‘Santa’ Klaus Takes on Global Warming
The planet, as far as we can tell, is getting somewhat colder, perhaps due to solar cooling. So the Obama administration is coming into power at exactly the moment when the evidence for their idée fixe is crumbling. But True Faith passes all reason, and there is no indication that any Obamanistas have bothered to take notice of inconvenient facts.
Which should given pause to honest people, including scientists. A lot of scientists can tell a flaming fraud when they see one, but they are keeping their heads well down. Freeman Dyson, one of the great physicists, tells us why:
When science gets rich it becomes political.
According to Dyson, our problem is not underfunding science; it’s overfunding scientists until they become politicized. But that kind of science will sell out its only real mission — of discovering and telling the truth — to the highest bidder.
This is bad news. Because the whole climatic doom scenario is based on simplified math models relating speculative “greenhouse gases” to Planetary Doom — basically computer games like SimCity, which don’t come close to the real complexity of the atmosphere by a long shot. Every physicist worth his or her salt knows that. Simplistic computer models don’t work because they ignore too many factors — like atmospheric water and Mr. Sun, just to name two. In their own specialties most scientists would dismiss such simplistic models out of hand. This one they don’t dare to touch.
Freeman Dyson writes:
I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”
We are therefore seeing science by political fiat — which is to say, science that is prostituted to the powermongers. It is a direct descendant of Hitler’s denunciation of Einstein’s Relativity Theory as “Jewish science,” and Stalin’s heady fantasy that he could force Soviet crops to grow bigger, dazzled by his favorite agronomical “scientist” Trofim Lysenko. Commanding the weather to change is not much different from those totalitarian fantasies. Barack Obama has already told us that his mere election will slow the “rising of the oceans.”
This is not joke. It’s actually Groucho Marxism:
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”
So where’s the laugh line?
The world’s Green politicians are gathering in Poznan, Poland, to split the loot through a new Kyoto II Treaty. They blame the failure of the last Kyoto Accords on the United States, and now that America has seen the light by electing Obama, by golly, they are going to collect but good. Sugar plum fairies? How about power and riches through a worldwide carbon trading scheme? How about a centralized international planning bureaucracy for all the smokestack industries in the world (except in China and India, which have wisely exempted themselves). How about selling Papal indulgences to make all the dirty sinners living off coal and cars and cow meat beg for forgiveness for their transgressions against Mother Gaia?
From a political viewpoint it’s better not to have any evidence on global warming. If we had facts, we might find out that warming, if it existed, might actually go away. It’s not much good to tax a sin that can be absolved. Much better to tax that pervasive feeling of guilt directly. Leave it to the popular media to spread free-floating guilt, and to the political experts in the new administration, who know in their very bones, like Danny the Red, that “You can believe what you want, I don’t believe, I know that global warming is a reality.”
Bow down, ye sinners. The time has come for you to pay through the nose.
Merry Christmas!
Too, too right!
“The trouble is that the actual evidence for global warming has been shot full of holes”
“The planet, as far as we can tell, is getting somewhat colder,”
… don’t check your sources much, do you?
Another boring, ignorant diatribe from a media outlet that broke their promise to better the MSM.
Unfortunately, no one is addressing the fundamental issue. It does not matter a whit whether man is physically having an effect on the climate or not. What matters is whether or not it is metaphysically proper for man to have an effect on the environment.
Today it has been accepted as political fact that if man is having an effect on the earth, that that is a bad thing. But the Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that it is utterly inescapable that every living creature has an effect on its environment. Bears sh*t in the woods. But that is a good thing, whereas our sh*t is a bad thing? Hmmm…
So man’s existence on earth is only completely acceptable if man has no effect on the environment? The Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that THAT happy state can only be achieved if there are no people on earth. None. Zero.
The underlying truth is that the climate debate overshadows the hatred that some folks have for homo sapiens sapiens. I am not among them. I like man qua man. I don’t like my upstream neighbor pouring pollutants into my river, but I recognize that some level of impact on the environment is simply inescapable. I like my fellow man enough to put up with that. It’s the price we all pay for living with each other.
So it comes down to figuring out what’s reasonable. And holding the progress of modern technological civilization hostage to the unreasonable is not my idea of a civilized way to live with each other.
Yea, it’s inescapable that man’s existence on this planet causes changes in the environment, and there are WAY too many of us on this rock. But our life is GOOD, and we are the measure of that goodness. To choose any other measure is to disvalue man, and to open the gates to the unreasonable suggestion that we ought to put ourselves in chains to the fiction that together we can beat the Laws of Thermodynamics. That’s a loser’s proposition.
If we are the prime movers of the planets climate, does that make us Supernatural or Subnatural?
Here is how to bug a greenie;
Water in solid form is Geology and not conducive to life. Water in Liquid form is biology and good for life. We are in a 2 million year long Ice Age cycle and Gaia don’t like it. Gaia did something about it, she found a species of primates who have mastered fire. We all are part of Ma Nature’s Glacial Abatement Team. Welcome Aboard!
Merry Christmas
BTW water is gaseous form is Meterology, get it right.
Colin wilkinson
So now they replace God with “Global Warming”, and of course the west (and the US most of all) shoulders all the blame . . . So now on Christmas day we need think about the future altar to the Warming, and in its aura the lines of Europeans (and westerners) flagellating themselves figuratively (with self loathing) and actually (with barbed flails) . . .
Merry Christmas!!!
I’m looking forward to unlimited skiing when they figure out it’s really an ice age starting (and of course we caused that too!!).
Lazar, the whole point of the article is that sources have been checked, you’re typical of the global warmists, just hear what you want to hear. Not least of sources is record going back thousands of years of ice ages and warm periods, do a bit of reading.
2. Lazar:
> “The planet, as far as we can tell, is getting somewhat colder,”
> … don’t check your sources much, do you?
You might offer some better sources. Be sure they include data after the Pacific Decadal Oscillation flipped negative 18 months ago.
E.g.:
Satellite data (ground data is poor, see http://www.surfacestations.org/ )
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:96/plot/uah/last:96/trend
Sea level rise is slowing and may reverse:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/05/satellite-derived-sea-level-updated-trend-has-been-shrinking-since-2005/
Fortunately, Mother Nature seems to find all this global warming hysteria amusing. She can’t help but douse the believers with a a bit of freezing reality. Whether it be a snowy Christmas or the complete absurdity of refusing to use modern technologies to clear the streets. When that happens the “believers” get a bit more pragmatic. Being Green is great until it is inconvenient.
See how the fine Liberals of Seattle are handling the reality of foolish decisions based on ignorance of science and technology.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?source_name=mbase&source_id=2008557711
open offer of 25% on the dollar for coastal properties before they’re submerged by global warming. i also buy,sell,and trade personal and commercial carbon footprint credit offsets. don’t miss out on the next bubble, you know
the politicians and wallstreeter aren’t,carbon credit default swaps available from my greener than green hedgefund.
Lazar, methinks, seems a bit too similar to Danny Cohn-Bendit who accosted Havel. Lazar–a sanctimonius liberal warmist (probably an academician), and Cohn-Bendit, a sanctimonius communist/terrorist. Both are appalling (and dangerous).
I don’t believe, I know AGW is a hoax.
ligneus,
“the whole point of the article is that sources have been checked”
No they haven’t.
“… don’t check your sources much, do you?”
Another boring diatribe from a liberal who broke his promise to better educate himself.
Ric Werme,
“You might offer some better sources.”
… shouldn’t that be the job of the author and editor?
… if you really are a skeptic you will seek those sources, if you really care about the climate, about science.
MikeD,
“Lazar, methinks, seems a bit too similar to Danny Cohn-Bendit”
And I like your tinfoil hat.
“Both are appalling (and dangerous)”
Of course you find someone who disagrees with your dogma both appalling and dangerous.
No, after reading more from lazar I do not believe he is a member of leftist acadumia. But rather a typical garden variety bennie wearing liberal. Not too bright and in thrall to whatever the brain liberals decree to be true.
Craig,
Your putdowns are a little bit unoriginal. No wonder you prefer copy-and-paste crank denial nonsense over science. It saves having to think. Thought requires energy and time and work. Less energy left over to heat your body. In your own way, your lack of thought is saving the planet. Well done!
Fantom,
“No, after reading more from lazar I do not believe he is a member of leftist acadumia.”
That’s really very interesting.
The tinfoil hat, Lazar, comes with a PhD in geology. Your sanctimonius self assurance that only you and the AGW zealots are correct exhibits, I fear, a degree of liberal fascism and intellectual dishonesty that a real scientist (but not a liberal arts academic) would be embarrassed to exhibit. It is that which I find so pernicious and dangerous, not that you disagree with me. Your contrary opinion, in and of itself, is of no consequence.
Yes, we should listen to the president of the Czech republic and not the National Academies of Science of the AMerican Geophysical Union or the Royal Society of the UK.
This is what global warming deniers have left. How does it feel now that a real scientist is in charge of science and energy? Climate troofers unite!
Another boring, ignorant diatribe from a media outlet that broke their promise to better the MSM. No they haven’t.… if you really are a skeptic you will seek those sources, if you really care about the climate, about science. And I like your tinfoil hat. Of course you find someone who disagrees with your dogma both appalling and dangerous. Your putdowns are a little bit unoriginal. No wonder you prefer copy-and-paste crank denial nonsense over science. It saves having to think. Thought requires energy and time and work. Less energy left over to heat your body. In your own way, your lack of thought is saving the planet. Well done! That’s really very interesting.
The conclusion of these intellectual arguments is, that they teach us nothing about the physical causes of long-term climate cycles – and they are ad hominem and unpersuasive, instead of scientific or illuminating.
How weak, Lazar. Actually, the lack of thought is a characteristic far more applicable to GW jihadists as evidenced by assertions that the science is ‘settled’. It is only the skeptics that offer point-by-point refutations to the opposition. The burden of proof is on your side and the evidence against you is billions of years of weather cycles where the earth has been both warmer and colder than today. This whole issue is simply a grab for power and money and Gore is just an environmental Madoff.
Insufficiently Sensitive,
“The conclusion of these intellectual arguments is, that they teach us nothing about the physical causes of long-term climate”
Indeed. That’s why I encourage you to pick up a book on climate physics, read papers, read websites by scientists, read popularizations of the science, according to your ability. Above all read sources other than *just* those which agree with the premises that the greenhouse effect is not real / there isn’t an anthropogenic influence on climate / pick your denialist argument.
You have to do this for yourself.
I’m not your teacher.
MikeD
“The tinfoil hat, Lazar, comes with a PhD in geology.”
That’s really very interesting.
“Your sanctimonius self assurance that only you and the AGW zealots are correct”
Correct that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, that increasing the atmospheric concentration increases absorption and this leads to heating, that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have had a discernible impact on climate?
Well yes, there is this thing called external reality.
In the end, someone has to be right.
I take no pride in the matter.
I’d rather meet people who know better who will correct my errors. In fact I often do, just not on this forum.
That you think the results of basic radiative physics are “zealotry”, and that the vast majority of atmospheric physicists and climate scientists are not “real scientist”s, indicates that, with or without a PhD, you are projecting that “sanctimonius self assurance”.
gnubi,
“This whole issue is simply a grab for power and money and Gore”
You win the tinfoil hat award.
Lazar, the argument is not so much one of denial of the laws of atmospheric physics. A greenhouse effect certainly exists and human activity provably has some impact on atmosphere at some scale and to some degree. The issue is whether that human impact is of any real consequence. And there is no conclusive proof that it is. Zero, zilch, nada! You can cite the scientific principles of physics until the cows come home and that will not answer the underlying question. Speculation by some that it is significant is no more credible than speculation or belief that it is not. Scientists on both sides of the issue (not one or two but actually thousands) disagree. The lie of “concensus” and universal scientific acclaim is the problem and has been since the beginnings of this whole issue. We do not know if GW or GC is an issue or not–despite the egomaniacal pronouncements of half-witted politicians or pedants like yourself.
And each take to attacking the words & character of the other, while the planet goes about its business with absolutely no attention paid to the mere human. CO2 is not a pollutant, it makes the planet green. Greenland was given its name during the Medieval Warm period & in fact, the world was warmer then than now. In addition, man’s supposed affect of industrialization had yet to happen! In short, the computer models cannot account for the variables involved. The predictions we have been inundated with all contain the escape words, phrases & caveat’s, could, might, possibly, maybe, should, etc.
Personally, I’ll buy a Powerball Lottery ticket & stand a better chance of winning that prize, than the predictions have of their predictions coming true. Looks more like a plan to create a power elite, who control the essences of life over mere mortals such as the average man. Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme & made billions, but was finally caught. Perhaps some should consider the consequences if their predictions do not materialize, yet those same predictions required mere mortals to have suffered enormously? The “Precautionary Principle” is designed to force actions of those who seek actual evidence by instilling panic in everyone else!
“Correct that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, that increasing the atmospheric concentration increases absorption and this leads to heating”
In theory yes, but not necessarily in actuality. Check the literature. CO2 levels have been shown to increase as a result of warming, not as the cause. The basic mechanisms and variables of climate are still not well enough known to draw the conclusions you so assuredly posit.
“that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have had a discernible impact on climate”
OK. But at what scale? Is this the most significant contribution? How important is it relative to other sources? And water vapor is far, far more important than CO2. There is no definitive answer or proof of your assertion.
Sorry, Lazar, I call BS on your argument. You know just enough to be dangerous. And that, again, was part of my original comment.
Forget Lazar!!! I am the leftist idiot alarmist who will shout you down every time you try to use logic. Don’t worry about him!! Worry about me!!!!!
MikeD,
“Lazar, the argument”
There are many “arguments”. You mean the argument that you choose to discuss at this point in time.
“is not so much one of denial of the laws of atmospheric physics. A greenhouse effect certainly exists and human activity provably has some impact on atmosphere at some scale and to some degree.”
Good, and you might want to inform James Lewis who wrote “speculative ‘greenhouse gases’”.
“The issue is whether that human impact is of any real consequence. And there is no conclusive proof that it is.”
Science isn’t done under conditions of “conclusive proof”. You ought to know that.
“Speculation by some that it is significant is no more credible than speculation or belief that it is not.”
Then you’re ignorant. Go do some reading.
“(not one or two but actually thousands) disagree”
Source for that?
“egomaniacal pronouncements of half-witted politicians or pedants like yourself.”
Yes dear.
MikeD,
“In theory yes, but not necessarily in actuality. Check the literature. CO2 levels have been shown to increase as a result of warming, not as the cause.”
I stand corrected. You really are ignorant.
Rest binned unread.
Bazar, I think you have cut through all of the crap to isolate the problem. I concede your ultimate and succinct explanation.
Lazar, you are a fool and a waste of time. I am done with you. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Okay Lazar…then I will defer to your brilliance:
The equilibrium sensitivity of Earth’s climate is determined as the quotient of the relaxation time constant of the system and the pertinent global heat capacity. The heat capacity of the global ocean, obtained from regression of ocean heat content versus global mean surface temperature (GMST) is 14 +/- 6 W a m-2 K-1, equivalent to 110 m of ocean water; other sinks raise the effective planetary heat capacity to 17 +/- 7 W a m-2 K-1 (all uncertainties are 1-sigma estimates). The time constant pertinent to changes in GMST is determined from autocorrelation of that quantity over 1880-2004 to be 5 +/- 1 a. The resultant equilibrium climate sensitivity, 0.30 +/- 0.14 K/(W m-2), corresponds to an equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K. The short time constant implies that GMST is in near equilibrium with applied forcings and hence that net climate forcing over the twentieth century can be obtained from the observed temperature increase over this period, 0.57 +/- 0.08 K, as 1.9 +/- 0.9 W m-2. For this forcing considered the sum of radiative forcing by incremental greenhouse gases, 2.2 +/- 0.3 W m-2, and other forcings, other forcing agents, mainly incremental tropospheric aerosols, are inferred to have exerted only a slight forcing over the twentieth century of -0.3 +/- 1.0 W m-2.
In other words, man has had no impact on the earth’s climate from 1880-2004.
Only 3 1/2 to 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is a result of human activity. At present there are, on average, 38 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of air in the atmosphere. It will take between 5 and 6 years to add each new molecule to that number.
That’s why I encourage you to pick up a book on climate physics, read papers, read websites by scientists, read popularizations of the science, according to your ability. Above all read sources other than *just* those which agree with the premises that the greenhouse effect is not real / there isn’t an anthropogenic influence on climate / pick your denialist argument.
You have to do this for yourself.
I’m not your teacher.
Thank God you’re not.
My teachers were educated in engineering and science, and made clear that science is skepticism, and involves constant testing of hypotheses.
A large and growing number of scientists present data and conclusions which counter the IPCC-subsidized gospel on AGW. It’s worthy of notice that the media which supports the seizing of economic control by the political true believers does not even begin to publish this counter-data. Such politics are a travesty of science if the constant testing of hypotheses is not documented along with the imperatives of the stampede. At least, Vaclav Klaus takes notice of this situation, and is to be commended for his adherance to a scientific method rather than a political one. Science is not served by taking majority votes among interested parties to a dispute.
I invite you to explain to me rationally how the Medieval Warm Period managed to occur, 600 years before the Industrial Revolution even began, and enabled the humans of the time to enjoy temperatures so much higher than those of the present that large-scale agriculture was practiced in Greenland.
One last response, Lazar.
“In theory yes, but not necessarily in actuality. Check the literature. CO2 levels have been shown to increase as a result of warming, not as the cause.”
You responded:
I stand corrected. You really are ignorant.”
Start here:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/franmanns.htm
Energizing Our Future: Rational Choices for the 21st Century , John Wilson, Griffin Burgh – Wiley Interscience, 2007
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2007/01/27/continental-layout-and-ice-ages
Google: “CO2, trailing indicator”, you’ll get 14,400 hits on the subject. I’m not interested in doing your research for you
Craig,
Why did you copy the work of Schwartz 2007 without attribution?
Here is the follow-up work.
LOL!
http://www.sepp.org
Insufficiently Sensitive,
“I invite you to explain to me rationally how the Medieval Warm Period managed to occur, 600 years before the Industrial Revolution even began, and enabled the humans of the time to enjoy temperatures so much higher than those of the present”
I’m still not your teacher. For the above, your teachers gave you excellent advice…
“science is skepticism, and involves constant testing of hypotheses”
MikeD,
Does a PhD teach you to…
link to a crank blog over peer-reviewed literature.
reasoning which doesn’t go beyond ‘either A causes B or B causes A’.
“I’m not interested in doing your research for you.”
I have no need for you.
gnubi
A reasonable response.
This whole global warming idea makes me laugh! It reminds me of the old joke about the ant crawling up the elephant’s leg intent upon rape. The idea that our species could have a significant effect upon the ecosphere is pure hubris.
The Sun determines the warmth, or lack thereof, of our humble dust mote. The Sun burns the equivalent of our planet in hydrogen every 40 days. Our planet is just so insignificant in relation to the Sun. If the Sun goes through a minimum, as it seems to doing now, we get really cold here… and so forth. In contrast to that, our species’ impact is just so trivial as to be too laughable to even consider.
That said, the effect upon our environment is clear, as regards the effect of our pollutants upon our own species. Our waste can and does make us sick. A responsible approach to keep our house clean, bereft of catastrophic alarmism, would gain my support.
It’s heart-warming to hear that good men like Klaus are standing up to the evil of environmentalism. We live in an age when scum like Obama are cheered by the thuggish mob.
The eco-nazi elite do not care for average people. They are rich and unaffected by a doubling or tripling of energy prices.
The casual indifference with which the eco-elite like Obama are willing to inflict great suffering on regular people is shocking. Their disregard for the well-being of their fellow citizens, their let-them-eat-cake attitude … is very sad.
All the more reason to cheer brave men who stand up to evil tyrants like the Obamas of the world.
Got a question for Comrade Lazar:
What are your scientific credentials, if any?
Your analysis seems to consist of the classic “Appeal to Authority”, which went out with The Reformation. Do you have the knowledge to read scientific literature, whether referred or popular, and pronounce upon it?
Do you have a set of specific workers, generally recognized as plausible (not authoritative) that you depend upon? What are your standards for accepting one authority or view point over others?
Let us know…
Wow, Lazar, obsess much?
MikeD,
As an example of checking your sources, from your first link…
“The CO2 absorption band, though, has long since passed it’s peak effectiveness.”
Have you read any of these books that teach radiative transfer?
Have you calculated radiative transmissivities and fluxes under varying concentrations of CO2?
Have you read the work (papers, MikeD) of those who have?
Have you read any of the popularizations?
Have you read any websites with views contrary to the above?
Do you even realize that there are two, not one, CO2 absorption bands in the infrared, contrary to what Warwick Hughes claims?
Lazar – Correct that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, that increasing the atmospheric concentration increases absorption and this leads to heating, that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have had a discernible impact on climate?
Well yes, there is this thing called external reality.
In the end, someone has to be right.
I take no pride in the matter.
I’d rather meet people who know better who will correct my errors. In fact I often do, just not on this forum.
That you think the results of basic radiative physics are “zealotry”, and that the vast majority of atmospheric physicists and climate scientists are not “real scientist”s, indicates that, with or without a PhD, you are projecting that “sanctimonius self assurance”.
Pretty accurate. One problem with anti-science, anti-intellectual folks is they gravitate towards the experiential and personality disagreements to validate their pre-existing beliefs.
“Ah never did see no atom split, nor no man who was some half-ape missing link…”
“People talk about warming, but it’s not true because it snowed hard enough where I live in Arkansas that church was cancelled.”
OR-
“Al Gore is a massive tool. I hate him. Therefore, all climate change scientists that think AGW is a problem are automatically wrong.”
******************
I slant more towards Lazar than GW Deniers. There is evidence of GW, the matter of concern to me is how much is AGW and what actions must we be FORCED to take if it is a problem. I vehemently disagree with the Leftist view that it is ALL America’s fault, and that incredibly stupid actions must be taken that will cripple the US standard of living while the 3rd World that is driving all the recent CO2 increase gets a complete pass.
Starting with their stupid “solution” to end fossil fuel and nuclear use, and try running an immense civilization on biomass, wind, solar, and stupid recycling ideas. (We had a civilization like that once – ran on biomass for transportation -horses, oxen – and desperate peasants recycled every scrap and prayed wind and solar power would favor them with enough food for another year of survival. It sucked to be an average person back then.)
There is also the problem that the Left’s toleration of human overpopulation – even it’s celebration – has led to the crux of their concern – so many people are now perched in precarious ecosystems that even the slightest climate change could kill tens or hundreds of millions. The problem is that we know even without eviiiil whitey or even noble 3rd worlders that climate change happens all the time in Earths history. As recently as 1900 flooding of the Ganges Delta or a volcano blowing up on its normal once every 500 year eruption cycle would kill 10,000 or so people in sparsely settled lands…and the surving 95% of people fleeing – normally could find another place to settle without having to wage a war of extermination with settled peoples with no land to spare.
Of course, we all know the private property loving Right would be the first to have conniptions as their pricey condos on the Florida coast (and other lands we should have never permitted speculation and development on unless the Settlers were on their own dime) go under the waves. And demand that the government and taxpayers in other states compensate them for their storm and flooding related money & property losses, “make them whole again” – as Southern Red States always do.
****************************
Fred Houlihan:
Only 3 1/2 to 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is a result of human activity.
Nonsense. In 1870 CO2 level was 270ppm. It is now 382 ppm and with 9 billion people estimated to be around in 2050, many fast-industrializing and burning any coal or oil they can get their hands on, CO3 levels are predicted to reach 530ppm by then.
The timeline on AGW research from 1895 onwards is quite revealing. Long before Algore made it a crusade and the Green-Left even existed, it was the subject of long, intense scientific scrutiny, which cumulatively has validated AGW theory:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
Good Ole Charlie,
“Got a question for Comrade Lazar:”
Generally I don’t respond to communists, but seeing as you asked so politely.
Ye-es?
“What are your scientific credentials, if any?”
None of your business.
“Your analysis seems to consist of the classic “Appeal to Authority””
No silly, I’m suggesting your fellow-travellers check their sources. That causes your fellow-travellers a great deal of distress, and it shouldn’t, if they’re genuine skeptics, if they care about science, about truth. I’m even suggesting, if they can’t hack the peer-reviewed stuff, they at least check the popularizations, or read books so they can understand.
“Do you have the knowledge to read scientific literature, whether referred or popular, and pronounce upon it?”
Some of it.
“Do you have a set of specific workers, generally recognized as plausible (not authoritative) that you depend upon?”
I don’t understand the question, could you rephrase?
“What are your standards for accepting one authority or view point over others?”
It depends how much I’ve read and understood.
If more, then the arguments and evidence which are most plausible.
If less, then I defer to the consensus opinion(s) of those scientists doing active research in the field, on the question at hand.
Got a question for Comrade Lazar:
What are your scientific credentials, if any?
Your analysis seems to consist of the classic “Appeal to Authority”, which went out with The Reformation. Do you have the knowledge to read scientific literature, whether referred or popular, and pronounce upon it?
Don’t ask him anything, he’s trolling, and will hide behind such snark as “I’m not your teacher”. An empty skull, wishing like the Bandar-log to be noticed.
I presented a collection of his wisdom in #21, as an example of his credentials and badinage.
A list of persons whom apriori assumed I am lefty/liberal/socialist because of my views on climate science…
MikeD “a sanctimonius liberal warmist”
Craig “Another boring diatribe from a liberal”
Fantom “a typical garden variety bennie wearing liberal”
“Bazar”, the “leftist idiot alarmist”
Good Ole Charlie “Comrade Lazar”
That’s 5/9 who responded.
My political views…
I supported GWB, twice, then McCain.
I supported and continue to support wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think Iraq is a great success, and Afghanistan an improvement.
Capitalism is empirically the best economic system ever devised.
Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan are the two politicians I most admire.
I *know* that the welfare state corrupts society.
One of my favorite books is the brilliantly expounded “The Road to Serfdom” by Friedrich Hayek.
My philosphical bedrock is “Thoughts on the French Revolution” by Edmund Burke.
My self-identification is conservative.
This stupid attitude/approach to science is directly the consequence of sites like PJM printing stuff like;
“overfunding scientists until they become politicized. But that kind of science will sell out its only real mission — of discovering and telling the truth — to the highest bidder.”
instead of concentrating on and accurately reporting the science.
Shame.
“Why did you copy the work of Schwartz 2007 without attribution?”
I knew you would Google it in 2 seconds- so I saw no reason. The point, which you obviously missed, is there are scientists who can speak with some degree of scientific and mathematical intelligence and refute this great Goreble-Warming hoax.
Lazar ” … No silly, I’m suggesting your fellow-travellers …”
You can’t even get your slanders correct.
It seems you need to read a few books on knowledge transfer since several of the books on your own little list there refute statements you’ve made here. Why not defer to those who have sufficient intellect to understand what they do read rather than to what you find most plausible? Your idea of plausible is obviously deeply flawed.
Please, change your name before posting again. It hurts to watch you make a fool of yourself over and over.
have a plausible day
Insufficiently Sensitive,
“wishing like the Bandar-log to be noticed”
I could care less.
Both times I’ve joined comment threads with comments directed toward PJM staff toward improving their content.
I’ve never solicited or desired responses from you or the other commenters.
Some of you seem intent on debating.
I have no such desire.
I’ve tried to encourage those who have posted comments directed at me, to check their sources and read contrary sources of information. I’ve also given pointers,
This is something you should be doing anyway.
You shouldn’t need encouragement.
You shouldn’t be waiting for the information to drop into your lap.
It’s not my responsibility to “prove” climate science. It’s your responsibility to find out the truth.
If you won’t go out and search the information, then you aren’t interested in learning.
If you aren’t interested in learning, there’s nothing I can teach you.
I am still not your teacher.
You can choose not to believe me. You can choose not to learn. You can choose to believe AGW is all a commie lie. Your choice, your freedom, your responsibility.
I am still not your teacher.
Lazar, as I’m an actual geoscientist, I have to wonder if Hanson et al are paying you? Your delusions are admirable but your facts are wrong.
But you’re welcome to sticking with your priests. The science says you’re wrong and I’m going to stick with that.
The end all be all linking to all science on the topic…
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=bc1bbad9-802a-23ad-4547-af3df032e569
Its pretty clear global warming is just another joke created by the same propaganda that so many other wanna-be dictators such as hitler, stalin and many more to scare the simple minded cattle to stampede in the direction they want them to go.
Memo to environmentalists:
The Global Warming hoax is no longer needed to destroy the prosperity of the West. Do not exert yourselves further in this questionable enterprise.
The West has already destroyed its own prosperity through the follies of subprime lending, SIVs, CDOs, CDSs, and Bernie Madoff. The trillion$ you hoped to glean have already evaporated.
Craig,
“I knew you would Google it in 2 seconds”
That is no excuse for copying work without attribution. You did not *know* that I would “Goodle it”, in fact I didn’t. And you did not *know* that I would respond with the cite. Your explanation for not taking the two seconds to type “Schwartz 2007″ doesn’t wash.
“refute this great Goreble-Warming hoax”
Then you didn’t read the clauses in the paper nor the follow up work.
Rashputin,
“several of the books on your own little list there refute statements you’ve made here”
You’re lying.
And I know you’re lying.
Chad,
“I’m an actual geoscientist”
That’s really very interesting.
“I have to wonder if Hanson et al are paying you?”
The tinfoil hat award has already gone to gnubi.
Lazar “You’re lying.
And I know you’re lying.”
LOL. Right. But then you also “know” that there is man made global warming. Seems like you everything you say you “know” is based on something other than fact.
have a nice “knowing” day
Lazar:
OK,pal…How about “Partei Genosse Lazar”? If not the far left, how about the far right?
Still curious about your background…Rassenkunde, perchance?
“In 1870 CO2 level was 270ppm.”
Correlation, or causation? Never mind. Just like “weather” and “climate,” the difference between “correlation” and “causation” is now in the intent of the arguer.
Speaking of 1870 and different eras of science, I’m always fascinated by the intense importance and gravity granted to measures of the atmosphere taken between 1870 and 1998, compared with the casual dismissal (or, as evidenced in this thread, complete omission when possible) of any and all data from any previous time period. While it is distinctly possible that man is generating significant atmospheric CO2 and warming the planet, the most casual glance at any single data set covering 1,000 years or longer (as opposed to the “hockey stick” studies that begin analysis at whatever date makes for the most dramatic Newsweek clipart) puts the lie to any notion that this effect is historically significant.
Furthermore, the fact that an outrageous amount of the science being done is now funded with an explicit or implicit demand (indeed, commission) of result by politicians, coupled with the assertions being made in climate evangelization (“an increase of JUST ONE DEGREE could…” on a planet that regularly endures wild increases and decreases) should make any decent researcher want to die of shame.
In any case, time is on the side of science. To paraphrase Mr. Gore nearly a decade ago, it is vital that the AGW faith forces action before fully comprehending the facts, yea, even if that means abandoning our precious scientific method, lest verily we meet our doom. In other words, they have to take drastic, haphazard action and quickly, because either the world will turn into Venus or (worse) they’ll be recorded by history as a pack of fools.
“…just think of Galileo and Pope Innocent III, who did not want to peer through Galileo’s telescope…”–James Lewis
Really?
Galileo: born 1564, died 1642.
Pope Innocent III: born 1160, died 1216.
Mr. Lewis, your story is so bad it’s not even wrong.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/fth/gw.html
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
My guess is the global warming hysteria will wane because it was just an indirect way to attack President Bush, ‘Since you didn’t vote for me, Al Gore, the world will end.’
If global warming, however, can be used as an excuse to raise taxes, the Democrats will embrace it. Otherwise, the Democrats and the MSM will lose interest in global warming because such stories will indirectly attack Obama and the Democrats.
Since the Democrats took over Congress, for example, the number of MSM global warming stories have dropped significantly.
I guess a lot people on this blog are young, otherwise they would have remembered in the seventies how all of the big shot experts were saying we were in for global cooling and we were all doomed. Of course a lot of people made money off of that scare too.
The left-wing idiots like Al Gore are using GW as a scare tactic to keep the populace fretting over nonsence to divert attention from the real threat: Radical Muslim terrorism & the Dem leaders who are commies operating under the guise of “Left-Wing” ideaology. It’s true, Bob L, the younger generations don’t know much truth about the ’50′s, ’60′s or ’70′s because the history books are distorted. I was born in 1942 so I lived through the Commie threat and had small children at the time of the Cuban Crisis & Kennedy’s blunders. Forget GW & read a few books that truly relate to our REAL threat: the Obama years!! He is a fraud & has fooled the younger generations with his lies & deceptions. Please read “THE NAKED COMMUNIST”.
Funny, my first awareness of “media” was at the age of eight or nine, when I became aware of the “new ice age” bearing down upon us. I vividly remember being actually worried and asking my mom about it – she dismissed my concerns with a “its called winter-now wash up for dinner” and that was that!
Forget the science, and really ask yourself, can we really change the earth’s climate? Well, let’s just turn the “thermostat” to 80 with 35% humidity and call it a day.
As I was saying, read “THE NAKED COMMUNIST” by Cleon Skousen, written in the ’60′s, also the handbook for commies “THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO” by Karl Marx & Ingels. We need to WAKE UP to the fact that we are losing our freedoms & have slowly, over the last 50 yrs, been sinking into a world of bondage.
The problem with retards like Lazar is the amazing display of ignorance mixed with arrogance. Idiots speaking of apocalypsis in the name of “science”. A few centuries earlier those same morons would be believing that the sky would fall, or something like that.
“I am not your teacher”. Damn right you’re not. Idiot.
You know, you have expectations of the level of stupidity you’ll find in a pajamas Media thread on global warming. But you guys consistently surpass those expectations. Does being this uniformed and paranoid take actual work or does it come naturally? I mean, do you have to injure your brain or administer some type of narcotic to reach these levels of dumbness? Even the 911 truthers have not perfected idiocy such as this. It’s breathtaking in both its depth and breadth. There are types of moronic thought here that I did not believe existed.
Your accomplishments are nothing short of astounding.
Your friend,
B
Rashputin
“LOL. Right. But then you also “know” that there is man made global warming. Seems like you everything you say you “know” is based on something other than fact.”
Then, do you want to name which of “several” books, and go chapter and verse?
Good Ole Charlie,
“If not the far left, how about the far right”
Don’t read very well, do you?
“Duh”
“The problem with retards like Lazar is the amazing display of ignorance”
Yes dear.
By the way, you deniers are being called upon to sue Al Gore and/or James Hansen.
Since this is such an obvious fraud, I’m sure a lawsuit will be filed any day now. Go for it!
Global warming and the Left gives new meaning to the subject “political science”.
It is based on mob rule. The De-MOBucrat rush will force all over the cliff…
Lazar:
Left, center, right…I’m still waiting for your credentials. If you can read, note that op-ed pieces generally have a capsule biography of the author. Credential verification, it’s called.
Lemme know, right now I’m off to spew CO2 into the atmosphere.
It’s called respiration, but don’t hold your breath.
Lazar…More “tinfoil hat” comments I see. You haven’t come up with any new quips yet? Guess you must be scrapping the bottom of that liberal nonsense barrel you seem to be dipping out of. I have read all of your rebuttals to other posters and notice something odd (and very telling), you question all of the facts of the article and claim that they didn’t research anything….so Lazar….(I already offered you up several websites containing factual information from the scientific community on other stories about global warming on Pajamas Media that you also discounted out of hand)….where are your gold standard facts to back up that the current cooling is “global warming” sir? You cannot lambast others here without backing up your own blather. I’m sure others here are as interested as I am to see what you pull out of that global warming magicians hat of yours. So, go ahead ante up friend. We’ll just see how readily your “sources” can be held up to your own “reliable” test.
Posters…No more reading Lazar’s comments until he coughs up some irrefutable facts about global warming. You know the kind, full of those “sources” that he is claiming the author of this article lacked? Let’s all wait whilst Lazar does some home work (for once).
Lazar…Here’s that factual information I already showed you about scientists debunking the global warming hysteria in a Senate report (I know, I know, Senate reports STILL don’t live up to your standards right?) Again, we’re waiting for your info…. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
You all schould check out, how Eurocrats (Poettering and Cohn-Bendit) were acting arrogantly in president’s palace in Prague, just few weeks ago, trying to put a press Klaus on Lisbon Treaty.
And yes, Klaus didn’t back down. This is IMHO a way how you schould talk with Eurocrats.
Good Ole Charlie,
“I’m still waiting for your credentials.”
Which are none of your business.
“op-ed pieces generally have a capsule biography of the author”
‘Credentials’ are zero compensation for base ignorance, lack of study.
Lemme see…
“James Lewis is a scientist by trade”
Being a ‘molecular biologist’ is not a “credential” in ‘atmospheric sciences’ and vice versa. Asked him what his field is?…
… nah, of course not.
Rest binned unread.
Lazar – “Then, do you want to name which of “several” books, and go chapter and verse?”
You’re the one still on the introductory level so you find the chapter and verse in the works of Houghton where he excludes from models items which are greater in volume than CO2 as “insignificant” while your Intro Text includes those factors as well as CO2 exaggerating the impact of only the CO2. Apparently, what’s insignificant in a real sense is less important that creating the result you want. I built computer models for DoD from the seventies thru the late eighties and I know exactly how some people want to warp them to get the desired result rather than to actually model the system under study.
Nice try, but do your own damn homework before showing up somewhere and telling everyone else they’re full of it because you’ve read the course materials from a matchbook cover course.
have a chapter and verse day
PS – you may want to check Jackson and a few others he mentions as well since you would be shocked by the differences they have with your nice intro book. Well, shocked if you have an open mind, something I very seriously doubt.
For Good Ole Charlie, who thinks “credential verification” is writing “a scientist by trade”.
<a href=”http://www.princeton.edu/aos/people/faculty/manabe/Sukis_Short_Bio.pdf”Here and here.
For Good Ole Charlie, who thinks “credential verification” is writing “a scientist by trade”.
Here and here.
Rashputin,
“You’re the one still on the introductory level so you find the chapter and verse in the works of Houghton”
Just as I thought, you can’t.
“while your Intro Text includes those factors as well as CO2 exaggerating the impact of only the CO2″
So you admit your claim…
“several of the books on your own little list there refute statements you’ve made here”
… is a lie.
Now you wish to apply a different claim to a different book, “The Physics of Atmospheres” by John Houghton.
You haven’t read the previous books.
Given the ignorance of
“he excludes from models items which are greater in volume than CO2 as “insignificant””
you haven’t read Houghton either.
“I built computer models for DoD from the seventies thru the late eighties”
They certainly weren’t atmospheric mode3s.
Rest binned unread.
“You’re the one still on the introductory level so you find the chapter and verse in the works of Houghton where he excludes from models items which are greater in volume than CO2 as “insignificant” while your Intro Text includes those factors as well as CO2 exaggerating the impact of only the CO2.”
lol. That makes no sense, guy. However, robotech master will now link to it as proof of a global fraud. So you’ve got that going for you.
What an exciting exercise in, “Trolling”, and, “Troll Baiting”. Does anyone recall the title or context of the article?
The debate on AGW could be easily settled if each of you would agree on a mutualy convenient location to meet, and there beat one another senceless. Last Man Standing rule applies, and of course winner gets to eat the dead.
Good luck and bon appetit.
Unthinking Person,
“that liberal nonsense barrel”
Here’s a clue.
I’m coding a correlated k-distribution implementation for longwave radiative transfer within an 18-layer atmosphere.
The k-distribution transforms an integration over wavenumber space to an integration over the absorption coefficient k domain using the cumulative probability distribution for k. The number of computations are reduced by 10^3 (compared to the line-by-line method) for an exact solution, or greater if one is prepared to sacrifice approximately 1% accuracy. And yet the k-distribution method has a simple, direct physical interpretation, and easily incorporates multiple scattering. The correlated k-distribution is an extention of this scheme to inhomogenous paths by interpolation between different temperatures and pressures. In other words, it’s a really cool technique.
I’ve done non-trivial, publishable climate-related statistical analysis,
I’ve read six relevant advanced undergraduate / graduate textbooks.
200+ papers.
An IPCC report.
Hundreds of pages of websites.
And yet, I’m ignorant, because…
The scientists whose work I read have srudied intensively for decades. They have published many peer-reviewed papers which advance the science.
You have yet to even read the source science which you claim is wrong.
You have yet to pick up a textbook on atmospheric physics,
Read papers.
Read popularizations,
Read websites.
You expect me to drop my work in order to drop information into your lap which is readily available.
Rather than try to “argue” with me, you’re better served spending time in a library.
It is not my job to educate you.
Rest sent to the great bit bin in the sky.
Boris,
“That makes no sense”
That’s what I thought. As if gases are chosen for inclusion by volume instead of effect on transmissivity! The books I cited apply the same equations to CO2 as all other gases, so his “exaggerating the effect” is more make-believe. Clearly he hasn’t read the books.
Lazer “…so his “exaggerating the effect” is more make-believe.”
Oh my Gawd. No matter what numbers you use for the effect of CO2, you still prove your point because the CO2 was included by volume. Whether the CO2 actually has the effects claimed isn’t important. Whether all the efffects of the CO2 are included isn’t important. Whether or not the volume of CO2 introduced to the model by humans is greater or smaller than the margin of error in the detection methods ins’t important. The fact that the CO2 is introduced by volume eliminates any possible way to magnify the effects of that or any other volume.
Ok, you’ve convinced me. Crucify AlGore so he can be seen as the savior we all await and then your religion will sweep the world.
have a nice brainwashed day
The problem with your list of “failed predictions” is that you (and others of your ilk) are still confusing the *climate* with the *weather*. It was predicted last year that this year would be unusually cool because of La Nina. But a single year or even 3 don’t make a trend. Climate models are based on trends observed over *decades*. Also, what is all this quoting of media types, journalists, science-fiction writers, creationists and other nutbags that the Right indulges in. Why not look at the science, and tell the rest of us dimwits why you think the science is wrong, Mm?
Rashputin,
I didn’t even say “the CO2 was included by volume”.
Sorry, but you don’t have a clue.
PJM editors and authors,
In this thread Rashputin pretended to an advanced understanding of radiative transfer which he didn’t possess, and made false claims about the content of books he hadn’t read.
In the previous thread, jerryofva masked ignorance of climate models by throwing around terminology used in statistical (!) time-series modelling, hoping to intimidate those commenters (Boris, Vivo) who were disagreeing with the denialist line, even as he got basic facts wrong like the time-step used in GCMs.
Those who have denied AGW have generally not read contrary science sources, i.e. *they have never read the science which they claim to be false*. And refuse to look such sources up, to pick up atmospheric physics textbooks, read papers, read popularizations, read websites containing views contrary to their own. Instead they irrationally maintain that AGW is a political lie.
Irrationality is dangerous in a democratic system, and it is harmful to the persons involved.
You are partly responsible by printing unresearched, unchecked, polemical articles such as the above.
If you aim to ‘send the MSM down the river’, you ought to aspire to dispassionate and accurate science reporting.
My only reason for commenting here was to impress upon you the above. I figured that the right pressure, at the right place, at the right time, might do a little bit of good. Yes, the “right place”, but you will never ‘send the MSM down the river’ whilst you equal the worst of WSJ op-eds and Newsmax.
Cedarford, you’re cool.
Boris, you too.
MikeD, Craig, Fantom, Rashputin, you’re definitely not cool, but I love you anyway.
Bye y’all!
There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.
Two thousand years ago the apocalypse cults were certain the earth would be consumed in flames (purikos = purifying fire) in the end of days. The global warming alarmists are no different. Just another Mother Earth cult.
And if Lazar believed any of the CO2 nonsense, he’d stop breathing.
One suspects while spending Trillions upon Trillions of Dollars this World and Nation does not begin to have in our empty
greatly in debt tills …
Global Warming within 15-20 or less years will be called the greatest Hoax ever on this Earth .
Sadly it will be too late to grumble or even protest since the Free world will all be racially Socialist one suspects
and was the far lefts dark little secret plans all alone .
He who regulates the population without due course ends the Voice of question or any reason .He then owes the populist with a Iron hand . wrote Karl Marx later advanced by Joseph Stalin the world found out to late .
This imaginary Global Warming is all being done under the guise of nothing more than fear tactic’s or we who need far more data are stupid ……. of course all in the name of Legislation to save the World . No matter what severe weather changes we are having it is because of global warming ?
Yet the Tree Huggers offer the least amount of proof ever to change the world as we know it which is totally beyond insane .
Here is some basic common sense to Chew on … Could anyone imagine this highly questionable data and science being used to operate or you or a Love ones Heart or close friend based on that same scant highly questionable minimal amount of Information . Never .. Duh !
This race to change the World , reminds me of the silly Commercial of the Guy in the operating Room when a Nurse ask him a question about the operation he was performing and He says …….. but I stayed in a DAYS INN LAST NIGHT …….. AND THEN SHE FAINTS !
The Left tends to reject the notion of paternalism. I don’t think they trivialize God in order to absolve themselves of selfish behavior; I think it’s more than that. They reject the notion of a Creator because it tends to evoke images of a male, paternal force.
In the absence of God, or turning away from that paternalism, many on the Left try to find comfort in substitutive purposes. Because we all need a purpose higher than ourselves in life, or we’ll drink ourselves to death.
Mother Earth is a much more feminine, nurturing, forgiving image to put at the center of one’s psyche. It’s no wonder those of this alternative religion use all the tools at their disposal to evangelize.
I am not cool.
I am devastated.
Clearly, in the scientific debate, when open and honest exchange of views are allowed junk science loses. What does it say about the condition of our academic and scientific communities if honest open debate is not permitted? Dissenters are hounded, de-funded, and threatened with the loss of their jobs. Should this not, in and of itself, tip off everyone about the nature of those “in the consensus”?
I think the debate needs to be opened up. It needs to be continued, so that the “consensus” is forced to defend itself in a more transparent way.
Politically, the AGW crowd has won. They are about to cram down the carbon tax regime on us. It is going to happen, if we look at the clues being dropped in front of us by the emerging Obama cabinet. The Democrats in Congress and the Senate seem pretty determined to do the deed as well. The timing of this massive wealth transfer could not be worse. And it will solve nothing and only exacerbate the recession and make the recovery from it very feeble. And it is happening at a time when a cooling trend has been in place for over a decade. The facts seem to not matter one whit now. The absurdity of it all seems surrealistic; am I a spectator to this unfolding madness, observing it all from an alternative universe?
Notice that Lazar never bothers to cite any of his “science”. All he does is engage in slander and smears. Does he cite Michael Mann (of the Hockey Stick fraud?)? Does he cite James Hansen, he of Soros funding and doctored data? Does he cite Thompson or Biaffra – whose climate “reconstructions” are based on secret data and secret methods, and who deliberately violate both scientific principles and federal law? Does he cite Ben Santer, who doctored Chapter 8 of the 1996 IPCC report?
No. No citations whatsover. Because he has no honest case he can make for the claims of looming global catastrophe he slyly promotes here with sneers against those who believe real science isn’t made by the admirers of Al Gore’s lies.
These same Global Warming alarmists were exactly the same ones screaming about the coming Ice Age in the mid-to-late 1970′s & early 1980′s. The world as we knew it was coming to end. Why? It snowed & got very cold for several years. By this time–projected in the 1970′s & early 1980′s–the United States is meant to be enveloped in a sheet of ice. I believe in a few more years these same Global Warming freaks will change their tune & talk about the coming Ice Age with Global Cooling. History repeats itself.
I don’t take them seriously now. The people like Lazar needs to do his research. You can find the alarmist reports of an Ice Age from Time & Newsweek on the internet. Otherwise, Lazar is just another Chicken Little, drinking his Kool-Aid from from the God of Global Warming, Al Gore.
I also agree the Global Warming people are like the Death Cults such as Jim Jones’ People’s Temple in many ways. Global Warming is religion to them which tells me how empty their lives truly are in the end.
Hey AndrewD he sites his science… those
“I’ve done non-trivial, publishable climate-related statistical analysis,
I’ve read six relevant advanced undergraduate / graduate textbooks.
200+ papers.
An IPCC report.
Hundreds of pages of websites.”
Are from the hockey stick and algore and other wannabes…
I do find it funny how throwing around worthless volumes is now considered science knowledge… Its the same thing the SS did during the 30s-40s…. published books and papers and tons and tons of “science”. All this “science” was then used to attack the jews…. same propaganda tricks just a….and really the same enemy… capitalism…
He argues because he read it in a college it must be true… the same argument I’m sure many hitler youth used when they were in college/school.
So much of the global warming nazi’s “proof” has been proven as propaganda its hard to take anything information they present as being scientifically sound without the reviews of real scientists. If groups like Goddard admit they don’t have the resources or for that matter if try to check their data… as long as it says what they want it to say anyway.
Lazar, thanks for telling us your work, because it shows why you place too much emphasis on radiative physics.
Are you aware that radiative transfer is responsible for only a small portion of the warming forecast by the IPCC?
Anybody with a vague understanding of physics should know that increasing CO2, in isolation, will of course result in higher average temperature.
Now please explain why we should hysterically respond to the full monte prediction, rather than the mild warming forecast by radiative transfer alone?
Then perhaps you should elucidate on why the following shouldn’t give us pause in accepting the alarmist predictions:
low model temporal and geometric resolution
high noise level in paleoclimatic data
inability of GCM’s to reasonably forecast weather beyond 5 days, and how those same (or similar) GCM’s are used for climate sensitivity studies.
lack of understanding of positive and negative feedbacks in the climate system
inability of models to reasonably predict cloud droplet size, a far more important radiative transfer parameter than CO2 concentration
inability of GCM’s to model convective processes, which are the primary heat engines of the atmosphere
the poor track record so far of CO2 alarmist temperature predictions compared to actual temperatures
the failure of the “warming signature” to appear
the adjustments to Hansen’s temperature istory which dramatically violates statistical expectations in their constant increases in global warming tendencies of temperature record over the same past periods
the fact that many major climate scientists have been going public with their objections to the alarmist predictions, and the fact that those skeptics are the people well enough established as to be invulnerable to loss of tenure or grants
the reported funding of Hansen’s publicity by George Soros
the fact that the earth is a nonlinear dynamic system (read: feedback, chaos, immense complexity) but your analysis is based on radiative physics, a very simplistic part of the system.
———
Here’s my take: AGW will probably happen and may have happened. It will not be a big danger. The threat of premature over-reaction to the possibility of AGW (as opposed to many other dangers mankind faces) is much greater than the threat of AG.
The global warming fanatics want to do for America what their heroes the Lysenkoists did for the Soviet Union.
“same thing the SS did”
“the same argument I’m sure many hitler youth used”
“global warming nazi’s”
I don’t get it. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I think you are ignorant and ideologically blinded. However, I don’t think you guys are Nazi’s or anything. I wish you guys no ill will. In fact, I wish for you something great–enlightenment.
But I do like to make fun of you from time to time. 8)
Lazar’s diatribes of ‘read periodicals, science articles, differing opinions..’ et al.
Though I especially enjoyed your #40 response to Insufficiently Responsive’s query. In short, you hadn’t one!
I’ll do you one better in the advice dep’t. Pursue a MS or PhD in cloud physics, solar meteorology (Bill Murtagh, a co-worker of mine when in Colorado is head honcho in D.C. for that department. Alas, he doesn’t lean towards MMGW), atmospheric dynamics, wind forecasting consultant, hydrologist, etc., This way YOU’LL have tried and true formulas, and well thought out discussions. Differing opinions with those who have experience in the field of concern and not only a viewpoint. You’ll have ACTUAL learned and applied knowledge and perhaps you won’t be so inclined to call a differing take ‘ignorant’, ‘tinfoil hat’, etc.,
Advice on ‘reading’ articles to base ‘facts’ on climate change is a joke. Al Gore has done what you speak of and become the pied piper, electing himself the mouthpiece of this mockery. He’s an insult to the science and homo sapien community.
Hypothetically I want to be a ‘Nascar Mechanic.’ Perhaps if I read all available literature on the subject, I too can be a great mechanic? No. It requires application, tedious attention, OJT, failure after failure and a myriad of other necessities. After which I’ll be lucky to be a mediocre mechanic.
“Vaclav Klaus is an honest man, but that doesn’t count for much in the boiling cauldron that is socialist Europe today.”
um, I think that Santa Klaus is an “ordure”
(http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_gen_cfilm=4478.html)
Mr Klaus isn’t the man he pretends to be : he is a “double” agent, actually that is on Putin’s side.
http://postmanpatel.blogspot.com/2008/12/vaclav-klaus-new-eu-president-man-with.html
what wrote “Czech Gorilla” on AT in a similar topic :
(December 06, 2008) “Klaus Reminds Europe What Democracy Is”
“Sorry to disappoint socialism haters here but apart from his Friedmanite rhetorics, Mr.Klaus is best known in our country for his so-called “banking socialism” – period in early 1990´s during which he was staunchly refusing to privatise state-owned banks that in return financed his dubious voucher-scheme privatisation scheme. The whole thing ended in deep recesion in 1997, banks had to be bailed out by taxpayers and Klaus was forced to resign as a prime minister. He was later elected president by our parliament only thanks to votes of communist MPs who generally like his anti-EU opinions. When under investigation as a chairman of political party which was supposedly sponsored by dead or non-existing Hungarians and Mauritians, Mr.Klaus bravely took witness´stand and declared ” I do not remember anything.” You just love the man”
as far as the “global warming” thing, this is a bit silly that the governments waste their time with such a “global pression”, though may-be they want to “appease” their “enlightened” elites, though just with words, nothing concrete has been decide in the last Poznan meeting.
It seems more that it’ll go “under the bus” in the next agendas, some crisis happened to be more urgent and important in between.
To correct Paul Unulaska’s nonsense…
There is an obvious disconnect between, the elitism of claiming a PhD is requisite to understanding science, and the posting by the same person of one of the stupidest anti-AGW arguments found on the denialist fringe…
“How about England producing incredible weather and boasting of vast wineries? Why is it cold today..?”
A PhD is not a necessary condition for understanding science nor is it necessary for doing original research, I know scientists who have done the latter without one, and done good work. It is also not a guarantee of competence, and I’ve known post-docs to be incompetent in the basics of their field. The study a PhD candidate does involves exactly what I’ve constantly recommended, reading many textbooks and peer-reviewed papers, to which Paul Unalaska writes…
“Advice on ‘reading’ articles to base ‘facts’ on climate change is a joke. Al Gore has done what you speak of and become the pied piper”
Yet Al Gore does not repeat nonsense like Paul Unulaska does.
John Moore,
I have not placed any emphasis on radiative physics vis-a-vis feedbacks.
Those feedbacks don’t work without radiative physics.
Nor have I discussed the theoretical warming due to CO2 in an absence of feedbacks.
Nor would I ever suggest we “respond hysterically”.
Re your list of various claims, ranging from trivial to complex, answers can be found in the usual places.
@Lazar
You’ve gotta be kidding. Al Gore is far beyond the most extreme of the actual scientists who are global warming alarmists. His movie was riddled with scientific inaccuracies.
…
I agree… one does not need a PhD to understand scientific work. In fact, often a person with a doctorate is hyper-specialized and knows little outside of his specialty and nothing outside of his field. That same person, by virtue of his credentials, often sounds off about fields far from his expertise. This is the case with many of the “scientists” who “support” AGW – the vast majority are not even close to the climate field (a huge number are biologists).
To 111. John Moore:
“His movie was riddled with scientific inaccuracies.”
Thats a bit mild hehe… everything in al gores movie was either prove beyond any doubt as wrong and what small handful of info that wasn’t completely disproven(in court of law) their wasn’t enough scientific info to support or disprove it…
As for Lazar… peer review is meaningless in the pro-global warming side… Global warming “science” has been proven time and time again to be faked… The hockey stick was peer reviewed… it wasn’t until a real scientist who wasn’t a global warming nut job reviewed it did any bother to point out that it was full of crap and clearly faked…
The IPCC’s latest report… another peer reviewed paper… which failed pitiful when peer reviewed by the same standard that non-global warming science must face to be accepted…
I could list thousands of papers that have both purposely faked or been wrong that have tons of peer reviews on them. Peer review is only meaningful if you have peers with completing ideas… when the vast majority of the “vocal” reviewers are in the tank for it already it means that the peer review is a joke.
The bottom line is that global warming science is based solely on computer models which have time and time again failed pathetically to match up to real life….
No other accepted science(outside the completely theoretical) would keep believing a hypothesis(which is what global warming is its not a theory) that is solely based on failed models…. and if their is please do post a link to this science…
@Lazar
Your explanation for AGW consisted of radiative physics and did not include feedback. Your insistence that the feedbacks don’t work without radiative physics is truly bizarre.
Your response to my “various claims” is hardly satisfactory. After excoriating all sorts of commenters on this thread for their answers, you simply punt.
Well, I guess when on fourth down and behind your own goal line, that probably is the best thing to do.
@Boris:
On policy issues, the president of the Czeck republic may be far more credible than the scientists you mention. The only reason AGW is not relegated to climate journals only is its policy implications.
And in case you haven’t noticed, AGW is highly politicized within science in addition to without, leaving argument by authority even weaker than it normally is.
But since you like authorities, how about the “father of modern climatology” who recently denounced climate change science and the resulting hysterics.
If you want any credibility or respect at all, Lazar, you will have to do better than this:
“Yet Al Gore does not repeat nonsense like Paul Unulaska does.”
This is patently false. Many of Gore’s pronouncements have been debunked and in several instances shown to be outright misrepresentations and untruths. His problem, and that of too many other AGW proponents, is the reduction of a great and poorly understood complexity to a simplicity that serves a narrow political agenda.
Your apparent interest in and citation of principles of theoretical atmospheric physics, while it addresses an important component of the problem, is illustrative. Atmospheric physics is but a single component of the question and I conclude that you unduly weigh its importance at the expense of other, perhaps far more important variables. Atmospheric physics in isolation and even in some aggregate where it has precedence (I don’t care how much you quantify it or build models of it), while it may explain the processes and elements of atmospheric physics does not necessarily explain or answer long term global climate trends. Without the context and a much FULLER UNDERSTANDING than we presently have of many complex variables the question of whether and if even AGW is important can not be answered. But I assume even you will acknowledge that. (Or at least common sense would suggest you should.)
Consider (but let us not limit ourselves to) for example, our incomplete knowledge of 1) myriad oceanic processes and their dependent relationships as they relate to this question, 2) an understanding of the processes of natural carbon sequestration and release over the millions of years of earth history, 3) the cyclic nature and variability in solar radiation over similar time spans, 4)the impact of differing geologic processes such as volcanism and glaciation and a progression of environmental changes as the planet has evolved over 100′s of millions of years, culminating most recently (over the last couple million years) in 5) extreme unexplained climatic variations characterized by huge advances and retreats of ice within the Pleistocene (and an unknown number of smaller oscillations within each of the advance and retreat phases of the four (or more) past glacial episodes), or 6) geologically recent, and historically low atmospheric CO2 levels compared to the extremes that “science”, by golly, has determined have occurred in the distant past. Science does not fully understand the how or why of any of these, their relative importance and what impact they have. Neither does it understand the significance of such recent events as the Maunder Minimum, or the Medieval Warm Period or the more recent “Little” Ice Age. Now combine that with highly variable rates of occurrence over time, not only at an almost infinite number of different geographic locations around the globe but with issues of both measurement accuracy and sampling validity, numerous questions about short term and longer time frames, differing base lines, and an entire raft of possible methodological shortcomings. These are the reasons that a growing number of scientists and others are skeptical. They know they don’t know. They know that science is imperfect. They have studied the history of science and they know its past failings.
But the question, Lazar, is not one of science. It is not even one of faith—though a religion is what many believe this issue has become. It is really a question of common sense and logic, which is what I always supposed was part of science. That has been forgotten–whether by USGS (in the last several days) who derives its funding from a political machine with agendas, or by Dr. Hanson and his NASA colleagues who also strive for continued or greater funding from government, by numerous grant striving university academicians crawling on bended knee to the alter of NSF, the European Union, the otherwise failed UN or whatever other agency holds out the possibility of grant money. AGW has, unfortunately, turned many in the scientific community into prostitutes to mammon and their naïve minions into worshipers of false gods. They have thus lost a great deal of their credibility and you should not be surprised that many no longer believe what they and their uninformed supporters have to say.
So go ahead and exclain about how Al Gore doesn’t spout nonsense like Paul Unalaska, how I and others wear tinfoil hats and are “uncool”, you diminish not myself, John Moore, Thinking Person or the others with your narrow, largely uninformed arrogance, you diminish only yourself and your own“argument”.
Global warmers are those who pee on the beach then believe themselves responsible for the rising tide.
Lazar…I Knight Thee Sir Cut-N-Paste!
Preposteroso: “Global warmers are those who pee on the beach then believe themselves responsible for the rising tide.”
HUSE (Human Urine Salinity Events – Pronounced Huss-ee) are a real problem no matter what an uneducated individual like your Nazi self may think.
The increase in ocean salt content caused by each such event may be small, but in aggregate they cause the oceans to reflect more heat and are therefore major contributors to the Warming Crisis we find ourselves confronting. In order to eliminate this serious problem, our friend Lazar will be installing Basic Aeration Bathroom Extentions (pronounced Babe) on behalf of the incoming adminstration.
The next time you’re at the beach, find yourself a BABE and don’t settle for a HUSE.
Regards
“Yet Al Gore does not repeat nonsense like Paul Unulaska does.”
1. The debate is over! There’s no longer any debate in the scientific community about this. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm’s length because it’s an inconvenient truth, because they don’t want to accept that it’s a moral imperative.
No, the debate is not over.
2. What changed in the United States with Hurricane Katrina was a feeling that we have entered a period of consequences.
Righhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht.
3. I drive a hybrid. Tipper and I got a Lexus hybrid. And we have a couple of Priuses in the family with our children. And I encourage people to make environmentally conscious choices because we all have to solve this climate crisis.
Please ignore the electric bill.
4. Among the most dramatic effects [of an environmental crisis], if the historical record is any guide, will be massive migrations of people from areas where civilization is disrupted to other areas where they hope to find the means for survival & a better way of life-but with unpredictable consequences for those areas.
Yeah right….third world people will just pack up en masse and thumb a ride to a western country.
Al Gore is an effin idiot.
Dear All,
There still seems to be some misunderstanding…
I care not a whit for credibility and respect in your eyes, I care a little bit that you behave rationally, that is after all in your own interests.
Understanding climate science requires more work than you probably realize. It is not gained from repeating claims found on denialist sites. Understanding is gained by reading the work of the scientists involved; books and papers. Not a select few papers picked by denialist sites, but actually surveying the field and reading all the work and different lines of evidence there are to be found. You claim climate science is wrong, that the opinions and work of the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong, but you don’t read their work! That is irrational. Generally, *regardless of who is right and who is wrong*, a requirement of critical thinking and genuine skepticism is to read both sides and as many sources as you can find. You are not doing that. Pick up a textbook on atmospheric physics and lay the foundations for genuine knowledge. That is rational. If you had genuine knowledge, you would not repeat half the bizarre and daft claims found here. I read the ‘other side’ too, denialist sites, if only to keep abreast of the latest claims, though most are very old, very debunked, recycled endlessly (guys, the arguments in the links you gave me I’ve read many times before). I’m grateful to denialists for pushing me into researching new and interesting aspects of the climate system which I otherwise would not have got round to, at least for a while. Nevertheless, their claims are bunk.
My behaviour…
If I call your claims ignorant, it is because they are. If I call you ignorant, it is because you are — we all start from that point. If I comment on your tinfoil hat, it is because you are making paranoid claims. I do not think you are *stupid*. I think you all have the ability to become competent in the field, if not the desire. Repeating claims from denialist sites is a hell of a lot easier than serious study. No long nights spent reading, no arduous thought trying to understand difficult problems, derivations and mathematical techniques, no weighing of evidence. It gives a kind of false credibility, that you know ‘better’ than the vast majority of climate scientists and that vast body of knowledge, it makes you ‘different’ by ‘bucking the status quo’. It means you do not need to alter your political beliefs. But you will *never* be taken credibly outside of communities like this.
I do not respond to your claims because doing so is not in your interests, and is a waste of my time. Rather than trying to ‘argue’ with me, or writing lengthy comments about the philosophy of science and how you are ‘right’, it is better that you keep your heads buried in books and papers. It is better that you look for yourself for evidence that runs contrary to your beliefs.
A note on the much reviled Al Gore. He has made one statement which I consider to be nonsense. Note that I wrote “Al Gore does not repeat nonsense *like* Paul Unulaska does”. He has also made many claims which are correct, and done a good job of a difficult task, which is to create a popularization of a multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary, complex science. That is quantitavely different from the claims on this site, which are *all* nonsense in one way or another — empirically wrong, illogical, too vague, misapplied/interpreted etc.
This time I really mean it,
Goodbye!
lazar,
“Dear All,”
“This time I really mean it,
Goodbye!”
you could have spared yourself further humiliation(and the rest of PJM a great deal of boredom) if you’d omitted the pretentious blah blah blah between the quoted phrases…
With his last comment, if not with his previous contributions, Lazar has fully beclowned himself. I think we can declare this thread closed and can probably ignore any comments that Lazar might offer us in the future. He seems to be a taco short of a combination plate.
The charlatan, when presented with evidence, runs away with to peddle his fraud elsewhere.
“the failure of the “warming signature” to appear”
John, you should read the AR4 for yourself instead of some “how to be a climate skeptic guide.”
Only an enhanced greenhouse effect warms the surface and cools the upper stratosphere. Both have been observed unequivocally.
The rest of your list is more nonsense. You expect climate models to predict the weather? You obviously haven’t done an analysis of trends with Hansen’s 1988 model, which–given the differences in forcing and the model’s (slightly) higher than average sensitivity–match reality quite well.
If you actually read the report–and the underlying literature–you would know a thing or two.
BTW, a list is not evidence. This is your first problem.
“On policy issues, the president of the Czeck republic may be far more credible than the scientists you mention.”
See, this is your second problem. It’s not a policy issue–we’re talking science here. And it’s obvious what the world’s leading scientific organizations think about the issue.
Time magazine, June 24th, 1974, “Another Ice Age?”:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Newsweek magazine, April 28th, 1975, “The Cooling World”:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/newsweeks-1975-article-about-the-coming-ice-age
The media was all in a tizzy in the 1970′s & early 1980′s about the coming Ice Age since it SNOWED in WINTER! Yes, the shows were very dramatic & unexpected in their ferocity, but, it proved to be a phase.
Hansen, who is screaming like a little girl about the poles melting this past Summer (which did not happen), screamed about the coming Ice Age 30 years ago. The man has not changed except he now has a few more grey hairs.
Lazar, Hansen screamed about the polar caps melting this past Summer, yet they remain quite unchanged for the most part.
Are you aware that GCM’s are used for weather prediction and climate sensitivity studies, and that at least one (don’t remember which) is actively used for both? GCM’s suffer from the problems in my list.
If you don’t think weather prediction is an important feature of climate models, then apparently you don’t understand their usage. GCM’s are used to measure sensitivity. They do this by predicting weather (the short term state of the atmosphere) given varying forcings. However, they cannot do weather well, for the reasons given in my list. And they cannot do very important things like teleconnections (say, MJO to NA precip) because chaos dominates in the time frames necessary.
So yes, their inability to do a good job at predicting weather is one of their many weaknesses in predicting climate.
Well, one of the beauties of models is how one can cherry pick the results one wants (or even created them because the parameterization is based on weak science). So which model do we pick?
Almost all predictions have had the climate substantially hotter by now.
Which report? IPCC what year? Have you read the dissents? The many disclaimers by the scientists who wrote it? Or, did you just read the summary, which is the only part released to the press or anyone else (unless you want to pay a bunch for the real report)? You are aware that the summary is not an accurate summary, but is a politicized document that has led to considerable anger on the part of some scientists who contribute.
BTW, not understanding the significance of GCM’s in climate prediction seems to be one of your problems. Perhaps another is not recognizing that those who assert claims upon which massive economic changes are advocated bear the burden of answering the lists of issues.
Perhaps you would care to present evidence, other than unverifiable, infintely tweakable computer models, that the high positive feedback actually exists.
Wow, mentioned in Lazar’s obit, I’m touched. Really..!
I so did enjoy this comment, ‘A PhD is not a necessary condition for understanding science nor is it necessary for doing original research, I know scientists who have done the latter without one, and done good work. It is also not a guarantee of competence, and I’ve known post-docs to be incompetent in the basics of their field.’
California tried the same experiment. The state experienced a teaching crisis some years back. Teacher’s pay didn’t coincide with the cost of living and qualified teachers resigned and left the Golden state.
The state’s response? It’d taken applications, interviewed individuals and hired many who hadn’t experience, education in teaching or a degree for that matter. The result was disastrous. Due to these ‘great ideas’ in which ‘within all of is an educator’ mantra, California’s public education is way off course and today ranks 47th in the country. Great job! Another example of collectivism does kill.
Education and experience do matter in many regards. Many educated people develop tunnel vision (thank you Mr. James Hansen!). Though playing upon another one’s fears and ignorance on a subject is their raison d’etre this day and age.
The public needn’t look far to MMGW material to peruse – the public is inundated with it. It’s for this reason people research other concepts, ideas to challenge the horrendous ‘balanced’ information given to Joe, or Jane Public.
Like my old girlfriend would say; “The check’s in the mail; That’s the best price; I would never come in your mo***”.
If it’s simple enough, you can entrap simple minds. (seems to be the operational manual of the U.S. Socialist media)
“So which model do we pick?”
If you want to test long term predictions, I said Hansen’s 1988 paper would be a good choice. It produced a slightly higher trend than reality, but the forcings were slightly higher and the sensitivity is slightly higher than the central IPCC estimate.
“unless you want to pay a bunch for the real report”
I linked to the real report. It is free. See how little you know?
The summary isn’t different from the report and was written by scientists.
“Hansen….screamed about the coming Ice Age 30 years ago.”
No he didn’t. Liar.
“I would never come in your mo***”
I think yo may have censored the wrong word there, geezer.
James Hasen–in the 1970′s–worked on a computer program which would predict the coming Ice Age as previously cited, but it began much earlier in 1971:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/
Now, how can anyone with full knowledge take James Hansen seriously? In the 1970′s & early 1980′s, he was a doom sayer about the coming Ice Age apocalypse; now, his is a doom sayer about the coming Global Warming apocalypse.
Hansen went to Congress in 1988 claiming Man’s use of fossil fuels will bring about a new Ice Age:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/back-to-1988-on-co2-says-nasas-hansen/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=447
For those still checking this thread, visit http://www.powerlineblog.com today (12/28) and read “A Scam, With No Basis In Science”–the comments of Frank Tipler; a physicist and mathematician regarding Dr. Hansen and the prostitution of science. Boris and Lazar will simply deny this but that will surprise none of us. The walls are beginning to crumble.
Lazar needs to find sources that aren’t a decade out of date. Sources that state, as is the fact, that the most recent warming period ended in 1998 and the cooling which has occurred in the last two years has nearly wiped out all of the warming which occurred in the last century.
He also need to explain why the polar ice cap on Mars was emlting. Is it too many SUVs or too many cows?
“Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer”:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html
According the alarmist hyperventilating of another Global Warming Zombie “journalist,” ice would cease to exist in the North Pole. This past Summer of 2008! OMG, it’s the end of the world!
Or rather it’s not. James Hansen used this report as his reasoning that the poles would melt this past Summer. If true, wouldn’t much of the Souther United States be underwater by now?
However, for the past 10 years, we have been in a cooling cycle. This past Winter shows this to be true given the early snows in Las Vegas, Nevada & Seattle, Washington where it hardly ever snows.
Yet the insanity in dealing with this new information is rationalize Global Warming causes Global Cooling…!
In a few more years, this same idiots will talk about the coming Ice Age…again…to impose their socialist agendas. This is what it’s really all about. Science is just a means to an end to impose a political left wing agenda. Opinions are dressed up as facts. The brighter the colors or the more dire the upcoming apocalyse, the bigger the turd. James Hansen should have a whole closet full of turds at this point with his Chicken Little nonsense.
I gave up reading all the comments, but personally think that the modern man fault global warming people are over-reacting…I remember when I first came to France, and they had just done a story about the number of stone circles and other neolithic monuments under La Manche (English Channel for Lazur) off the Brittany coast. Of course the mere fact that there are humans on the planet is the problem…
many of you commenters have totally missed the point of the article: about science selling it’s soul to the highest bidder…that’s what seems to be the problem, straight across the board, not just for global warming or global freezing or whatever…
“…did not want to peer through Galileo’s telescope at the night sky, having a rock-hard faith that made evidence unnecessary.”
But Mr. Lewis did not want to actually do two minutes of research into the Galileo incident, having rock hard faith in what he was told about it that made actual research unnecessary.
For an editorialist, you do very shoddy research, Mr. Lewis. Galileo was not put under house arrest because he taught heliocentrism as the theory it was at the time, he was put under house arrest because he was teaching it as a FACT, which Galileo had not proved it was (in fact, he failed to disproved the major argument against it, stellar paralax, and one of his main proofs, that the SUN caused the ocean tides, was false.) In fact, he probably wouldn’t have had THAT much trouble if he hand’t made a GROSS political blunder on top of it all.
More research next time will keep you from sounding like a gradeschool student trying to write an assignment without going to the library.
I’m really enjoying the AGW threads I’ve been seeing lately. The alarmists are collectively getting their behinds kicked, and seem completely unaware of it.
Truth is, the science was left behind years ago. The cAGW “science” has ceased to actually be science, and has entered the realm of voodoo.
Almost every prolific alarmist poster follows the same pattern: 1. You’re an idiot, 2. Appeal to authority, 3. Attempt to mire dissenters in meaningless details, 4. You’re still an idiot and I’m Not Your Teacher ™, 5. Tuvalu is sinking! 6. Think of the Children! 7. It’s a concensus and you’re an idiot.
Well, here’s a fact: If you believe in cAGW (the c is for “catastrophic”), you are probably going to change your mind. Don’t believe what the chief alarmist himself has been mouthing lately, NO scientist changes from being a skeptic to being an alarmist (unless there is a direct financial benefit). ALL skeptics began as believers until they saw the gaping holes in the hypothesis.
There is no possible way for alarmists to “educate” skeptics into the alarmist fold, for the simple fact that alarmists are wrong, and skeptics are educated. Therefore, all attempts by alarmists to do so make them look like, well, idiots.
I thought this was a great article I’d read a few days back on mensnewsdaily and found again recently.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200812233092/energy-and-environment/prominent-scientist-fired-by-gore-says-global-warming-alarm-mistaken.html
What’s astounding is the faith put into these models. When I analyze upper-air (weather balloon), alphanumeric and graphic data for a weather forecast, meteorologists must edit the data given for it’s ALWAYS slightly or at times, very erroneous. These are 6 hour – 72 hour progs! If the prog is erroneoous from that 6 hour window, you can imagine what the 3. 6 or 12 day progs will encompass. Heck, we’ve all seen the ’7 day oulook’ on our local news station. Again, the aforementioned site is in the least, optimistic.
“Hansen went to Congress in 1988 claiming Man’s use of fossil fuels will bring about a new Ice Age:
That was AGW. Hansen never screamed or said anything about an imminent ice age. I’m sorry, you weren’t lying, you were just horribly misinformed and incapable of reading. I apologize and weep for our future.
There were very odd inconsistencies in all Lazar’s posts that suggests a lack of mental stability. Chosen at random:
“a requirement of critical thinking and genuine skepticism is to read both sides and as many sources as you can find”; and just a few short sentences later: “I’m grateful to denialists for pushing me into researching new and interesting aspects of the climate system which I otherwise would not have got round to”. Wouldn’t think a critical thinker would require being pushed, thought that was his whole point, not that he perceived that in his agitated mental state.
There are many, many others. But people, don’t take him too seriously. If I was as invested in a cause as much as he was — both the cause of anthropogenic global warming, and simultaneously the cause of his own self being among a cabal of scientists and purported “critical thinkers” who need not expend any effort to support/defend their conclusions to laymen — the more I read, well then the more I’d support my cause, wouldn’t I? That’s not science, that’s narcissistic psychosis. Why would he offer support? It’s rather perfect for his personality type. His outlook permits him to live entirely in a world of his own making that does not in any way require he acknowledge his own limitations. His self image and his view of his own place in the world would be devastated if he did not assume that scientific papers have attained sufficient understanding that justifies use of a term like “deniers”.
Come on, Lazar. There is plenty of scientific debate about the impact of man on warming. I’m not going to cherry pick the best ones from the blogs to show that, we all know what those arguments are. You will claim they are wrong. But your use of the term “deniers” gives you completely away, because that is not a term that has a place in the scientific community. If you’re as well-read as you suggest, you already know this. And deep down where you live, I think you get that — and you can’t hide from yourself. Wrap yourself in a comfortable academic coat if you must, and cop as much attitude as you like, but true wisdom lies in understanding the limits of your own knowledge and holding your own opinions in highest suspicion. Voting for W doesn’t fix what’s broken in your prideful formulations, even on this forum.
Personally, I think we’ve been warming since the last ice age. Is that wrong?
Lazar
I only have one comment…the green house effect exists…the inconvenient truth that everyone steers clear of, is population growth and its effect on the planet. (from deforestation to increased CO2 emmissions and everything in between–waste of time to list).
No one wants to touch that variable for obvious political reasons…I suspect that variable’s value will self correct in short order
“I think Iraq is a great success, and Afghanistan an improvement.
Capitalism is empirically the best economic system ever devised.
Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan are the two politicians I most admire.
I *know* that the welfare state corrupts society.”
You are insane.
How could you possibly think that the above would bolster your case for being a rational person who basis their opinion on evidence?
Anonymous,
Perhaps I’ve got you all wrong. But. Several years ago — when An Inconvenient Truth was being hyped by the press — I turned to my wife and said, guess what, honey: this is just the preamble, it’s not the real argument. In a few years, the advocates of anthropogenic global warming will have been debunked because their arguments do not rely on historical actual real data, but in fact future computer models created by ambitious but unfortunately biased humans, and they will turn instead towards other perceived, yet-to-occur crises in order to achieve what their bankrupt psychological predisposition demands. You see, ultimately they must satisfy their authoritarian bent, their desire to see a paternalistic state, their desire to control not just the behavior but the very thoughts of persons other than themselves to ensure what their own limited intellect suggests to them is correct human behavior… by manufacturing problems the solutions to which lie in a communal, socialist, hippie-freak governance that run contrary to not just liberty, but the reasonably limits on liberty that also make this country great (namely the rule of law). And lo and behold, the population argument has emerged, courtesy of your post. It was only a matter of time.
If you are interested in self correction, I recommend you join the voluntary human extinction movement. Look it up, it’s actually out there. If you think humans are bad, whether you are an environmentalist or simply catholic, well, take remedial action if you dare. There are many, many freaks who have elected to play on Team Earth (read: Team Inanimate Object) rather than Team Human (read: what every other living breathing thing does by evolutionary default, and I know you dig evolution, don’t you?). For goodness sake! The very real problems of limited natural resources, excessive population in a species that has achieved both a standard of living and technological achievement that should simply be marveled at — those problems are bad enough. But don’t co-opt these real things that must be prudently managed, and bastardize them into whatever b.s. cultish ultra-liberal anti-fellow-human warped-as-all-get-out pseudo-theology you have decided to replace religion with in the void of your mind. After all, ultimately, don’t you just want people driving a car exactly as big as yours, and no bigger? Don’t want to personally cut checks to the Sierra Club but instead wish that government forced everyone else to? What does that make you? A bitter human who willfully ignores the green-house impact of fricking water vapor in order to justify political ends that are as bankrupt as Lazar’s posts.
Or something like that.
LennyB, in the words of the late Chris Farley, ‘That.. was.. awesome’!
LennyB…I’m not trying to incur your wrath…simply stating a fact given the law of unintended consequences. What makes you think I’m a Liberal? As for the Greenhouse effect…that isn’t the same as AGW. The internet is a major contributing factor to the hostility on the planet. As the population grows and the virtual distance between us decreases, so will the level of violence etc. And if it’s hot watch out…that’s when people get most irritable. I don’t necessarily agree with Lazar or you. But clearly you have an anger management issue.
“In a few years, the advocates of anthropogenic global warming will have been debunked because their arguments do not rely on historical actual real data”
You actually believe scientists haven’t looked at the real world data? Wow.
He is also getting stick for refusing to fly the EU flag across Czech. Way to Go Klaus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMZbs6zu5PU&eurl=http://bloggers4ukip.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-12-20T17%3A01%3A00Z&max-results=13&feature=player_embedded
The real challenge tho, is to debunk the precautionary principle and the new scientific dictatorship we live/die under.
hello!
I might give some credence to the Global Warming nuts [sorry], GW Proponents if they can do this. Take weather data from the mid 20th century and plug it into their computer models and show us the results reflecting what we know already happened. If their models can’t do that, they have NOTHING!!!!