Most of us learned a long time ago that one's support of someone else's crime makes one an accessory to that crime. Well, now the the TSIC, Treasonous Saboteur in Chief, is in Copenhagen on his campaign to destroy the American Dream, and since we know (thanks to one of the BC Politics editors) that he is indeed a treasonous saboteur, that means that all of us who supported (and continue to support) him are guilty of aiding and abetting treason and sabotage most foul.
Now we can add two of the most prestigious universities on the planet, Harvard and Princeton, to our treasonous ranks. Why? Because they had the bad manners to publish a study supporting the idea of Global Warming (GW) which every right-thinking American knows is a vast left-wing conspiracy, the centerpiece of our grand campaign to turn America into a socialist/fascist/communist/Maoist labor camp. And we're closer to our goal than one might think, because we even stole the sign from the entrance to the Auschwitz Concentration Camp memorial, the one that says "Arbeit Macht Frei", which is German for "Work Makes You Free". Yep! We're a-gonna hang that sign up above the portico of the Lincoln Memorial, yes, that's just what we're a-gonna do!
But I digress. Let's look at the treasonous disinformation campaign being waged by Harvard and Princeton. They claim that their researchers compiled an extensive database of geological sea level indicators for a period known as the last interglacial stage about 125,000 years ago. Polar temperatures during this stage, they said, were likely 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, as is expected to occur in the future if temperatures reach about about 4 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels. They go on to claim that this will cause the sea level to rise between 20 to 30 feet, and cause the permanent inundation of much of the East Coast (no big loss), NOLA, much of southern Florida, Bangladesh, the Netherlands, and of course this would include a whole slew of island nations that don't matter much anyhow.
Yes, Harvard and Princeton have joined the blasphemous ranks of Oxford, Beijing University, and the University of Cambridge. Frankly, I think the governments of the world should treat these universities the way the Bush administration treated federal climate scientists: by censoring their research, warning them against using phrases like global warming or climate change in their articles, or by simply editing their articles to completely change their meanings!
I gotta tell you, the Bush administration really knew what they were doing when they were shutting these traitorous saboteurs up! In a survey of 1600 government scientists, 43% of respondents said their published work had been revised in ways that altered the meaning of scientific findings. Some 38% said they had direct knowledge of cases where scientific information on climate was stripped from websites and printed reports.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - roger nowosielski
How are you doing, Glenn?
Good to know you're still active.
2 - Dave Nalle
Meanwhile Russia's IEA reveals that the climate data from Siberian stations which the CRU used for their reports on which the IPCC report was based were "cherrypicked" and 75% of the data which didn't fit the global warming scenario was ignored.
But carry on with your attempts to distract, Glenn.
Dave
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Yeah, Dave - Harvard and Princeton are both 'cherry-picking' data and making up stuff, too.
All the scientists in the world are fully engaged in the worldwide left-wing conspiracy to promote the climate change myth...and the ONLY scientists you can trust are the ones who are being funded and supported by Big Oil!
Uh huh, yeah, sure Dave.
4 - Clavos
That academics and universities (especially "prestigious" ones) would offer biased results for their academic endeavors should come as no surprise to anyone. They've been doing it for decades, even centuries, and not just in this country.
Socrates, Galileo?
Unskeptical/critical acceptance of pronouncements emanating from the academic world is truly baffling.
As baffling as unskeptical/critical acceptance of pronouncements from Washington (or any other seat of government).
Or any authority anywhere, for that matter.
5 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos - you are essentially saying that since the VAST majority of academia across the planet and in almost all nations is agreeing on something, they MUST be biased and therefore wrong.
How very logical, Clavos. Not.
How long did it take for the scientists of the world to convince people that plate tectonics are real, that general and special relativity are real, that evolution is real? In each case, they faced great resistance - initially from within their own ranks - that these were real. But you and I both know these are real and measurable.
Clavos, I know you won't do this (having the intestinal fortitude to question one's own beliefs is not normally a conservative trait), but I wish that you would ask yourself (and honestly answer yourself) what is the source of your cynicism of what the vast majority of academia is saying. Is your cynicism truly of the science? Or are you cynical of 'global warming' because it's the Democrats who more readily accepted its premise?
6 - Dr Dreadful
Sorry to disappoint you, Dave, but the IEA (which is a right-wing think tank, BTW, not a climate research organization) did not tell the whole story.
When you actually plug in the numbers from a larger group of Russian stations, the graph correlates pretty closely with the ones the CRU used.
7 - Clavos
Clavos - you are essentially saying that since the VAST majority of academia across the planet and in almost all nations is agreeing on something, they MUST be biased and therefore wrong.
No, I didn't say anything even remotely like that.
But unanimity is not, to me, proof of infallibility, which is why I mentioned Socrates and Galileo.
How long did it take for the scientists of the world to convince people that plate tectonics are real, that general and special relativity are real, that evolution is real? In each case, they faced great resistance - initially from within their own ranks - that these were real. But you and I both know these are real and measurable.
But irrelevant to the questioning of the putative anthropogenesis of GW and therefore the possibility of mitigating its hypothesized effects, which also should be subject to question.
And I'm not cynical so much as skeptical, as I almost always am of any authority, religious, political or secular.
8 - Clavos
When you actually plug in the numbers from a larger group of Russian stations, the graph correlates pretty closely with the ones the CRU used.
Not according to Ria Novosti, which reports, in part:
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
and...
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
Just sayin'...
9 - Dr Dreadful
Clav, Ria Novosti is simply reporting the allegations of the IEA, whose 'analysts' are the ones whose claims are refuted in the link I provided.
You're arguing in circles.
10 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
But irrelevant to the questioning of the putative anthropogenesis of GW and therefore the possibility of mitigating its hypothesized effects, which also should be subject to question.
- There are close to 7B humans on this planet, the majority of whom use fossil fuels every single day.
- There are an estimated 600 million vehicles on the road, almost all of which are being used every day, spewing CO into the air.
- There are over 50 thousand coal plants operating in the world 24/7, and these environmentally-worst-of-all plants add untold tons of CO2 into the air every day. Coal plants account for one-third of America's total CO2 emissions.
- Look up in the sky - see the contrails? There's about 14,000 flights in American airspace every day. In the aftermath of 9/11, when pretty much ALL air traffic was grounded nationwide for three days, the change in temperature range during those three days was just over one degree centigrade. And you have to realize that from a layman's perspective that doesn't sound like much, but from a climate perspective that is huge.
Clavos, if there's one thing humanity HAS learned in the past two hundred years, it's that this world ain't so big. How anyone can look at the numbers above and think that these might not be having an effect on the world climate as a whole, how anyone can somehow demand further proof, I cannot fathom.
But as I stated earlier, having the intestinal fortitude to question one's own beliefs is not normally part of the conservative mindset.
11 - Franco
10 - Glenn Contrarian - But as I stated earlier, having the intestinal fortitude to question one's own beliefs is not normally part of the conservative mindset.
Pure progressive bullshit!!!
12 - Clavos
But as I stated earlier, having the intestinal fortitude to question one's own beliefs is not normally part of the conservative mindset.
Let me see, over the course of my lifetime, I have questioned and rejected the following beliefs with which I was inculcated by my parents and others:
1. Belief in the existence of a supreme being.
2. Belief in the existence of souls.
3. Belief in the hereafter.
4. Belief in the concept of religion.
5. Belief in the greatness of this country.
6. Belief in the inherent goodness of human beings.
7. Uncritical belief in political dogma, or systems, whether left or right, liberal or conservative.
...To name just a few beliefs I have questioned over the years.
Presently, in the absence of convincing (to me) evidence, I question the theory of manmade GW being promulgated by fallible, venal human beings who have already shown their propensity for prevarication, pomposity and exaggeration in promoting their theories.
"Trust, but verify."
- Look up in the sky - see the contrails? Sure, they are condensed moisture (ice crystals) from the aircraft's exhaust, as well as moisture (water) present in the atmosphere through which the aircraft is flying. Though some have speculated that they could affect temperature of the atmosphere (by generating cloud formation), that has never been proved. Conversely, scientists have tried for centuries to deliberately create clouds and rain, with little success. A one degree change in temperature over three days is hardly remarkable; temperatures rise and fall tens of degrees in a matter of hours as air masses in the atmosphere shift and move about, that's what weather (as opposed to climate) is all about. Do you have a citation for the attribution of the supposed temperature change to the lack of air traffic?
- There are over 50 thousand coal plants operating in the world 24/7, and these environmentally-worst-of-all plants add untold tons of CO2 into the air every day. Coal plants account for one-third of America's total CO2 emissions.
And yet, historical data indicates that past warmings have preceded increases in atmospheric CO2. CO2 is beneficial to plants, and some scientists are postulating that present day vegetation is healthier and heartier precisely because of increased CO2.
- There are an estimated 600 million vehicles on the road, almost all of which are being used every day, spewing CO into the air.
The role of CO in contributing to GW has not been determined, and not quantified.
13 - Dave Nalle
Plus CO emissions from the current 600 million relatively clean cars is considerably lower than the emissions from the dirtier but smaller number of cars of a decade or even two ago.
Dave
14 - Baritone
If the deniers prevail, and they are wrong?
Well, me and Clav, and Dave, and probably most of us clacking away here at BC, will likely be dead before the consequences are fully realized. So, who gives a crap.
B
15 - Dave Nalle
I do, because I have kids. And one of the things I give a crap about is not leaving them with a crushing burden of debt and fewer liberties than we currently enjoy.
Dave
16 - Dr Dreadful
And yet, historical data indicates that past warmings have preceded increases in atmospheric CO2.
True, but irrelevant in this case. The fact that past CO2 increases have lagged behind climate warmings does not explain why this CO2 increase is accompanied by warming.
The role of CO in contributing to GW has not been determined, and not quantified.
You have got to be kidding. It's the single most important cause, the most observed and the easiest to demonstrate.
17 - Dr Dreadful
Dave, I hope your kids enjoy their liberties without a liveable biosphere to enjoy them in.
18 - Clavos
The role of CO in contributing to GW has not been determined, and not quantified.
You have got to be kidding. It's the single most important cause, the most observed and the easiest to demonstrate.
Not according to Science Daily:
It has been difficult for scientists to quantify the greenhouse effect of short-lived pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, which do not themselves have a significant impact on climate. (emphasis added)
19 - Clavos
The fact that past CO2 increases have lagged behind climate warmings does not explain why this CO2 increase is accompanied by warming.
Nor does the fact that the present warming is "accompanied" by an increase in CO2 establish a correlation other than a temporal coincidence.
20 - Dave Nalle
Sorry to disappoint you, Dave, but the IEA (which is a right-wing think tank, BTW, not a climate research organization) did not tell the whole story.
Actually, the IEA is more of a libertarian group than a right-wing or conservative one. But regardless, why does that disqualify them any more than the various left-leaning environmentalist groups are discredited when they advocate for AGW theory?
When you actually plug in the numbers from a larger group of Russian stations, the graph correlates pretty closely with the ones the CRU used.
Source? All the sources I've seen have talked about the suspicious omissions, but not so much about the actual data.
Dave
21 - Dr Dreadful
carbon monoxide
Ah, I misread that one. My apologies.
Nor does the fact that the present warming is "accompanied" by an increase in CO2 establish a correlation other than a temporal coincidence.
Natural emissions of CO2 are roughly balanced by the natural mechanisms that absorb them (principally vegetation and the oceans). CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at a much higher level than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Given that it is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that humans are churning out billions of tons of CO2 each year, it is reasonable to conclude that human emissions are the cause of warming.
22 - Dr Dreadful
Dave (#20): I provided a source in my #6.
23 - zingzing
"Pure progressive bullshit!!!"
ahh, shit that moves forward.
"Actually, the IEA is more of a libertarian group than a right-wing or conservative one."
are libertarians now part of the left wing?
24 - Clavos
CO2 levels in the atmosphere are purported to be at a much higher level than at any time in the last 800,000 years, but of course, scientists can only extrapolate (using very subjective computer "models" what the levels were 800,000, or even 200 years ago.
There. Fixed it for ya, Doc.
Given that it is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that humans are churning out billions of tons of CO2 each year, it is reasonable to conclude that human emissions, and what happens to them after their release into the atmosphere require further, completely open, peer and publicly disseminated and reviewed study before concluding that they are the cause of warming.
Ditto.
25 - Dr Dreadful
scientists can only extrapolate (using very subjective computer "models" what the levels were 800,000, or even 200 years ago.
You're mischaracterising the use of models, Clav. Models are used to predict what should be happening if a certain set of conditions is true. There are models for natural CO2 forcing, for anthropogenic forcing and for a mix of both. (So they are not subjective.) The predictions from these models are then tested against real-world measurements - which for time periods before direct air measurements began are obtained from, among other things, ice core samples.
The snag for your argument is that no model which does not include human CO2 emissions can account for the pattern of warming we see.
it is reasonable to conclude that human emissions, and what happens to them after their release into the atmosphere require further, completely open, peer and publicly disseminated and reviewed study before concluding that they are the cause of warming.
You act as if climate scientists simply make their predictions and then don't bother to gather any actual data. There are vastly more peer-reviewed studies which support the theory of AGW than there are which doubt it.
There could, of course, be a global scientific conspiracy to suppress anti-AGW data, but there actually being anthropogenic global warming going on seems to me to be a much more reasonable conclusion - especially since none of the 'anti' crowd's claims stand up to close scrutiny.