining because someone did it to him! One of the reasons I left this fucking place the first time!

    How ’bout you respond to the question I’ve asked you twice now about your beloved EPA??? I guess it doesn’t bother you that the parent company of your favorite liberal network got a monster waiver from them and YOUR messiah Barry?

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Andy, although the entire debate about AGW is completely sterile and pointless, I rather thought Glenn was having the better of it in his debate with Clavos.

    There is no point at all in chuffing on about that or the EPA.

    I come at this from a completely different angle; there are stable, regular cycles of glacial growth and retreat on the planet, evidence of which is readily available in the geological record.

    If I understand it correctly, we are now rather overdue on another period of global cooling but there is absolutely no sign of it happening.

    If such a powerful cycle has been either broken or significantly changed, what other force has done that if it isn’t the collective heat output we humans are generating through our agricultural, industrial and social practices?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    CR – I’m only re-asking the EPA question because Glenn was all upset in earlier comments about what the republicans were attempting to do to them…

    I’m not a scientist, I can’t explain why there was tons of snow in the winter when I was a kid and then there wasn’t and now there is again and who knows what will happen next year…

    I do have a problem with the fact that scientists thought it was necessary to change data to better support their theories, NO MATTER HOW SMALL THAT DATA CHANGE MAY BE!!! If the math problem works, it works, there’s no substituting numbers to make YOUR idea better than someone elses.

    My question is, and I’ve asked this a couple of times in this thread, what the hell are we supposed to do about it? As I stated earlier, the same people that scream about coal fired power plants whine about Nuclear energy! The people that think the EPA is a good idea have no comment when that same agency gives GE, probably the largest single producer of turbine engines in the world, a waiver from their newest rounds of overburdensome regulation…

    Our economy is in the tank now, so should we again go up to $4 a gallon gas? People seem to forget that’s what started this entire mess! The reason a lot of people got foreclosed on was because they couldn’t afford their house payments. Funny how this started at the same time that gas prices in the US went up over $4. We’re creaping up over $3 now and that’s gonna slow or stop any recovery that’s happening right now.

    I’m already paying $5 a pop for a freaking light bulb! They don’t work any better and my power bill hasn’t noticed them, so WTF?

    It’s nice to whine about it and feel all holier than thou about it, but without concrete, HONEST, studies and solutions, that don’t have us all moving back into caves, nothing will change.

    If you really want people to listen, then you need a better spokesman than Gore! And you need HONEST scientists to show HONEST cause and effects.

    The biggest problem independants and conservatives have with the liberal side of this argument is that liberals believe that America is the cause of every misery we’ve ever known and that America does absolutely no good to anyone or anything. When one side starts on that level, then most of us really don’t want ot hear a thing they have to say.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Andy, data in scientific studies is often manipulated and fiddled with to gather varying results and to test the outcroppings of certain theories. It’s got nothing to do with “honesty” and it doesn’t undermine the actual science. Much like mathematicians often plug in different numbers to different equations to test results, scientists do the same thing.

    I think what it comes down to is that some have politicized climate change past the point of no return. Many live and die by presentation, so when they see a democrat trotting out a theory and a republican shooting it down they think it’s time to “pick a side.” People are often asked if they “believe in global warming.” That, to me, is one of the dumbest questions I’ve ever heard. It’s not a belief or a matter of faith.

    Again, don’t mistake the posturing for the reality of the issue. We can do something about it, but it’s a long haul challenge for a society too stubborn to do anything but bicker. Andy’s frustration about prices and costs is well-delivered, too. It’s immensely frustrating to be forced into idiotic, expensive “plans” by government officials while big companies trade carbon credits and get off on dumping millions of gallons of chemicals and pollutants into water supplies. It’s stupid to ask people to “properly inflate their tires” while turning a blind eye to the amount of water wasted by the world’s top corporations.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Manipulation and fiddling are acceptable in the scientific community? Doesn’t sound very scientific to me…

    I understand what you’re trying to say to me Jordan, but the problem as I see it is that these particular scientists are manipulating and fiddling to get the results that THEY and their handlers (folks that pay for the grants) want to see, to support what they and their handlers BELIEVE to be the truth. I’m sure that if I were a scientist I could manipultate numbers that made the sun appear to to rotate around the earth, but that doesn’t make it right! I’ve never had the word manipulate used about me in a positive way, have you?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Andy, do you really believe that the ENTIRE international scientific community is fudging climate change science to get grants?

  • Jordan Richardson

    And yes, Andy, manipulating the data is par for the course. The only way scientists can successfully replicate things is by trying various avenues and manipulating the data to achieve varying results.

    You seem to think that the entire scientific community has a desired result, as though one day they’re going to wake up once they got their giant check and say “Oh, I guess we were wrong about that whole climate change thing” and then go back to their labs and think up the next scam.

    How realistic does that scenario really sound to you?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    No Jordan, not the entire scientific community, just the ones supporting the bogus data!
    I guess I need to say this again…they’re manipulating data to get the results THEY want to see. They’re not looking for VARYING results, they’re looking for the results that make their theories look more right than someone elses. And in a lot of instances I’m sure it’s the case of, if the boss says it, than we all must concur or risk losing our jobs.

    To me and I’d guess a few others, it doesn’t matter if they’re all doing it, the ones with the biggest and loudest voices, or the most connections, are the ones getting the headlines.

    Let’s get something straight here. I’m not blind. I can see that the weather is changing. My problem is with the idea that we all have to move back into caves to make it right.

    All this whining about the sky falling, at least give me an umbrella! Don’t make me buy chinese lightbulbs that do absolutley nothing. Don’t make me buy a car that won’t get me to Williamsburg and back from my house(about 100 miles round trip) that cost more than a Caddy! Don’t whine about coal and nuclear in the same sentence! Don’t tell me that oil rigs off the coast are a national security concern but windmills aren’t!

    And lastly, you make it sound like science is NEVER wrong! How many times have scientists and science said, never mind, we were wrong about that one…more than once I’m sure!

  • Jordan Richardson

    Nobody’s “supporting” bogus data, though, that’s the part you’re not getting. Of course, without hearing about who “they” are and what specific data it is you think is “bogus,” I can’t really comment further. I think your understanding of the issue and the way the data is collected and dealt with is a little off, largely due to the relentless politicizing of climate change you have going on in your country.

    Scientists don’t “look for” specific results; they analyze data without a horse in the race.

    I’m sure it’s the case of, if the boss says it, than we all must concur or risk losing our jobs.

    No.

    My problem is with the idea that we all have to move back into caves to make it right.

    I don’t think that’s happening, Andy. I think there are solutions and things we can do, but what individuals can do is, as I’ve long said around here, minimal compared to what needs to be done on massive, corporate scales. Nobody’s suggesting that you go “move to a cave.”

    You appear mad at the world, but that’s nobody’s fault but yours. We’re all in the same boat, more or less, and we’re all working out way through it. The solutions are not the purview of the scientific community, either, so don’t blame “scientists” for not giving you an umbrella. In this world, you have to supply your own.

    It would do you a world of good to peer outside your own borders and your own country’s debates for a bit. Try to calm down and look at the bigger picture.

    I didn’t say, nor would I say, that “science” is never wrong. Of course it’s wrong. But so what? Does that mean that we should just ignore the mounting data in case it’s wrong? I’d like it to be wrong, Andy, as I’m sure 99% of the world would. But it’s not wrong in any meaningful way and that’s the problem we have to learn to face – like it or not.

  • Clavos

    If such a powerful cycle has been either broken or significantly changed…

    A very big IF, Chris. Given the paucity of the sum total of knowledge about the workings of the climate (and it is, despite Establishment claims, very little, relatively speaking), it seems nothing short of complete insanity to panic and implement “remedies which can and would bankrupt entire countries (especially the US) for results no one (who is honest) is sure will even happen.

    Again, I go back to the money angle. The REAL money being poured into this issue at this point is in support of the faithful, who, naturally enough, are loathe to turn off the tap.

    A little caution and a lot more discussion is in order. If the scientific tidal wave of opinion IS wrong (or even just overly pessimistic), it wouldn’t be the first time.

    Particularly at this moment in history, the world’s economy does not need a potentially devastating burden dropped on it.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Andy, it isn’t the case that scientists are manipulating data in order to deceive.

    Science as taught in schools is all neat, tidy and definite because it is established science.

    Scientific research is all about grappling with raw data and trying to make sense of it.

    It is no more tidy and “scientific” in the sense you used the word than say a car mechanic or an engineer is when they are trying to get something to work.

    It is more a question of bash it and bodge it, with a certain amount of invention and creativity thrown, in until a likely seeming answer is worked out. That solution is then put out to others to reproduce, test and verify or reject.

    What those people who, with an actor’s fake rage, are objecting to such raw data manipulation is exactly the same as somebody who knows nothing about, say, the internal combustion engine freaking out when a mechanic bashes metal until the engine starts.

    In other words it is a manufactured objection to a completely normal process of we humans trying to figure stuff. Science doesn’t get set in place until it is verified and established, which always has to be after the fact of research and “bashing the data”, so to speak, until it fits the observed reality.

    Don’t forget all this climate research is fairly new stuff, so it is bound to be messy at times, but that doesn’t invalidate the process any more than dirty hands means an engineer is no good…

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos, I know you can’t let go of this but try and give it up. Your cynicism and scepticism are out of proportion and ill-founded.

    Just cos your dad was so cynical as to trust nobody doesn’t mean he was right…

    I would like to see you produce some data or evidence that has wide scientific support that your scenario is correct but I don’t think you can show us anything more substantial than a “minority report” at best.

    Sure, scientists get things wrong all the time, but that doesn’t mean they are deceptive or manipulative, it just means stuff is hard.

    Just like any new field, sure there are costs involved but, just like we couldn’t have foreseen how much the invention of the internal combustion engine was going to change the world, there will also be lots of opportunities for new wealth to be generated as well.

    Oh, and that “if” was just me being polite, there is no sign of the overdue glaciation returning at all.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    So now I’m…mad at the world and bitter.

    You really have NO FUCKING idea who I am do you?

    It’s folks like you that are sure the data hasn’t been manipulated in any serious way that are a big part of the problem. You honestly believe that all scientists are so altruistic that they’d never do anything untowards to make a buck or prove how right they are?

    I may be bitter, but with the opinions you’ve expressed I’d have to call you naive!
    And that’s your answer to the boss is right we have to concur? No? That’s it? Great rebuttal!!!!!

    And again, you FUCKING LIBERALS!!!

    When I say let’s all move into caves, I’m NOT BEING LITTERAL!!! Holy fuck!!!!!!!!!!!

    As if you REALLY didn’t know that!!!!! That’s why talking to some of you is just a waste of my fucking time!!!!!!

    Have a nice day. I’m done!

  • Clavos

    Scientists don’t “look for” specific results; they analyze data without a horse in the race.

    I’m sure it’s the case of, if the boss says it, than we all must concur or risk losing our jobs.

    No.

    Jordan, your faith in the probity and objectivity of the scientific community on this issue is admirable, but IMO, not warranted. Andy’s reservations about them and their data are real concerns, shared by more than a few. Even if one grants their objectivity, the data upon which we are being asked to make enormous sacrifices in order to save the world, is largely the product of computer model forecasts, which at best, are educated guesses. In addition, there have been some serious questions raised (and not fully answered) as to the motives and methodology of more than a few practitioners.

    I am iinterested by the fact that two of the most vocal skeptics, Spencer and Lindzen, hold very responsible and visible “insider” positions and have very impressive resumes. It’s interesting to note that, before this controversy erupted, both were also held in high regard by the very same group of scientists (their peers) who now denigrate and scoff at their arguments. And yes,I know that both have been employed in the past by the demon oil industry (an argumentum ad hominem), but if one reads what they have to say, and I have, their arguments are, at the very least, food for thought and reason enough for caution.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Must agree with Clavos here. All observations are made with respect to the prevailing theory and the object is to confirm it. Occasionally, scientists stumble across fact which mitigate against the theory; even then, efforts are made to accommodate such fact in the interest of preserving the theory. There’s always significant resistance to overthrowing the ruling paradigm.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Sure, Andy, you don’t sound mad at all.

  • Clavos

    Your cynicism and scepticism are out of proportion and ill-founded.

    Perhaps. But both, along with contrarianism, have served me well throughout my life, so I will probably continue to rely on them.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    So now we have two contrarians.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Andy’s reservations about the data are real concerns, absolutely. There’s nothing wrong with scepticism, as the entire scientific community is based on it.

    , the data upon which we are being asked to make enormous sacrifices in order to save the world, is largely the product of computer model forecasts, which at best, are educated guesses.

    What we are being asked to do and what the data says are two separate things.

    For one thing, models are tested to find out if they work first. We use models, computerized or otherwise, to determine a number of things about our natural world and they are far more complex than “educated guesses.” We use them to predict volcanic eruptions, for instance, or to measure sea level. In many, many cases, models actually come up on the conservative side of the actual events. But they do highlight the trends, as this is their design.

    The climate models are not the empirical evidence of climate change. They formulate a guide to the problem but don’t serve as “evidence” in any other way.

    there have been some serious questions raised (and not fully answered) as to the motives and methodology of more than a few practitioners

    Of course. I’ve not denied that.

    All observations are made with respect to the prevailing theory and the object is to confirm it.

    Roger, where does the “prevailing theory” come from? And who determines the “ruling paradigm” in the scientific community?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    The community does, Jordan, you do know that. I haven’t suggested there’s anything irrational about the procedure, but that’s the procedure, and again, you do know it.

  • Jordan Richardson

    How does the “community” determine a ruling paradigm and establish a prevailing theory? From what source?

    And no, I don’t “know it.”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    You’re being silly, Jordan so don’t speak to me like to a five-year old. If there’s anything you disagree with my description, just come out with it. I’m not interested in your personal agenda or the stake you have in things. That’s your business.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’m asking you a sincere question and, as usual, you’re playing games by assuming some sort of “agenda” and whatever other bullshit you dream up.

    If I didn’t want to know what YOU think, I wouldn’t ask.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Nowt wrong with a healthy streak of contrarianism, Clavos; I’ve always identified with Groucho Marx’s sentiment that I wouldn’t want to join a club that would have me as a member – not that I’ve come across too many of them!

    However, there is a limit to all things and pure contrarianism just for the sake of it is just as daft as sticking rigidly to any other dogma.

    I prefer to shun dogma and believe as little as possible but always accept the truth of a situation, no matter what that truth might be.

    In this particular case, it is pretty obvious that our climate is changing almost as rapidly (mild exaggeration for effect!) as the global political picture is right now and the expected cooling just isn’t happening.

    It isn’t really good enough to say the people who, often reluctantly, accept that global warming does appear to be happening are wrong without having an alternative explanation of the data and events we see happening that – after debate and analysis – can persuade or convince. As far as I am aware, there isn’t any such alternative explanation.

    Let’s face it, if you were completely cynical, you’d never have fallen in love. Sometimes we just have to make the unlikely choices, just as I have in my own personal life, where the odds of my current relationship working out seemed so outlandishly low back in the day as to hardly make it worthwhile bothering – how wrong I was about that..!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Not playing any games, Jordan, it’s precisely my refusal to play any games that moves me. So let me close this dialog by inverting the Greek saying, “Man is the measure of all things” to “I am the measure of all things.” Feel free to twist it if you like.

    Don’t have any sacred cows, Jordan, don’t need any. The intent behind my original remark was merely to agree with Clavos rather than getting into any extended discussion on the subject. Sorry if my description doesn’t square with your view of the world, but that’s not my problem. And for me to continue trying to make sense of my description for your benefit would necessitate that I start treating you as a five-year old, and I absolutely refuse.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Whatever you say, Roger.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    We should be free to disagree, Jordan, without carrying the discussion any further. I don’t see any problem here unless you do.

  • El Bicho

    Why exactly are people so worked up about Andy and Clavos not believing in climate change? Who cares? They don’t have any influence in the matter so let them believe what they want.

    Roger, why not just tell Jordan you don’t know the answer rather than twisting around, hoping people won’t notice the pattern you always fall into?

  • Clavos

    In this particular case, it is pretty obvious that our climate is changing almost as rapidly (mild exaggeration for effect!) as the global political picture is right now and the expected cooling just isn’t happening.

    Nor are most of the dire predictions of the deleterious effects to be expected from the warning, although admittedly the most dire of those predictions did not come from the scientific community itself, but rather from a very public (and apparently not very bright) public figure’s “documentary.”

    Why exactly are people so worked up about Andy and Clavos not believing in climate change? Who cares? They don’t have any influence in the matter so let them believe what they want.

    Hmm. I didn’t realize that “hav[ing] influence in the matter” was of importance for participating in a discussion on these threads, but in any case, I don’t recall either Andy or I claiming we had influence on the matter, and of course we don’t, but then neither does anyone else posting here, nor is it expected on these threads; rather, they serve as a forum for discussion among interested and concerned citizens of the world, and in this instance in particular, given the civility of the commentary thus far, are doing so admirably.

    And, with the possible exception of Andy’s # 110, I don’t see anyone getting “so worked up” in this discussion, either.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    LB, so predictable of you trying to adjudicate matters. What else is new?

    As to the pattern you speak of, it exists only in your imagination. Keep it there. Nor am I going to lose any sleep over what “people,” as you so eloquently put it, think of me – least of all what you think of me. But you know that already.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    It would seem that LB’s the one getting all “so worked up,” except for the nuts for whom global warming has assumed some form of religion.

    What’s da matter, LB, dull day at the office?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Why exactly are people so worked up about Andy and Clavos not believing in climate change? Who cares? They don’t have any influence in the matter so let them believe what they want.

    Why do people get so worked up here about anybody’s opinions on anything?

    I guess we should just shut the comments space down then, if there’s no point in us arguing with each other.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    data in scientific studies is often manipulated and fiddled with to gather varying results and to test the outcroppings of certain theories.

    I made much the same point upthread, Jordan. The fact that the skeptics have chosen not to respond suggests that they know this perfectly well, but would prefer instead to project motives onto those who interpret the models.

  • Clavos

    Sorry, guys, just slipped by me. Yes, the data IS manipulated for testing purposes (and for setting up computer models, data manipulation — to “tweak” the model — is pretty much de rigeur). This, of course makes computer models handy tools, but not necessarily accurate or definitive enough to risk your life on. Anyone who sets out to sea or flies an airplane is aware of this.

    And, of course, data can be and sometimes is, manipulated for reasons having nothing to do with scientific inquiry, as we learned from the East Anglia leaks.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    “Manipulate” is not the word you want to use; it throws people like Andy off.

    Why not speak instead of “experimental design” and feeding the data into the experimental model to see what obtains. Surely, even Andy wouldn’t object to the subject matter so phrased as representing a legitimate procedure.

  • Clavos

    Further to the accuracy and reliability of computer models:

    Here in the hurricane belt, we get to see the results of computer modeling first hand on a daily basis whenever a hurricane threatens the area; they are shown every evening on the weather portion of the evening news, and the channel I watch actually employs the most recent past director of the National Hurricane Center, Max Mayfield, as the on-camera reporter of the hurricane forecasts. Each night, the storm tracks forecast by each of the computer models is superimposed over a map of the South Florida/Caribbean/Southern Atlantic area. Not always, but often, the variation in these predictions by the models (the NHC uses 7 or 8, from US and UK sources) is astounding, and expressed in miles, can be as much as several thousand miles apart, depending on how many days out the forecast is.

    Before all of you jump on me, I understand perfectly well the difference between weather forecasting and climate science (perhaps, as a lifelong seaman who has studied the weather extensively, better than some of you) but that’s not the point — the inexactness of computer modeling is.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    But the point is, Clav, that the accuracy of the models can be tested by where the hurricane eventually ends up – which, I’ll hazard a guess, is almost always within the modelled track.

    And that model is constantly updated based on what the storm is actually doing.

    Correct?

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos, I didn’t write anything about any predictions but, as you brought them up, they are predictions, which by definition can’t have happened yet. That doesn’t mean that they won’t in due course…

    As to the East Anglia documents, they were “manipulated” for scientific purposes, in an entirely valid way.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    As to computer climate modeling, it is better now than it was 5, 10 or 20 years ago and is steadily improving as both the available data and the processing power of computers continues to grow apace.

    I don’t think anybody is claiming it is a perfect fully realised science yet but the task is immense and the results are improving steadily as our understanding of the vast, complex systems that shape planetary weather improves.

    Both computer science and climate modeling are fairly young disciplines, but both are clearly worthwhile endeavours that are producing useful, if not yet perfectly defined results.

    My own computer is far more powerful than the one that took Apollo 11 to the moon 42 years ago and both weather and climate forecasting continue to improve in accuracy.

  • Clavos

    Doc and Chris,

    Pretty nearly everything you both say about computer modeling and its progress and rate of improvement is correct, but you still both missed my point, which is that because the modeling is still far from perfect, especially in terms of predictions for the distant future, we should be cautious about our reaction to what the scientists are saying which is derived from their models.

    Doc, you’re right about the end result of the hurricane models, but hell, I can predict within just a few miles where a hurricane will hit as much as 72 hours in advance (with no help from a computer), so of course, as the time to the future landfall of the storm shortens, it becomes child’s play for the computer model to zero in.

    But what the climatologists are predicting from their models (with much less comprehensive data I might add) is for events much farther in the future than the time span of the typical hurricane prediction.

  • Boeke

    It’s distressing that so many people in this thread are ignorant of science and it’s practice, yet feel entitled to make scientific proclamations derived from political beliefs.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Yeah, there are SOOOOO MANY “scientific proclamations” being made here!!!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Clavos – re my comment 110..sometimes you have to yell. Especially when it seems like the person your attempting to communicate with acts as if he hasn’t heard, or in this case, read, a thing you’ve said. Or when, as people love to do around here, people pull a couple of words out of an entire comment and spew bullshit. Or when people take a comment that THEY KNOW isn’t meant literally and act as if you meant it that way.
    Sometimes, communicating with assholes and people that just want to act like assholes can be frustrating! Actually most times..

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Re Comment #135, predictions . . .are predictions, which by definition can’t have happened yet. That doesn’t mean that they won’t in due course…

    Nor, obviously, does it mean that they will.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Dan, obviously not.

    However, when the hard work of research and analysis has been done and independently peer reviewed over time, which always stimulates a lot of debate in scientific circles, particularly if the results create new ideas or challenge existing ones, and the vast majority come to agree, who would you back, trained scientists or a bunch of pundits and other media commentators?

    When it comes to our survival, ignoring the trend is dangerous.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Hm – thread’s still going. I had to stop for a day to finish my book (the first volume, actually), and to have a micro-brew in celebration for having done so. Twelve years it took…but I think it’s pretty good, and I haven’t seen any plot like it in anything I’ve read.

    But back to the subject at hand:

    Do the deniers – ahem, skeptics – here realize where their line of argument must go?

    If climate change is so obviously false and the data is being ‘manipulated’ to make it look true, then

    1. 98% of the world’s climatologists and the VAST majority of the world’s scientists MUST therefore KNOW that climate change is false and the data is being manipulated…which weans there are hundreds of thousands of very highly educated people spread throughout the world who are ALL ‘in’ on this grand conspiracy and who are ALL able to stay silent about it.

    2. The scientists who began raising the alarm about global warming back in the early 90’s just got incredibly lucky that in the next fifteen years the world became progressively warmer, the last ten being the warmest on record – yes, this was simply an incredible coincidence, right?

    Just wondering….

  • Jordan Richardson

    Andy, I think if you’d read back through my comment you’d discover that it wasn’t as unfair as you seem to think. You do come across as very bitter and angry in my view – and rightly so.

    My comment to you essentially says “we’re all in the same boat, though,” but you’ve chosen to focus on part of the message. You’ve done exactly the same thing that bothers you so much in others (#140).

    Not only did you dismiss me out of hand as a “liberal” (I’m not one), but you misrepresent a big part of what I had to say based on an assumption that I took something literally. I didn’t, I can assure you of that.

    What I said was (note the quotation marks):

    Nobody’s suggesting that you go “move to a cave.”

    This is backed up by what I said in earlier comments when I noted that I understand your frustration and, horror of horrors, I feel the same way. In your haste to characterize me as a liberal, you may have missed that.

    In my comment to you (#106) there are exactly TWO sentences about how angry you seem. That’s it. Yet your entire comment (#110) only addresses those two sentences and can’t seem to get past it.

    I apologize for mischaracterizing you as angry, Andy. It was never my intention to judge you unfairly. I was just stating what I saw and did not imply or infer that your “anger” was unjustified or unfounded.

    Again, I’m sorry.

  • Clavos

    Chris, the thing is there are a number of “trained scientists” more than a few of whom have impeccable credentials and high level positions in the climatology community who disagree with the “majority.”

    Just a few names:

    Richard Lindzen — Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

    William Gray — Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences. He is a pioneer in the science of forecasting hurricanes, and one of the world’s leading experts on tropical storms.

    Roy Spencer — Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

    Fred Singer, Emeritus Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.

    Antonino Zichichi, Emeritus Professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.

    Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of biogeography at the University of London.

    There are many more…

  • Jordan Richardson

    Clav, Lindzen seems right up your alley. :)

  • Jordan Richardson

    An interesting excerpt from that Lindzen article:

    Given the significant overlap between Lindzen and mainstream climate science, it might be surprising that Lindzen continues to be quoted in the press as a major contrarian voice. On the issue of the connection between human activity and warming, however, Lindzen differs radically from his colleagues, and this by itself would be sufficient to brand him a contrarian.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos, I know that but what I don’t know is why they believe the way they do.

    Regardless of their background or status, they are still in the minority though, so it doesn’t really change anything.

    Do you have any alternative explanation as to why there is no sign of the overdue glaciation or why the planet is getting warmer when it ought to be cooling?

  • Jordan Richardson

    In the case of Hendrik Tennekes, we may have a bit of a clue as to why he denies the efficacy of climate models.

    From the Wiki as to why he was fired from the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute:

    “The fact Tennekes refused to buy a new computer to improve forecasting, because he thought it was unnecessary. According to Gerbrand Komen, Tennekes sometimes referred to biblical texts to support this decision.”

    Heh.

  • Jordan Richardson

    As for William Gray, he’s an interesting cat too. This is a particularly interesting piece and article attempts to debunk a lot of Gray’s “misconceptions.”

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    My mistake Jordan, I forgot, you’re not a liberal, you’re a Canadian! It was a Canadian here at BC that first called me an ugly American.
    I remember all the other comments. I just have a real problem with your blind trust of the scientific community.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    You think you Canadians would appreciate the rest of us warming it up a bit for you, but no….

  • Jordan Richardson

    Andy, this notion of “blind trust” isn’t based on anything I’ve said.

    What I said was (#106):

    I didn’t say, nor would I say, that “science” is never wrong. Of course it’s wrong. But so what? Does that mean that we should just ignore the mounting data in case it’s wrong? I’d like it to be wrong, Andy, as I’m sure 99% of the world would. But it’s not wrong in any meaningful way and that’s the problem we have to learn to face – like it or not.

    And I maintain that. Climate change IS happening. The planet IS warming.

    If you’re trying to convince me that I should just ignore the bulk of the science on this issue, you’re going to have to give me a pretty good reason to do that.

  • Jordan Richardson

    You think you Canadians would appreciate the rest of us warming it up a bit for you, but no….

    Our igloos would melt.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Why don’t you read about each of those guys you listed – and see what’s wrong with them, and most importantly, who’s funding them.

    Remember – follow the money…

    …and here’s something for you to bear in mind: the vast majority of the world’s scientists don’t live in mansions. They, like teachers, do what they do NOT because of the paycheck, because, like underpaid teachers (which many of them still are) that’s what they love to do! Their respective fields of study are what fires their imaginations…

    …and anyone who suggests that the VAST majority of the world’s scientists would all get together and manipulate their data to support a theory that they allegedly know is false (AND maintain a veil of secrecy about it)…well, any man who would suggest such knows a lot less about humanity than he thinks he does.

    P.S. – Clavos, money really isn’t that important to many people. It’s not that important to me. That’s why I see so easily the fallacy in your claim that the vast majority of the world’s scientists publicly agree on global warming even though they know it’s false, and then somehow all keep it secret. They’re not businessmen, Clavos – money really doesn’t mean that much to most of them other than as a means to an end.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Christopher, in Comment #148, you hit the nail on the head: what I don’t know is why they believe the way they do. Science is not, and should not be, grounded in the beliefs of scientists.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Clavos

    And I maintain that. Climate change IS happening. The planet IS warming.

    I agree. Never said I didn’t.

    I don’t agree that its causes are anthropogenic, however.

  • Clavos

    Science is not, and should not be, grounded in the beliefs of scientists.

    Quoted for Truth.

  • Clavos

    …your claim that the vast majority of the world’s scientists publicly agree on global warming even though they know it’s false, and then somehow all keep it secret.

    Never said that; my “claims” refer only to those involved in perpetuating the anthropogenesis myth. The “vast majority of the world’s scientists” have nothing whatever to do with climatology or atmospheric science.

  • Clavos

    ..and here’s something for you to bear in mind: the vast majority of the world’s scientists don’t live in mansions. They, like teachers, do what they do NOT because of the paycheck, because, like underpaid teachers (which many of them still are) that’s what they love to do!

    And of course, they are so pure in heart that none would ever dream of cheating — even just a little bit — unlike businessmen and Republicans.

  • Clavos

    Do you have any alternative explanation as to why there is no sign of the overdue glaciation or why the planet is getting warmer when it ought to be cooling?

    No, but all the people I cited (and many more), do.

  • Clavos

    Jordan, Thanks for the link in 146. Good article.

  • Clavos

    Why don’t you read about each of those guys you listed…

    I have, and more — I’ve read what they have written.

  • Clavos

    Clavos, money really isn’t that important to many people. It’s not that important to me. That’s why I see so easily the fallacy in your claim that the vast majority of the world’s scientists publicly agree on global warming even though they know it’s false, and then somehow all keep it secret. They’re not businessmen, Clavos – money really doesn’t mean that much to most of them other than as a means to an end.

    But that’s not true of Lindzen et alia, right, Glenn?

    See above (#159) as to my alleged “claims.”

  • Clavos

    Regardless of their background or status, they are still in the minority though…

    True, Chris. As were a number of now famous and revered scientists throughout history.

  • Clavos

    Dan(Miller) @#141:

    Bingo.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Chris, the thing is there are a number of “trained scientists” more than a few of whom have impeccable credentials and high level positions in the climatology community who disagree with the “majority.”

    What I don’t get is why the integrity of these scientists is supposedly beyond reproach, whereas everyone else is fudging the data in order to scare people or get more money.

  • Dan

    “What I don’t get is why the integrity of these scientists is supposedly beyond reproach, whereas everyone else is fudging the data in order to scare everybody or get more money.”—Dr Dreadful

    Because they’ve been caught fudging the data.

  • Clavos

    What I don’t get is why the integrity of these scientists is supposedly beyond reproach, whereas everyone else is fudging the data in order to scare everybody or get more money.

    Good point. So why do believers in AGW assert the reverse?

    It’s the believers who started the ad hominem attacks on the mavericks, not vice-versa. If Lindzen et alia cannot be believed because they have connections to the oil industry, then why are the signers of the IPCC reports (not all of whom are engaged in climate or atmospheric disciplines, BTW — not by a long shot) thought to be pure? They have strong connections to the government (many of them — some also have worked for oil companies) If they are not corruptible, then why are dissenters assumed to be?

    Insofar as both sides are engaging in “killing the messenger” tactics on this issue, it is, IMO, a non-issue.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Because they’ve been caught fudging the data.

    Au contraire. ‘Skeptics’ have been caught willfully misunderstanding the scientific method.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    If Lindzen et alia cannot be believed because they have connections to the oil industry, then why are the signers of the IPCC reports (not all of whom are engaged in climate or atmospheric disciplines, BTW — not by a long shot) thought to be pure?

    Clav, as I’ve said repeatedly, I’m not as interested in whoever might be using the data to forward an agenda as in what the data itself says.

    If they are not corruptible, then why are dissenters assumed to be?

    Because of the ways those on either side of the argument tend to demonstrate their relative integrity.

  • STM

    Andy: “You think you Canadians would appreciate the rest of us warming it up a bit for you, but no….”

    Youwould, wouldn’t you? Has anyone seen Ice Pilots NWT?

    Great show about an airline operating out of Yellowknife, flying WWII era piston engine planes. Buffalo Airlines rocks!

  • Clavos

    Clav, as I’ve said repeatedly, I’m not as interested in whoever might be using the data to forward an agenda as in what the data itself says.

    Have you read the data yourself, and are you qualified to interpret it, or are simply accepting what the IPCC and other believers say?

    Just curious.

    Because of the ways those on either side of the argument tend to demonstrate their relative integrity.

    Pretty damning article in that regard, alright.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Has anyone seen Ice Pilots NWT?

    Yeah, baby! Got my dad hooked on that and a little Ice Road Truckers. :)

  • STM

    Jordan: Ice Pilots is better than the trucker show, I reckon. I got to interview Mikey by phone in Yellowknife for a story about the show. Joe was supposed to be on line too, but I think Mikey might have thought better of it.

    We were comparing weather … so hot here you could only get cool in the middle of the night by having a cool shower or a swim and driving around in your car for half an air with the airconditioning on full blast, and so cold up there oil was turning to molasses and engines were immobilised by the cold within a few minutes.

    We ended up talking about Sophie, their hangar dog. From memory, he said: “Matter of fact, I’m looking at letter from Transport Canada roght now on the notice board that says Sophie is suspected of being the dog that ran onto the runway on (whatever the date was) and sat down, thus preventing the take-off of a scheduled Boeing 737 passenger flight.”

    Lol. The more I know about Canada and Canadians, the more I realise it’s just a cold version of Australia, especially once you get out in the sticks.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    As of the turn of the century, there were about a half BILLION cars on the road spitting out carbon monoxide almost every damned day…

    …and you presume to believe that these would have NOTHING to do with changes in our world climate?

  • Clavos

    As of the turn of the century, there were about a half BILLION cars on the road spitting out carbon monoxide almost every damned day…

    …and you presume to believe that these would have NOTHING to do with changes in our world climate?

    Yep. Not much at all. It’s carbon dioxide (CO2) the scientists are worried about, not monoxide.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Yes, CO is not itself considered a greenhouse gas…but read THIS:

    Carbon monoxide has an indirect radiative effect by elevating concentrations of methane and tropospheric ozone through scavenging of atmospheric constituents (e.g., the hydroxyl radical, OH) that would otherwise destroy them. Carbon monoxide is created when carbon-containing fuels are burned incompletely. Through natural processes in the atmosphere, it is eventually oxidized to carbon dioxide. Carbon monoxide has an atmospheric lifetime of only a few months and as a consequence is spatially more variable than longer-lived gases.

    So, again – do you REALLY think that a half-BILLION cars pumping out CO (or CO2, as in the case of cars with catalytic converters) every single damned day doesn’t affect our atmosphere?

  • Clavos

    “Affect?” To some degree, yes.

    Deleteriously?

    According to many, No — According to others, not necessarily and there are more compelling problems.

    Some CO2 is required in the atmosphere — how much is still being debated. Why? Because, for one, increased CO2 increases plant (including crops) growth. For another, increasing and preserving the world’s carbon sinks (mostly forests) which absorb CO2 and other gases, is actively being promoted by various environmental groups. Some scientists also point out that increased crop growth adds to the world’s overall sink capability.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Have you read the data yourself, and are you qualified to interpret it, or are simply accepting what the IPCC and other believers say?

    “Believers” is a loaded term in this context, Clav. I think I’m more conversant with the science than most non-scientists.

    Although the IPCC does receive funding from governments, I’m not going to dismiss the information in their reports just because of that. I’d rather read what they say and decide for myself.

    To use again a type of analogy I’ve employed more than once in response to well-poisoning attempts, if Bernie Madoff knocks on my door and tells me my roof is on fire, I’m probably going to go outside and check it out rather than just slam the door in his face.

    The other reason I don’t incline to your view on this issue, much as I’d love it to be correct, is that the majority of global warming ‘skeptics’ employ the same tactics as creationists in their attempts to discredit the science.

    In particular, they tend to focus on single small details rather than the big picture, as if they think that removing one brick will bring the entire building down. The second link in your #179 is a prime example.

  • Clavos

    Doc, Doc, Doc,

    You bitch slap me for my link in my 179, and in the same comment cite a link at least as dubious. C’mon Doc, usually you do better, as I acknowledge in my 173.

  • Clavos

    BTW Doc,

    I think I’m more conversant with the science than most non-scientists.

    I think you are, too, which is why I measure my responses to you.

  • Boeke

    Plant life only uses about 2/3 of the CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is not a limiting parameter. More CO2 does not mean more plant life.

    If NASA ground engineers had not found a solution for the Apollo13 oxygen loss, the Astronauts would have died of CO2 poisoning.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Clav, it isn’t dubious just because it’s from a blog. I could cite examples of each tactic as used by creationists and AGW skeptics, but they’re all easy enough to find online.

  • Dan

    Dr. Dreadful, check comment #7 in the link you provided in #180, and subsequent back and forth.

    I see the same parallels in argumentive style. Only it’s the ID deniers and warmers who dishoner themselves. (ie. Piltdown man and devising “tricks” to “hide the decline”.

  • Dan

    Paul Krugman is now blaming the crisis in Egypt on climate change.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    1 – Your list of petitioners gives NO WAY to verify what PhD’s are held or even if those PhD’s are real. I checked through their signing system and I could sign in myself and claim I have a PhD and they’d buy it!

    Please, Clavos, apply your skepticism to your own references!

    2 – Your reference from John-Daly.com is dated from 1999, and it’s attacking a climate change model from 1996 – that’s fifteen years ago! Try finding proof against current models by reputable sources!

    And btw, even your reference shows that huge uptick in atmospheric CO2 gives NO alternate explanation for the increase… and that’s what ALL you AGW deniers lack – a plausible explanation for the CO2 content of the atmosphere that is suddenly higher than it’s been for 400,000 years!

    All you do is sit there saying that AGW is false, use strawmen and faulty logic to support what you claim, and then – because to your own mind there’s no need to – you give NO alternative explanation.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Dr. Dreadful, check comment #7 in the link you provided in #180, and subsequent back and forth.

    800 papers versus several million?

    Only it’s the ID deniers and warmers who dishoner themselves. (ie. Piltdown man…

    Dan, you make it almost impossible to take you seriously. A 100-year-old practical joke is supposed to be proof of pervasive scientific dishonesty?

    …and devising “tricks” to “hide the decline”.

    You simply refuse to see this in context, or in any other way than the way that you think makes Jones look bad, don’t you?

    It’s quite impressive. You’ve got cherry-picking, confirmation bias and a straw man all in one neat little accusation.

    [sigh] One more time, for the slow kids at the back…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Paul Krugman is now blaming the crisis in Egypt on climate change.

    Who cares?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I checked through their signing system and I could sign in myself and claim I have a PhD and they’d buy it!

    IIRC and if it’s the same petition I’m thinking of, Kylie Minogue was on it at one point!

  • Dan

    “800 papers versus several million?”

    No, 800 papers versus zero. (the stated claim was zero)

    “… A 100-year-old practical joke..”

    That is of course not the only instance. just a well known fraud that is useful to make the point that the desire to falsify evidence seems nearly exclusively to fall to the atheist zealots. And now to the warmers.

    “[sigh] One more time, for the slow kids at the back…”

    Old news. Even in context it still demonstrates a willful misrepresentation of data. In the context of the total hacked e-mail exposure the exuse making is pretty lame.

    Some scams die hard. There is a lot of investment in this one. Once public confidence is eroded, politicians will back away, as they are doing, The issue will then fade.

  • Dan

    here is a look at the data that was deleted and a look at the graph that was reconstructed after the decline was hidden in order to avoid giving “fodder to the skeptics”.

    Just for balance.

  • STM

    Doc: ‘skeptics’

    Mate, you’be been in America far too long. What happened to the Queen’s English??

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    No, 800 papers versus zero. (the stated claim was zero)

    So, no peer-reviewed paper supporting the theory of anthropogenic climate change has ever been published? Okaaay.

    It’s entertaining to watch your attempts to rewrite reality, Dan, it really is.

    …just a well known fraud that is useful to make the point that the desire to falsify evidence seems nearly exclusively to fall to the atheist zealots.

    Hold it right there, Dan… you know who was responsible for the Piltdown Man hoax? If so, do tell. It’s been the subject of a great deal of speculation, but no-one’s ever found out for sure who did it – until now, apparently!

    It’s also news to me that atheists must also by default be Bad Scientists. Perhaps all women are bad drivers as well.

    Even in context it still demonstrates a willful misrepresentation of data.

    No, it doesn’t, and it takes extreme bias in the best case and willful dishonesty in the worst to portray it as such. It was a tweaking of a model to try to eliminate statistical noise; to explore why the results of the modelling weren’t making any sense in the light of known data.

    As a very crude analogy, suppose there were to be a Senate election in Utah, known to be a heavily Republican state, and a week or so before the election I were to conduct an opinion poll which came up with a result that suggested 75% of those polled intended to vote Democrat.

    All other things being equal, that wouldn’t make any sense, right? So, I take a closer look at the poll returns and discover that out of the 1000 voters my team of pollsters had called, half of those phone numbers happened to have been obtained from the membership list of the Utah Democratic Party.

    Wouldn’t it then make sense to allow for that skewed result by excluding or otherwise factoring for the unrepresentative part of the sample?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Mate, you’be been in America far too long. What happened to the Queen’s English??

    Just trying to talk to the natives in a language they can understand, Stan. It’s either that or shouting.

  • STM

    Shout away Doc, I’d reckon … better than murdering the English language.

  • Clavos

    What happened to the Queen’s English??

    We don’t speak English here, Stan, much less the “Queen’s English;” we speak American (except, of course, for the millions who speak only Spanish).

    Just trying to talk to the natives in a language they can understand…

    Condescension now…

  • STM

    G’day Clav. That’s Merrikan, isn’t it? Is it a bit like Strine?

  • Clavos

    You got it, mate. G’day to you, too…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    please see #187.

  • STM

    Classic Strine:

    With air chew (I can’t live, if living is …)

    Afferbeck Lorder

    Gloria Soame

    Terror Souse

    D’ya goada (tennis yesterday?)

    Air fridge (kinda bloke)

    Aorta (fix them fu.kin roads)

    How about some Merrikan egg-samples??

    Airman cheese semmitch

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Occasional condescension would be acceptable if it were grounded in the venerable English tradition of common sense, proper usage and proper attention to ordinary language philosophy. It loses, however, some of its bite when used as a trump card on behalf of a rather vulgar, positivistic view of natural and social sciences.

  • STM

    Forgot the best one of all:

    Emma Chisitt?

  • STM

    Come again, Rog … what was that?

    We’ll all need a gobbler mince to work that out.

  • STM

    Geez it’s ‘ot ‘ere. Me egg nishner’s not working.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Condescension now…

    Old habits die hard.

  • STM

    Doc, how’s the hembairg going?

    Also, gobbler mince is wrong. It means compliments.

    Should be: gahbla mince = Coupla minutes. Lol. Gahbla’s appropriate too.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Gahbla?

    Poor old you, mate. Country’s waterlogged at one end and a giant sauna at the other. No wonder you’re going ga-ga.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    You’re gonna have to unpack my thought, Stanley baby; it’s part of the fun. But then again, since you’ve found it a puzzler, you’re only guilty of naive rather than rabid realism. You’re not as deep (in the rabbit hole … hell, chose your own metaphor) as you might have been.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Ga-ga. There you go, Stanley, Queen’s English for you. Dreadful has become incorrigible.

  • STM

    Doc: “Gahbla?”

    I’ll deal with you in a gahbla mince, Doc. First I have to work out what Rog’s saying.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Forget it, Stan. It was but a note on the margin, destination “Dreadful.”

  • STM

    Rog, you have to watch out for Doc. He’s dreadful.

  • Dan

    “So, no peer-reviewed paper supporting the theory of anthropogenic climate change has ever been published? Okaaay.”

    You’re confusing the argument. (seems to happen a lot) It wasn’t a contest between which side had the most peer-reviewed papers. The author of the blog you posted claimed that “oddly almost no peer reviewed work is published to support their thesis”. To which a commentor linked to 850 peer reviewed papers supporting their thesis.

    “It’s also news to me that atheists must also by default be Bad Scientists”

    not atheists. As I said, atheist zealots. Some atheists make fine scientists. zealots of any stripe often do not.

    I understand your analogy. Tree rings as temperature proxies worked well for about 80 years but post 1960, diverged from instrumentally recorded temperatures.

    But since no one can explain why this modern divergence occurs, there can be no real confidence that these proxy measurements did not diverge from what instruments would have measured in the distant past.

    That is what is being “hidden”. Splicing out inconvienient data but relying on unconfirmed data from centuries past because it fits your hypothesis of sudden unprecedented warming is not good science.

    It’s not as egregious as some make it out to be, but this one example is not the only excess exposed in the climategate scandal either.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Doing my best to keep him honest and true to form. We can’t let the proper English upbringing – shoot, he’s part Welsh – go to waste.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    The following example, illustrating the emergence of astrophysics in the 20th century, may be of help trying to understand the status of present-day climate science in terms of its observational and theoretical components.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    But since no one can explain why this modern divergence occurs, there can be no real confidence that these proxy measurements did not diverge from what instruments would have measured in the distant past.

    Say instead that no one YOU will accept can explain it…because the scientists that aren’t bought off by Big Oil are explaining very well what happened. You are just determined not to believe them no matter how much evidence they bring.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    You’re confusing the argument. (seems to happen a lot) It wasn’t a contest between which side had the most peer-reviewed papers. The author of the blog you posted claimed that “oddly almost no peer reviewed work is published to support their thesis”. To which a commentor linked to 850 peer reviewed papers supporting their thesis.

    I see what you meant now. I think you could have been a bit clearer: the claim was not that no peer-reviewed skeptical papers had been published, but very few. 800-odd papers out of several million is, by any statistical measure, “very few”. So my original point stands.

    not atheists. As I said, atheist zealots.

    I’m still waiting for your explanation of why Piltdown Man is an example of atheist zealotry. Since it’s never been discovered who was responsible for the hoax, you’re going to have to demonstrate (1) who did it, (2) that they were an atheist and (3) that they were motivated by zeal.

    On top of that, you also claimed that the hoax was an example of “ID denial”. You’ll have to show your reasoning (if any) behind that as well.

    But since no one can explain why this modern divergence occurs…

    Actually, they can (PDF). Also, the divergence does not occur in all trees, but only those in high northern latitudes: in other words, trees located near the planet’s biggest industrial centers. Hmmm…

    That is what is being “hidden”. Splicing out inconvenient data but relying on unconfirmed data from centuries past because it fits your hypothesis of sudden unprecedented warming is not good science.

    Since this was a private e-mail discussing raw data that only other climate scientists were looking at, and that the “spliced out” data was readily available to all of them, what exactly was being hidden?

    It’s not as egregious as some make it out to be

    It’s not egregious at all. Multiple independent investigations have cleared those involved of anything more egregious than not being as open as they could have. Their scientific integrity is not in question.

    this one example is not the only excess exposed in the climategate scandal either.

    Of the thousands of e-mails stolen, only a few cherry-picked lines have been presented, out of context, as evidence of supposed “excess”.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I’m not familiar with this Ice Pilots thing…where can I find it?

  • Boeke

    Andy,

    Google “ice pilots”.

    For the more advanced:

    Google “Torrent ice pilots”

  • Clavos

    For the more advanced:

    Cute.

    meh.

  • El Bicho

    just checking, anyone change their mind yet?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Sent your e-mail to Technorati recommending that we get rid of comments yet?

  • Dan

    “So my original point stands”

    You mean your unsolicited, unchallenged point? I guess if you are just throwing out the random boast that warmers have more peer-reviewed published papers than skeptics and want me to comment on it then OK, I concur. “several million” sounds kind of on the heavy side though.

    “I’m still waiting for your explanation of why Piltdown Man is an example of atheist zealotry.”

    I’m waiting for you to explain how you know Piltdown Man was a “practical joke”. Where’s your inside information coming from?

    “Actually, they can (PDF).” (explain divergence of tree ring proxy from recorded temperatures)

    Once again, you should read your evidence before you link to it. Much theorizing, very little certainty, lots of co-variants.

    My favorite one was “drought stress”. I guess droughts never occured prior to 1960.

    If there were any scientific certainty to the theories they could have recalibrated the stubborn data and included it. (with proper documentation of the supporting principles). But there is no scientific certainty.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    “Scientific certainty” is no different than any other kind of certainty; consequently, according it a privileged status is a misconception.

  • Dan

    Not sure what you’re driving at roger. Certainly there are degrees of certainty where privilege status is confered according to confidence level.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    No doubt, and it has all got to do with evidence and so forth. The point is that so-called “scientific certainty,” your term, is subject to rules of evidence as any other field of inquiry. Consequently, “scientific certainty,” ipso facto, is on par with the kind of certainty that’s available in other fields – psychology, linguistic analysis, even everyday personal insights or accounts of one’s experiences (hallucinations excluded).

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I’m waiting for you to explain how you know Piltdown Man was a “practical joke”.

    Tu quoque won’t fly. On further reflection, it’s unlikely that it was a practical joke, but you made the original claim. Ball’s in your court.

    Once again, you should read your evidence before you link to it. Much theorizing, very little certainty, lots of co-variants.

    Dan – you claimed that no-one could explain the variations. That’s not so. There are several possible explanations in that paper. Rather than simply accept, as you seem content to do, that the divergence is because there’s no warming, the authors decided to do some actual research.

    This is actually just the point I originally made: that ‘skeptics’ tend to pick at single small details in the hope that somehow they’ll disprove the entire theory.

    It’s a bit like saying that because Humphrey Bogart never said “Play it again, Sam”, the movie Casablanca doesn’t exist.

    I guess droughts never occured prior to 1960.

    Not to the extent they do now, thanks to climate change.

    If there were any scientific certainty to the theories they could have recalibrated the stubborn data and included it.

    The paper hadn’t been written when Jones’s e-mail was sent.

  • Dan

    “Tu quoque won’t fly. On further reflection…”

    “further reflection” made it fly.

    “Dan – you claimed that no-one could explain the variations.”

    Yes. poor word choice. I didn’t intend to include the obvious guess response that automatically just comes from first realisation of a problem

    “Not to the extent they do now, thanks to climate change”

    Circular logic, or time machine?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    “further reflection” made it fly.

    Harumph. OK. If you’re happy now, perhaps we can discuss El Señor de Piltdown…

    the obvious guess response

    Known to civilized society as a hypothesis.

    Circular logic, or time machine?

    It’s not circular logic if you don’t ignore the evidence.

  • STM

    Dan: “My favorite one was “drought stress”. I guess droughts never occured prior to 1960.”

    I’m in Australia … drought, fire, flood, storm, severe weather (cyclones and heatwaves) are a fact of life here and have been since the continent was first settled many thousands of years ago. Scientic study shows that to be the case. Since weather data was first recorded after the first white settlers arrived, the data appears to back up the cyclical nature of it.

    In other words, it doesn’t appear to be doing anything different. Extreme conditions are part of living here. The leader of the Greens Party recently blamed climate change for our terrible floods and the cyclone in Queensland.

    Oh, hang on … what about the cyclone that demolished Darwin and the floods that inundated Brisbane in the early 70s?

    All of which might explain my scepticism, since every generation has had a similar tale to tell in my family stretching way back to the turn of the 20th century. So far, scientific studies appear only to support that extreme weather continues in this country. So is the climate changing?

    Quite possibly. Is it man made, or cyclical? Who knows. Where’s the definitive answer either way … free of the agenda-driven hot air and bullsh.t, that is.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Well, exactly, Stan. You live in a country of extremes. Australia isn’t that great of a yardstick when it comes to measuring changes in climate.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Yeah Stan, the US has no extreme areas of weather anywhere within her borders. No places like International Falls or Death Valley. How can you possibly compare??!??!?

  • Clavos

    I don’t know about Death Valley, but International Falls’ only claim to fame is that it’s often the coldest place in the USA (but not the continent), and that phenomenon has more to do with the topography of its location than the climate or weather.

    It’s only an “extreme” in a very provincial (and limited) sense.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    And Stan, you’re conflating weather with climate. Extreme weather events like the Queensland floods, Cyclone Yasi and your recent ten-year drought may be routine Down Under, but they’ve got little to do with whether parts of the continent are getting gradually hotter and dryer, or hotter and wetter, which they are.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    International Falls’ only claim to fame is that it’s often the coldest place in the USA

    Not true, Clav. Tammy Faye Bakker also hails from the town, a fact of which I’m sure they’re even more immensely proud…

  • Dan

    “Harumph. OK. If you’re happy now, perhaps we can discuss El Señor de Piltdown…”

    OK sure, on further reflection, I guess I would still have to say that it seems most likely the culprit was a proponent of macro-evolution.

    “Known to civilized society as a hypothesis.”

    Actually it’s merely inference.

  • Dan

    “It’s not circular logic if you don’t ignore the evidence.”

    The climategate scandal offered some evidence that shouldn’t be ignored.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    OK sure, on further reflection, I guess I would still have to say that it seems most likely the culprit was a proponent of macro-evolution.

    I will take that as a grudging retraction. Appreciated and acknowledged.

    Whether the culprit believed in macroevolution or not, I think it’s likely that they badly wanted there to have been a British-based human ancestor. It fit in with the cultural narrative of the times.

    Just so we’re clear, though, “proponent of macro-evolution” =/= “ID denier” =/= “atheist zealot”.

    The climategate scandal offered some evidence that shouldn’t be ignored.

    As I pointed out before, multiple investigations cleared those involved of any scientific misconduct.

  • Dan

    “I will take that as a grudging retraction. Appreciated and acknowledge.”

    It wasn’t intended as any kind of retraction. In fact it was simply restating my original thesis in a way that cannot be misinterpreted; honestly or intentionally.

    “Just so we’re clear, though, “proponent of macro-evolution” =/= “ID denier” =/= “atheist zealot”.”

    Just as clear though, is that all 3 subsets intersect.

    “As I pointed out before, multiple investigations cleared those involved of any scientific misconduct.”

    Not exactly. There were some admonitions about openness and sloppiness. But even so, not many have complete confidence in the smooth over.

    The good news is that the curtain was lifted, if only momentarily, so that everyone can see the sort of scientific sausage making that is at the heart of the huge scam unethical politicians were having wet dreams over.

    As a result, public confidence has eroded and the politicians have pulled back.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    it was simply restating my original thesis in a way that cannot be misinterpreted; honestly or intentionally.

    If you say so…

    Just as clear though, is that all 3 subsets intersect.

    Which is meaningless, as it proves nothing one way or the other about evolution, whether there is/was an intelligent designer and whether God exists.

    There were some admonitions about openness and sloppiness.

    But none about the soundness of the actual science.

    But even so, not many have complete confidence in the smooth over.

    So if one of the inquiries had found that their had been scientific fraud, it would have been a free, fair and open investigation, but since none of them did, it’s all been “smoothed over”?

    so that everyone can see the sort of scientific sausage making that is at the heart of the huge scam

    If that’s what they wanted to see. (See my previous posts re cherry-picking and confirmation bias.) Plenty of people just saw what was actually going on: ordinary scientists going about and discussing their work – and occasionally and justifiably pissed off at being harrassed and called liars.

    the politicians have pulled back.

    Probably good news. Politicians just bugger things up.

  • Clavos

    the politicians have pulled back.

    So has the public.

  • Dan

    “If you say so…”

    I will take that as a grudging retraction. Appreciated and acknowledged.

    “Which is meaningless, as it proves nothing one way or the other…”

    As is your statement I responded to.

    “So if one of the inquiries had found that their had been scientific fraud, it would have been a free, fair and open investigation, but since none of them did, it’s all been “smoothed over”?”

    Well is seems to have been an attempt to smooth it over, but it doesn’t seem to have had the desired effect. Momentum for policy change has been disrupted, and AGW scientists will likely be under more scrutiny from now on.

    Both good things in my estimation.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I will take that as a grudging retraction. Appreciated and acknowledged.

    Take it as whatever you like. (It tastes better with salt.)

    As is your statement I responded to.

    My statement was a mathematical expression. It was a sorting-out of your original one, which was an unholy conjunction of innuendo and ad hominem.

    Well is seems to have been an attempt to smooth it over, but it doesn’t seem to have had the desired effect.

    If you’ve already made up your mind about AGW, I don’t imagine that anything short of idly striking a match and realizing that you’ve inadvertently set the atmosphere on fire is going to convince you otherwise.

    Both good things in my estimation.

    I agree with you as to the second. As to the first, momentum for policy change, given that it’s in the hands of politicians, pretty much peters out after one election cycle anyway.