The New Weathermen
Recently, pretty much on a whim, I decided to monitor the accuracy of radio and TV weather reports, since these affect our daily behavior in all sorts of different ways: what we wear, whether we go in to work or not, look to the repair of the shutters, go up on the ladder to check the rain gutters, don’t forget the sunglasses, etc. I gave the weather experts one week to prove their credentials and began keeping careful score.
The TV reports were terribly impressive. They were also impressively terrible. For all the intricate color charts, the high pressure areas and low pressure areas marked in bold, the sweeping curvilinear lines, the little puffy clouds extruding rain drops, the smiley-face suns, the luminous chromatics of competing “systems,” and all the rest of it, it turned out that the cocksure prognostications were as just wrong as they were right.
After the week had passed, my scorecard showed that the weather person had blundered grievously on three days, had been correct on three days, and was partially correct on one day when the rainfall forecast for the morning arrived only in the evening. A 50% success rate hardly qualifies as confidence-inspiring, seeing that it approximates nothing more convincing than the results of a coin toss.
It’s tempting to extrapolate from the quotidian to the planetary, from the small tomorrow to the big tomorrow, and inquire into the competence of our “official” climatologists, who have assured us that we are heading for meteoric catastrophe, noncompliant weather notwithstanding. Climate warm-mongers naturally try to rescue their hypothesis by dishing up vain distinctions, like the climate “expert” interviewed on CBC Radio’s As it Happens who, confronted with the fact of colder winters, claimed there is a difference between climate and weather!
The game works like this. If the weather is warmer than usual, it is an infallible sign of global warming. If the weather is colder than usual, it is an equally infallible sign — owing to some ludicrous formula straight out of an alchemist’s notebook — that the climate is heating up alarmingly and we must all go green, pass cap and trade, drive Volts, turn down our thermostats, and set up phalanxes of unsightly, bird-shredding, budget-breaking, and neurosis-inducing windmills that may, on good days, produce enough electricity to power a 40-watt bulb. A massive snowfall climbing over the window ledge indicates the approach of desert-like winters when parents will recount nostalgic tales of snowball fights of yore to their wondering children. The predictions, though, need not always be counter-intuitive. A dry season means the baking inferno is nigh. A wet season signals the onset of Noahide floods, rising sea levels, and the submerging of Pacific islands. An ordinary day is merely the ominous quiet before the impending storm. It makes no difference what the data may be, they always point in the same direction.
Quite frankly, we have, most or at least many of us, gone stark raving mad. Experience counts for nothing. Theory is everything. One thinks of the old joke: It’s fine in practice, but will it work in theory? Only it’s not fine in practice, in defiance of which the theory must be patched together and upheld at all costs.
Thus, increasingly unable to rely on the accuracy of their findings, which had the annoying habit of turning into fables, mainstream climatologists, like their colleagues in the political arena, were compelled to fall back on their next best option. If reality refused to cooperate, then all that needed to be done was to change the terminology. First it was global warming. When the earth decided not to play along and pummeled us with a series of colder winters and major snow storms, we suddenly discovered we were the victims of climate change. When it became evident that there were fewer rather than more hurricane events, as confidently predicted by Al Gore, we were now subject to global weirding, whatever that was supposed to be. When the latest substitution didn’t catch on, it became global climate disruption, an umbrella term big enough to shelter climatologists from the facts pelting down on them.
The technique of blatantly merchandising outright lies as uncontested facts was evident in a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report claiming that the period 2002-2009 was “the warmest on record worldwide,” when something very close to the opposite was the truth (AP, February 8, 2010). Not content with passing off one whopper, the NOAA, which derives its evidence from the dubious NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, claimed that June 2010 was the warmest month on record and that Arctic temperatures had risen by close to four degrees from average. The problem here is that Goddard has no thermometers north of eighty degrees latitude and so projected their readings from their more southerly apparatus. “Really,” comments meteorologist Art Horn, who has closely tracked these facets of the climate fantasy, “they make it up.”
And that’s the truth. They make it up. Of course, making things up turns out to be a profitable business, generating all manner of perks, titles, offices, grants, and funds, an appanage without limit. Take UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chairman Rajendra Pachauri, who has recently been implicated in a conflict of interest, as he sits on the boards of companies poised to profit from the “climate change” industry. And when it comes to pure invention, let us recall that he was also the chief backer of the great “Himalaya melt” scare, which has now been shown to be based on an undocumented, unchecked, and unproven “speculation” of a single Indian scientist, Syed Hasnain, who was then recruited by Pachauri to his The Energy Research Institute (TERI). The IPCC’s 2007 report, vetted by Pachauri, said there was a 90% chance that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. This claim has now been decisively refuted. The Pachauri gang also had to admit that its 2007 statement that 55% of the Netherlands lies below sea level was in error — it is 26% (Big Journalism, February 13, 2010).
The plot thickened — or thinned — in late November 2009 when the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was hacked, releasing thousands of files suggesting a covert mega-operation to propagate an anthropogenic global warming myth. This is an excellent instance of the Groves of Hackademe doing what they do best — misconceiving the world and then misleading it. “Warmist scientists,” wrote James Delingpole about the Hadley contretemps, “have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause” (Telegraph.co.uk, November 21, 2009). The CRU was clearly practicing counterfeit science. It had become undeniable that measurements were tampered with to paint the desired canvas, that counter-evidence was deliberately squelched, that character assassination against climate skeptics was an accepted tactic, and that experimental results were falsely replicated.
anAL GOREtentive
Being “of a certain age,” I recall a certain Comet Kohoutek. Some astronomers predicted that it would be visible in the night sky, if you had a good pair of field glasses. Others said it would turn night to day. Guess which ones got the column-inches?
This is inherent in the nature of national media. And it points directly to their biggest shortcoming, and their biggest fear: We the Webbing.
(Yes, yes, I know “webbing” isn’t a verb, but I can’t think of a better one. It’s 5 AM, for God’s sake. Cut me some slack.)
I’ve been saying the same thing about the weather “forecasters” for years now. I know it’s total B.S. They haven’t done better than 50% on their forecasts ever since I’ve watched weather reports.
Right after a snowstorm here in Michigan the local weather guy got an award from a local business for getting the snow total right (within 1/2″), the next day his forecast was 100% wrong, as it was for the day after that, and the day after that. No mention of returning the award.
We also endure a constant barrage of worry from the left hand wringers about the loss of ice in the north and south poles, even though A) we’ve been losing ice since the end of the last ice age, it’s inevitably going to disappear, and B) Antarctica loses ice in the western shelf and they gleefully report it, but at the same time there is no mention of the ice shelf GROWING on the eastern side of the continent.
Inconvenient truth, or inconvenient facts disrupting their ‘truths’ that aren’t truths at all, unless you’re living in a left wing fascist fantasy land.
Right after a snowstorm here in Michigan the local weather guy got an award from a local business for getting the snow total right (within 1/2″), the next day his forecast was 100% wrong, as it was for the day after that, and the day after that. No mention of returning the award.
This reminds me of a late-morning weather report I heard 20-odd years back when I was living in Toronto. The forecast said there was a strong chance of rain sometime that day with a probability upwards of 80%. Since it had already been raining for some hours at this point, I could not give him much credit for an insightful prediction.
I also wondered why it had not occurred to him to use the oldest of all meteorological instruments – the window – to confirm his forecast. If he had, he could have dropped the “80% chance of rain” prediction.
It was autumn, and the Indians on the remote reservation asked their new Chief if the winter was going to be cold or mild. Since he was a new Indian Chief in a modern society, he had never been taught the old secrets, and when he looked at the sky, he couldn’t tell what the weather was going to be. Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he replied to his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect wood to be prepared. But also being a practical leader, after several days he got an idea. He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked,
“Is the coming winter going to be cold?”
“It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold indeed,” the meteorologist at the weather service responded.
So the Chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more wood in order to be prepared. A week later he called the National Weather Service again.
“Is it going to be a very cold winter?”
“Yes,” the man at National Weather Service again replied, “it’s going to be a very cold winter.”
The Chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of wood they could find. Two weeks later he called the National Weather Service again.
“Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?”
“Absolutely,” the man replied. “It’s going to be one of the coldest winters ever.”
“How can you be so sure?” the Chief asked.
The weatherman replied, “The Indians are collecting wood like crazy!”
Yes, precisely what I have always said. The best weather prognosis is “Eye Witness Weather.” I worked in the out of doors for 20 years and by simply going outside and looking skyward I received a forecast that was 100% accurate. What a concept..and without the indoctrination to boot!
“An ordinary day is merely the ominous quiet before the impending storm.”
Oh, you poor, poor naif (thank you, National Review, for teaching me that word). Don’t you understand that a long period of “ordinary days” is evidence of the onset of Global Climate Stagnation, one of the most insidious results of CO2?
Great article! Prior to Dec, 2009, everytime I read about global warming, I dismissed it like most common-sense farmers, since everyone who reads the Dept of Ag gardening literature knows urban heat islands are up to 10 degrees warmer than surrounding rural areas and that all the land temps for NOAA are from those airports surrounded by heat. I had no idea the political motivations were so entrenched. Some years ago, before the media got behind the scam, a study was done that proved the best weather forecasters were the Native American medicine men. They beat the meteorologists hands-down.
An op-ed entitled ‘Follow the Money’ in the online WSJ when Climategate occurred was the first time I was aware of the extent of the scam, and I started reading Anthony Watts’s blog, along with Sen. Inhofe’s website. Now several books are out there, including “Climate Corruption” and “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout”. The anti-capitalist movement of the 1960′s after the Vietnam War co-opted the environment movement, and when the USSR went under, the communists in the USA and Europe saw the environment movement as a way to their world Utopia. They are so well-funded, it is mind-boggling, especially since we the taxpayers are funding it, along with billionaires.
It’s time we start pressuring Congress to de-fund the entire scam. How many billions are being taken from the taxpayers to fund an effort to destroy our entire civilization?
It’s time we start pressuring Congress to de-fund the entire scam. How many billions are being taken from the taxpayers to fund an effort to destroy our entire civilization?
In the immortal words of Woody Allen, “You say that like it’s a negative thing!”.
Which is just my cynical way of saying that there is no incentive to stop funding the Global Warming bandwagon because it meets the goals of the left wingers who seek to utterly destroy our civilization. They haven’t changed their goals and they dominate our governments so why would they defund themselves?
Should a grassroots based citizen movement like the Tea Party try to get these programs defunded? Sure. But despite all the talk about how electing Republicans in 2010 was going to change everything, it seems that the politicians aren’t really accomplishing very much at all now that Republicans dominate the House.
What the House Republicans have done so far is a big improvement over anything in the past; at least all of the federal government is now (or at least feels it must appear to be) focused on reducing spending rather than increasing it (from the 1.5 trillion dollar increase The 0 started with).
Any “denier” who goes after global warming/climate change/climate disruption programs will be demonized both by the Democrats and by the MSM, just as they were demonized when they tried to defund the charitable organization Planned Parenthood, which donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrat campaigns. How can Democrats hope to be reelected if we keep cutting off government funds to their biggest contributors? They’ll fight like junkyard dogs to keep us from doing so.
Maybe more progress can be made if/when Republicans control the Senate and, we pray, the presidency.
Any “denier” who goes after global warming/climate change/climate disruption programs will be demonized both by the Democrats and by the MSM, just as they were demonized when they tried to defund the charitable organization Planned Parenthood, which donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrat campaigns.
Three questions:
1. How does a charity justify making donations to a political party? If the charity’s mission is to, say, feed the hungry or distribute condoms, what justification does it use to donors to explain why it is giving money to politicians and parties?
2. HOw can a charity afford to make donations to a political party? Presumably, a charity’s purpose is to do something within a community like feed the hungry. Given that most charities claim that the need far outweighs the available resources, how can they afford to give money to politicians, which surely diminishes their resources even further and widens the gap between what they want to do and what they are actually able to do.
3. Is it legal for a charity in the United States to make donations to a political party? I’m Canadian and I don’t claim to know the laws governing charities even in this country but I have the distinct impression that charities get audited periodically to make sure that they actually spend their money for the purpose for which they’ve been established, less certain overhead such as salaries and expenses. I’ve never heard of a charity in this country making a donation to a politician. Mind you, it might still have happened!
If I recall correctly, we elected the gop to STOP the obama-machine. Having only one branch of gov’t was never going to move anything along – but it could stop THEM cold!
“…vetted by Pachauri, said there was a 90% chance that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.”
Just to clarify this, Pachauri actually said they would disappear by 2350 AD, but that figure was “accidentally” misrepresented in the report.
Ouch!…I for one am embarrassed, as I thought he had actually said 23,500 AD. I thought that was probably a safe guess and actually agreed with him and sent him a letter of congratulations on his excellence in Climatology and Ice Sheets, now I’m not so sure. I feel so foolish now.
“…….“accidentally” misrepresented in the report.”
Ah, yes. A typo. The old the sky-is-falling trick.
The tidbit about 2350 is just a smokescreen.
The claim was made in 1999 by Dr Hasnain in New Scientist and repeated in a WWF publication in 2005. The IPCC took it almost word for word using a WWF report as the basis for inclusion in the 2007 report. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221893.000-flooded-out.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18420-climate-chief-admits-error-over-himalayan-glaciers.html
The IPCC used this reference: “WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.” http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-references.html
Funny how Hasnain now works for Pachauri at TERI, studying glacier retreat on a $500K grant. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html
We could solve much of the deficit problem we face if we just demanded the return of the billions that have poured into “green” scams for the last 30 years. Not a single “environmental” disaster that these people have predicted or postulated has occurred in reality…or will in the future. Why ANYONE believes a single word these morons speak is one of the oddest puzzles of the last century. The only explanation I can come up with is that we’ve so dumbed-down the population (intentionally, in my opinion) that if you mention the term “science” to most of us, our eyes simply glaze over.
True – we have been dumbed down to a bag of rocks in the last 100 years.
See old test from 1895: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/quizzes/8thgrade_test.cfm
I am embarrassed to say that I don’t think I would have passed the test.
Your observation is totally right on. It is all about keeping the uninformed more stupid, controlled like robots on remote control. How else can the uber liberal, socialists, elitists put us under one world (I use this word with only contempt) government.
Check out this month’s national geographic. Long article on how CO2 in the oceans will kill off sealife. Long on ‘if’s and ‘could’s and ‘models indicate’, but real short of actual evidence or facts. If worms had machine guns, there would be no robins.
But that is the nature of National Geographic. When the world tired of photographs of half-naked natives from around the world, the National Geographic had to re-invent itself. It became a pseudo-scientific propaganda rag for environmentalism and the left. It hasn’t been a serious publication in decades–kind of like “Sciemtific American”. No lie is so grievous that it can’t be promoted and offered up to the uninformed.
Note that the article immediately before the article on the peril of CO2 in the ocean is one concerning a volcano in Africa. I don’t have the copy in front of me, but I recall that one sentence notes that this single volcano produces more greenhouse gasses in a year than the entire United States! I was astounded that the editors let that line slip by, but perhaps following it with the CO2 in the Ocean article was their way to make people forget that important detail.
I’ve been saying that about volcanoes for years, based on simple information I got from school (30+ years ago) and from the internet and from going to the library and reading about volcanoes. Yet, our beloved “Gaia” struggles through the ages, apparently undaunted by “facts”, let alone SUV’s. The obvious answer is that Earth’s atmosphere has ways of balancing out the pollutants, natural or otherwise. This is the mechanism that bears closer scrutiny and study, not alarmism and global warmery.
However, throughout the ages, various scams, schemes and legends have permeated humanity to various degrees of effectiveness. A small case in point, though not specifically a conspiracy, but testimony to the panic nature of certain humans, when Orson Welles broadcast “The War Of The Worlds” in 1938, adapted to a modern setting, many people panicked and reacted badly. Mr Welles was forced to apologize by CBS.
Fat chance by today’s standards because the media knows hype=$$. They don’t even particularly care if AGW is real or not. All they care about is getting their money to live a comfortable life. After all, it really is impossible to control what people choose to believe though they do a great job of manipulating it.
Someday, maybe there will be a history book that will discuss this mental disorder and why it permeates humanity. Why critical thinking is so rare, along with good sense and logic. Problem-solving, once a very admired skill, has become a thing of the past, replaced by instant gratification and personal pleasure. But then, that’s really nothing new.
Mr. Solway: Spot-on, although you mix two things together: meteorology and climatology. We economist like to say that God created economists to make weather forecasters (meteorologists) look good. Climatologists are in an entirely different league. It the grifters’ league. Most of them, but not all, have drunk the Kool-Aid of Hansen, Mann and Hadley-CRU. They have stopped being scientists and have become hucksters and fraudsters. They all have a meta-narrative, and Heaven forefend that the facts contradict them. In my heart of hearts, I think they would like to be dictators of the Leftist sort. For the USA, it would be a good reason to abolish the EPA where the influence of such hucksters and fraudsters dominate.
Just remember: The only global warming there is, is Mann-made.
Jack,
“The only global warming there is, is Mann-made.”
I’m stealing this for later use – absolutely hilarious.
Readbear – Truth be told, I stole it from someone else commenting on PJM some months ago. But it is hilarious.
That would be “Piltdown” Mann.
global warming, climate weirding, climate chaos, CAGW, etc..
it is all confusing.
An expression that encompasses it all:
Call it CACA (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alteration).
Some proper uses of the acronym:
“Some are into antiques. Some are into sports. Albert Gore is into CACA.”
“NASA’s James Hansen is a CACA expert.”
A climatologist movie: “All is quiet on the CACA front.”
“It was a dark and stormy CACA…”
Exchange between 2 climatologists:
“How’s that CACA study going?”
“Please wait until I get out of the latrine.”
“CACA happens.”
You certainly have a good since of humor. I like it, but you had better get as much bill fishing in as you can because the CO2 is going to very soon make those great fish go belly up.
Will in Maryland – Trouble is, there isn’t enough CO2 around to do that. Please see the paper by Jules Kalbfeld: “A Challenge to the Carbon Dioxide/Global Warming Connection.”
Sorry Jack in Silver Spring! I did not intended to mislead on the subject of CACA. On the matter – I think we are in total agreement. Pure S!&()%$#.
If you question true beleivers of AGW or “climate change”, you will likely discover that they all think Carlos Casteneda was a real anthropologist and really could fly with his sorceror friend. Then there’s the “if we all chant together maybe we can stop this rain” while the rain continued to come down in buckets so … what can you expect? Hippy dippy weathermen, all.
Don’t you know that weathermen get penalized if they predict a nice day and it rains? If they predict rain and it’s nice, no one gets upset — they consider it good fortunate. However if you predict sun, plan your family picnic and it rains, then you’re pissed. Thus all weather reports have a built in bias. Unfortunately, the political left has built a bias into basic research. If your research doesn’t support their agenda, good luck getting a grant. If you think this applies only to climate “science” (and really how can it be science when you cannot perform controlled experiments to verify your hypothesis?), then you are delusional.
Here in Kansas, we went from low 30s to 92 to 40s, then hail, and back to 60s and 70s all within four days. We had a 82 degree day in early February and snow in early April. The weather has been like this for about two years now. I think God is trying to tell us that HE is in control and we should just shut up. The “experts” don’t know squat.
Mr. Solway,
‘Accurate’ or ‘more accurate’ weather forecasting has been and apparently always will be the military meteorologists/ aviation meteorologists.
It’s the aforementioned group which HAS to be accurate, for much of their precious cargo is personnel in specific drop zones, enemy targets, cargo planes carrying a myriad of aid-like items, etc.,
Forecasting accuracy is REQUIRED of said military weather folks. Whereas the pinheads on t.v. are wrong more often than 50% (I believe the week you monitored was one of their ‘on’ weeks..), to be as incorrect on their respective forecasts ONCE, the meteorologist has to undergo a ‘bust review’. A ‘board meeting’ so to speak amongst their office heads whereas punishment of some type is handed down. You know, accountability! Something lost/brushed aside by civilian weather guessers.
afweather.afwa.af.mil, intellicast.com, weathertap.com, weather.uwyo.edu are a few reputable graphic, radar and upper-air sites, compared to the infinite-mediocre NOAA/NWS sites.
As for ‘meteorological technology’, and again this is opinion, NOTHING beats the tried and true weather balloon for meteorological data. It’s the ‘theory of relativity’ so to speak for the weather field for new software is discovering more and more information obtained from this ancient workhorse.
Heck, the older radars (FPS-77 for example) are FAR MORE accurate than ‘Super Doppler’, ‘Nexrad 2000′ and their infinite-like updated versions.
I’ve noticed the ‘greater’ (really its the more availability) the technology, and this goes for MANY occupations, the more lazy, inaccurate and lethargic the user(s) becomes.
The mother Gaia worshippers, James Hansen’s, Al Gore’s, Pachauri’s etc., are but an example of that ‘based on the computer models’ lethargy.
Paul, I agree with you completely. As the S2 of an artillery battalion in the 82d Abn (back in the early 80s), my guys were “spot on” every time.
Hi Robin. Yeah, you artillery guys in the field did and continue to have an impressive bunch for meteorological field ops.
I did A LOT of Army weather support in the early-late 90′s when in the (ch)Air Force!
The Army doesn’t have meteorologists so being single I volunteered for 3 assignments in my 4 years. I wouldn’t have changed places with anyone. A great learning experience and camaraderie amongst the 82nd.
The things I’ve learned from Airborne with 550 cord..!
Thanks for two things, David, this well-written piece and the new word for my meager vocabulary collection: appanage. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, like it’s unlikely sister the Department of Agriculture, is an expansive and expensive river that cannot help continually overflowing it’s banks.
The word space means all that is not of the earth. Somehow this has come to include the “study” of earth’s climate and the History of Science in Islamic countries. This is merely one more miracle in the good deeds of that pseudo-charity, the U.S. Government.
REDistribution of the wealth of the West, it is the destruction or deconstruction of capitalism and the free market enterprise system and replacing it with a carny barker’s weather “medicine”.
This is a watermelon play, green on the outside, red on the inside.
Well done, David. Unfortunately, the Red Propagandist Media (RPM) will not report this, they are part of the fraud.
It may be cold, it may be hot, it may be changing, yet maybe not. But solar flares and gamma rays will not unclutter our mental haze. We have been taken yet again, by toxic scams and poisoned pens.
This is even less informative than the typical pablum spewed by people with no expert knowledge, contempt for those that have spent years and decades gaining such knowledge, and a willingness to bend facts to fit philosophy. Comparing weather forecasting to a coin toss? Mind-numbing idiocy. How about if I could call the number that came up on a six faced die 50% of the time? How about if I could call the number to come up on a 38 slot roulette wheel 50% of the time? This is a completely irrelevant parametrization even if your “50%” is accurate, which I grievously doubt.
The accuracy of weather forecasts in short and intermediate time frames is a matter of (get ready now) data. Forecasting is DEMONSTRABLY better at all geographic scales and short and intermediate time scales than it was prior to the various tools derided by Paul.
Of course, all this is related to climate in only indirect ways. The fact is that no one (with a grasp of reality) denies that an atmosphere with more CO2 (and any other component with absorption bands in LWIR) will affect the energy balance produced by insolation. This energy is somewhere, I leave it to you to explain where.
The Earth is an extremely complex system of interrelated processes, with drivers, dampers, buffers, etc. but over any extended period, additional energy retained will express itself in climate change. At the broadest level, it’s no more complicated than that.
By the way, if you have zero confidence in physical models implemented on computers, don’t cross modern bridges, don’t go in modern tall buildings, don’t fly in modern airplanes, etc.
#17: “By the way, if you have zero confidence in physical models implemented on computers, don’t cross modern bridges, don’t go in modern tall buildings, don’t fly in modern airplanes, etc.”
Your argument is facile and naive. People who use computers to design modern bridges, tall buildings and airplanes can be sued into bankruptcy if they use faulty computer models that cause those bridges, buildings and airplanes to fall down.
In contrast, climate “scientists” suffer no penalty whatsoever for using faulty computer models that predict climate calamity. To the contrary, they’re rewarded handsomely for making exaggerated predictions, with more grant money, publication in prestigious journals, and great press.
This isn’t rocket science. (Heck, it isn’t even climate “science”.) When certain behavior is penalized, it tends to stop. When other behavior is rewarded, it tends to continue.
Rob: “The Earth is an extremely complex system of interrelated processes, with drivers, dampers, buffers, etc. but over any extended period, additional energy retained will express itself in climate change. At the broadest level, it’s no more complicated than that.”
Hahaha. One loves a good joke. Most amusing. Thanks for the effort. So, over the long run it is quite simple; the climate changes. So many words in a comment to refute what nobody has ever believed, i.e., the climate “over any extended period” has never changed and will never change.
“By the way, if you have zero confidence in physical models implemented on computers, don’t cross modern bridges, don’t go in modern tall buildings, don’t fly in modern airplanes, etc.”
There are far fewer variables when doing stress analysis on buildings and bridges. The proven programs to run the computations cost a dime a dozen and have been around for decades. And the results can be quantified, tested and verified in a lab. In climatology, every predictor has his own private program jealously guarded, based on what happened in the past. That’s why they can’t predict what happens in the future. And the real-world variables are constantly changing. You obviously know nothing of either designing bridges or predicting climate. Neither does anyone on the UN IPCC.
Evidently, complexity is circular in nature. At some point a process becomes so complex that it becomes simple again. Weather is below this threshold, climate is above. Oddly, this axiom seems to only pertain to climate study.
Please don’t paint all weather forecasters with the same brush. In PHX they were almost always 100% correct: “Hot and getting hotter.”
The author of this article claims that climate scientists will “suppress countervailing data”. What else but exactly that has he done in his column? He omits all mention of the key evidence for global warming, including the worldwide retreat of alpine glaciers.
Temperatures, averaged over a 20 year timespan to smooth out “weather” blips, worldwide, are in fact higher than they were 50 or 100 years ago.
Glaciers, which by their very nature smooth out blips and respond only to the long, slow rhythms of climate change, are in retreat, almost without exception.
The Arctic ice cap is thinning. Runoff from the Greenland ice cap is increasing.
I’m reminded of that joke about the North Korean negotiating team that, on visiting Seoul, insisted that all the evidence of prosperity in the South was forged, that the swarming autos of the city had been rented.
The SK negotiator’s answer was that the really hard part had been renting all those skyscrapers.
What does our author have to say to the retreat of the glaciers? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850)
And you use Wikipedia as your source for this with a straight face? What do you say about that Chicken Little?
*snork
“You use Wikipedia as your source?”
Good one, Thomas
I’ll see your Wikipedia (ha-ha-ha-ha) with one British Royal Society. The Royal Society carries a lot more weight than NOAA or IPCC. Matter of fact at one time they supported the AGW theory. They have since become more skeptical. And, I will raise you one BBC. You have to understand that Phil Jones is head of CRU at East Anglia. If you don’t know what or who I’m talking about, then you are a global warming illiterate, and should stay out of the debates.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316469/Royal-Society-issues-new-climate-change-guide-admits-uncertainties.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Earth’s precssion, variance in solar output, changes in earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, continental drift, cosmic debris strikes–all eclipsed by man. Just wait a minute, what??? My point – thank you.
See #22
Also see: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2004/232.html
Interesting that plants once grew in Greenland – and were then smothered by advancing ice sheets. What’s normal? No ice and a warm climate or an ice age that lasts for 10 thousand years?
“What does our author have to say to the retreat of the glaciers?”
The climate changes all be itself, without our assistance. You had a Medieval Warming Period, followed by a Little Ice Age, that ended around 1850 or so, now we’re in another warmer period.
Relax, it’s nothing to get excited about.
More on what Greenland was like a few hundred thousand years ago…
“Scientists who probed 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said that the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could not have existed in Greenland any later than 2.4 million years ago. These DNA samples suggest that the temperature probably reached 10 °C (50 °F) in the summer and −17 °C (1.4 °F) in the winter. They also indicate that during the last interglacial period, 130,000–116,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.”–wiki
Sometimes it’s warmer, sometimes it’s cooler. And, most of the time the earth is quite a bit warmer than it is now. At least that’s what the best available data says.
Unfortunately, the best available data also says that we’re currently in a interglacial period (within an ice age that has lasted millions of years) that’s about to end, and then we’re going to go into a glacial period, where worldwide temperatures will be much cooler then at present, cooler like it was 20,000 years ago, when much of the northern United States was covered by a thick sheet of ice. You can expect that glacial period to last around 100,000 years or so, which is how long the last one appears to have lasted.
That’s probably not going to be very pleasant, but there’s also probably not much we can do about it, except cope.
On the plus side, there should be lots of glaciers…assuming you think that’s a good thing.
Climate change is an epic disaster; it has the potential to destroy the United States of America. Not because Florida may flood three centuries from now, but because climate change has destroyed trust in science (which means to know), and trust in government. We now have Democratic science and Republican science, which by definition, is impossible. As the article notes, the argument has now become ad hominum, my opponent is not simply incorrect in his math, he is a criminal, worthy of death.
I may be the only person on earth who does not comprehend this post doctoral science; it seems that every journalist, and politician holds an infallible judgment on the certainty of the future climate.
I am an engineer; I have worked in the energy technologies for forty years, a score of nukes, two score of fossil fuel power plants, and a decade of assessing advanced technology. From this background, I am certain that mankind must exploit combustion, the bete noir of the AGW proponents, or die off by the billions. It is impossible to support our populations, above a subsistence level, without this energy.
Having screwed up a lot of home work assignments, I am willing to listen to those who say I am wrong. But this nation has a problem which can kill us all, within a few years. Our grid could collapse, we could start rioting and shooting each other over the climate, or both.
When the Berlin Wall fell, the east european marxist con men found a new scam. They became greenies. The west european and american “socialists” tagged right along; they know a good scam when they see it.
Actually, there are some really good meteorologists AND forecasters (similar but different). There is MORE to the science than reading off the “telewriters” (ancient device) or the computer printout. And the people on the TV are mostly NOT the real deal, they are just someone that reads things well off a teleprompter and are willing to go and represent the local station at PR events.
If you have in your local “market” a real meteorologist that does his or her own research on approaching weather, explains the different “models” used in predicting weather AND is also still on the air, count yourselves fortunate.
Many, but not all, are hacks that only regurgitate what is printed for them to read. They may have had a college course or two in actual meteorological science and might have also had a class or two in statistics. That IS NOT enough.
Climates change, and change frequently. There are passes in the Italian Alps that were clear in the summers during the late Roman era that are only in the last decade “open once more” For the ancient Romans, they were ALWAYS open in the summer. Which is the norm? A glacier or an open pass?
There was an ice pack miles deep over parts of Canada and the Eastern US that occurred not all that long ago… Was it normal to have ICE or not?
They are finding remains of vegetation in the areas where the snow pack is melting in some areas of Antarctica, Grass in Antarctica, normal or not?
The weather IS NOT static, and climates change. Yes, mankind can change a small area by cutting down trees and paving it over… but on a global scale? One volcano in an afternoon can do more than all of human endeavors since we first kept fire.
And, Sandra, you left out one point of contention, that the “Mann-made” global warmists were trying to hide on their “hockey stick graph”: the Medieval Warm Period, approximately 1000 AD to 1300 AD, a period of warm temperatures higher than today’s, that contributed to higher standards of living all over the world.
“Ottmar Edenhofer, former co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, admitted in an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online on November 14, 2010, that “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
I’m so sick of this I think the perp’s should be rounded up and hung in the public square and viewed on TV all over the world. When did success become a punishable offense?
GE bought “The Weather Channel”.
Shortly thereafter, the channel began featuring editorial content about climate change and the wisdom of compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL’s) as a mainstay of planetary salvation.
Then Congress outlawed incandescent lightbulbs.
Who is the largest worldwide distributor of CFL’s?
Shoot! That explains alot! Just like when Disney bought ABC and a muslim prince bought Fox News.
Some aquisitions should be banned (I really don’t like saying that either!) due to the obvious conflict in interests.
GE is also a manufacturer of windmill and solar power technology. Any cap-and-trade legislation, resulting from global warming alarmism, would benefit that portion of their “renewable” energy business. They also receive government subsidies to continue running these businesses, which can’t compete with oil, natural gas or coal. Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE is one of Obama’s economic advisers.
So, it’s not just Mann-made global warming, but Mr “I-melt” is also involved. Hmmm, I’m detecting a pattern here. Possibly even a “weather” pattern. Or is it a “climate” pattern?
Good article and true. Credit should be given to the dedicated climate scientists who are getting at the truth through hard work and review. They are debunking global warming claims using approved procedures that are not influenced by a political agenda.
Much of the global warming findings have been funded by politicians and the government is a good place to defund the fraud.
whatever happened to looking out your window or, better yet, going outside and seeing for yourself what the weather is?
one can look at a satellite picture for himself and figure things out a fair bit as well:
if there is a giant circle of solid clouds with a dot in the middle that is headed your direction then you might want to get out of the way
if there are any concentrations of clouds in your area you might want an umbrella
“…in late November 2009 when the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was hacked…”
I’d quibble about the “hacked” conclusion. I have seen no evidence produced, of any kind, to support the theory of a network-based break in. I’d bet on a disgruntled employee, myself. One with physical access to the back-end file servers.
” I’d bet on a disgruntled employee, myself.”
Sounds like you are admitting to being the Climategate leaker!
Greetings:
I live in the San Francisco Bay area. My favorite bit of meteorological minutia had to do with the local rainfall. If there is a lot of rain, then there is a high fire danger because vegetation grows more resulting in more fuel. If it doesn’t rain much, then there is a high fire danger because everything is so dried out. Year in, year out, so it goes.
“They make it up [global warming]. Of course, making things up turns out to be a profitable business, generating all manner of perks, titles, offices, grants, and funds, an appanage without limit.”
The scientists that changed data to make New Zealand appear like it was warming gave this reason: “……in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue “excellence.” These are the kinds of “scientists” and government authorities we are dealing with.
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/10/11/kiwigate-global-warming-scam-revealed-in-court/
Today’s reality, unfortunately, can be reduced to a simple quid-pro-quo. Everyone has an agenda and most of the time that agenda, if examined closely, will uncover the fact that the owner of the agenda makes money from it somehow.
The Media Weather Folk make more money (better ratings) if you keep coming back to check on a scary forecast, so they make scary forecasts.
Long Island, New York forecasts from May to October always predict ideal resort weather for the coming weekend…until Friday, when it is too late to cancel reservations…the weather forecast suddenly turns bad!
The ‘global prognosticators’ get ever increasing grants if what they prognosticate is in sync with the politicians who have them in their pocket
Al Gore just spouted anything that would sell the products and theories of the organizations he was fronting for and who paid him millions.
So in these times of a culture of lying for gain I follow two simple and effective policies.
If I want to access the agenda of the prognosticator I ‘follow the money’.
But above all, I follow the teachings of the esteemed Benjamin Franklin, “Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see.”
G. Hugh Bodell
Author and Professional Skeptic
I am also “of a certain age”. I used to possess a 1976 copy of National Geographic which breathlessly announced “The Coming Ice Age”. My, how times have changed.
Commenter Sails notes we have Democrat science and Republican science but omits or forgets the third element ; the truth.
I suppose that is what we should be seeking ,but when science dons the mantle of favoritism the truth is sacrificed . Then reality is shrouded over with lies and deception to hide the evidence . Hence the entire construct of AGW is an effort to conceal the truth.
The distrust of science is found in lots of places. The theory of Evolution has become a completely defenseless contrivance which seeks to impose an unsupportable collection of unrelated oddities as unchallengeable.
I would also add fusion research is rapidly becoming a bottomless pit of perpetual fund seeking. Whatever science is involved has become questionable and unreliable.
Always worth a view: George Carlin on “Saving the Planet.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&feature=related
Great article, thank you.
For those to whom any of what is said was a surprise, and/or who need a balanced background briefing on the dangerous global warming matter, I recommend Bob Carter’s very readable book, “Climate the Counter Consensus”.
Reviews and ordering details here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1a_CTCC.htm.
…. the greatest scam of our times ….
At an estimated Fifteen Trillion Dollars going to Mann and Hansen and Al(Fredo) Gore(leone) et al, surely Goebbels Warming — but for “social security” — is the greatest scam of all time?
This statement by David Solway is wrong: “When it became evident that there were fewer rather than more hurricane events, as confidently predicted by Al Gore,” Gore explained that warmer oceans create more powerful hurricanes, not that they increase the quantity of hurricanes. This is a now accepted fact.
Here is what Gore stated on the Larry King show:
“KING: Do you link Katrina to global warming?
GORE: It’s a tricky question because there are people who will always say you can’t blame a particular storm or hurricane or drought or flood on global warming, but here’s the truth of it.
For a long time, the scientists have been telling us global warming increases the temperature of the top layer in the ocean, and that causes the average hurricane to become a lot stronger. So, the fact that the ocean temperatures did go up because of global warming, because of man-made global warming, starting around in the ’70s, and then we had a string of unusually strong hurricanes outside the boundaries of this multi-decadal cycle that is a real factor; there are scientists who point that out, and they’re right, but we’re exceeding those boundaries now.
Separating the natural variability from the man-made global warming-induced change, that’s one of the keys, and we’re completely outside the range of natural variability.”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/13/lkl.01.html
Gore also made these points in his Academy-award-winning documentary and in his best-selling book.
David Solway is either ignorant of climate science or he lied. Solway made false statements to enroll people into denying climate change. What does that say about the facts on his side of what used to be a debate?
As a meteorologist with the National Weather Service, which is a part of NOAA, this has to be the worst article I have ever read. Everything I’ve read here including the comments is the most false, made up lying, ignorant thoughts about metrology and climatology. The meteorologists are not climatologists. You’re absolutely false about the accuracy of short term forecasting. Verifications statistics are 90 percent in the first 24 hours and decreases to 50 percent by 7 days. And this is why the Nws doesn’t forecast beyond 7 days. The climate prediction center produces general above or below normal weather from 7 to 16 days. Then they produce seasonal forecasts due to Enso and specific long wave oscillatios. Global Warming is researched by a whole new type of climatologists. They are the absolute most brilliant scientists. They are married to their career and don’t give a flip about what you think. They’re so not into politics sometimes I wonder if they know the name of the president.
The people on this site have to be the dummies that got Ds in classes, while I busted my ass in physics and calculus. The Eastern USA had two cold winters due to the arctic and north Atlantic oscillatios. Meanwhile the arctic and Greenland had record warmth. We have had more hurricanes over the past 10 years but probably not due to gw but due to a 30 and 60 year cycle aligning. We had 19 named storms in 2010 and is more than twice the average.
But yes tv mets are mostly non degrees meteorologists. 60 percent of meteorologists are still slightly skeptical of agw. While over 90 percent of climatologists are convinced. The tv mets get their info from the nws. And btw, just because you didn’t get the rain forecasted, doesn’t mean areas a mile away didn’t get any. Half the mets in the nws are conservative half are liberal.
,
I dare any one of you to take a tour of your local nws office. You’ll have a much better appreciation for what we do and how we do it. The models used for short term forecasting are not even close to the ones used for seasonal or long term climate. Go ahead ask me any question. No insults not backed up with facts. I’ll have your answers backed up by facts.
Also google Muller and global warming then google arctic ice and ocean acidification.
Jack, your sticking up for the NWS is noble but unneeded and to be honest, kinda sad.
If one takes up Jack’s offer of touring one’s NWS, you’ll happen upon a bunch of GS workers whereas ~ 1/3 of the working body will be on break at all-time. Government employees, like the military, don’t get raises or ‘step promotion’ by suggesting cost efficient ideas, concepts. Nope, you get a raise after a set amount of time at that step and then you get the bump in pay.
So Joe Schmoe who is the same grade, step as yourself though may do FAR LESS work than you, will get the same pay increase at the same time as yourself. yeah, the ‘Motivation’ to perform well is ‘fierce’. Riiight.
The NWS/NOAA ‘interns’, Weather Observer types will be completing 4 year degree programs ONLINE (??) from the ever-reputable, ‘Southern Mississippi University’ program. Yep, I sure trusted these co-workers ‘physics and calculus’ analysis. 2 years was enough for me to see this gubmint job for what it was and hit the private sector. Jack, I bet you think the, ahem, ‘college’ ECPI is as reputable as well too, eh? Unfortunately I don’t feel employers feel the same..
As for you trying to draw a line in the sand of climatologists and meteorologists, it’s the nation’s ASOS, AWOS stations (which falls under the NWS/NOAA umbrella) that the NASA climatologists cherry-picked less than 1% of these tens of 1,000′s station’s information to support their claim recently, ‘hottest Summer ever’ nonsense.
While I do respect some climatologist’s analysis, your rag tag bunch leaves much to be desired for.
Nonetheless good luck in your job and hope you earn your next scheduled step upgrade real soon.
“I dare any one of you…” Nice to hear Jack yelling from the sidewalk outside the imaginary PJM offices. Is it raining? Or are you “a mile away”?
“Go ahead ask me any question.” Ok. Hmmm, “the dummies”?
“No insults not backed up with facts.” Really now, do you own the ball too? Control, so important. Well –
“The people on this site have to be the dummies that got Ds in classes.”
“Go ahead ask me any question.” “No insults”.
“…while I busted my ass in physics and calculus.” Gee whiz Jack, did the “Ass” part at some point reintegrate into the other self, thus forming JackAss?
“They are married to their career and don’t give a flip about what you think.” What does Mr. Wilson think about this? Can a “married” “career” dummy “think”?
“They’re so not into politics sometimes I wonder if they know the name of the president.” Yeah, “dummies that got Ds in classes” can be like that. “So not into” says it all.
“Half the mets in the nws are conservative half are liberal.” So which half, the Jack or the Ass? JackAss.
“I’ll have your answers backed up by facts.” Back it Metro. Which half?
“While over 90 percent of climatologists are convinced.” Wow. “Convinced”! Sure, that calculus class that left you with the broken Ass calculated for Jack World that Convinced Climatologists = Jack Facts. Wonderful! Such Jack Genius deserves the Unknown Mr. President. And back flips too. And applause. And mmm, mmm, mmm.
“I dare any one of you…” “Go ahead ask me any question.” “Insults”. Fun!
Yes sir. Is math and calculus a prerequisite for working at the DMV too? Gosh, such government employee power talk. “As a meteorologist with the National Weather Service…” Yep, bow down those with a piece of paper, and that all important Gov Gig. Uncle Sammy Knows Best! Starring JackAss!
Is that you D-White raising your hand? You’re excused to get off the Pick It Fence and use the Government Meteorologist JackAss Latrine. The Government Teacher Latrine is full of…. right now.
This article confuses climatologists and “climate scientists.” Most of the world’s climate scientists are not climatologists. Hansen and Mann are not climatologists. So called climate science is a hodgepodge of various “sciences,” many dubious, with no unifying standards. It starts with the premise that man-made global warming is real, so of course most of its practitioners believe in man-made global warming.
Climatology, on the other hand, is simply the study of the climate. Some climatologists believe in man-made global warming; others do not.
Incidentally, most meteorologists do not.
If a person is going to blast the global warming crooks for their use of dubious and outright fabricated facts, then they need to be careful of their own “facts”. I have farmed under and around some of the largest windmills made and in five years I have yet to see any, repeat, any shredded or even dead birds. During that same time period I have had eight birds killed from flying into the patio door of my house.
…there is not a program on nature that doesn’t claim this may be the last time we will see this animal or that due to “climate change”.
the fraud that is being perpetrated is immense. the schools indoctrinate the children and it sticks.
there is no significant evidence that the earth is being warmed by human activity. there are heat islands and agriculture may heat up areas but that heat is cast (lost) into space during the night.
the claim of CO2 as a problem is a lie. there are a large group that think most people should die so the wild animals can repopulate the earth. one volcano puts more CO2 into the atmosphere then all humans combined do, including past humans.
this is a sick group of people who have lots of money and their minions stupidly go along with what ever they tell them to do.
in aviation it is generally acknowledged that weather forecasts are at best accurate 6 hours out and diminish from that point onward.
I hear a lot of b*tching about the lack of accuracy in forecasts, but I find them generally very accurate, as long as one keeps ones eye on the bigger picture. The forecasts and radar show you fronts that will be moving in, but the speed of the movement can change and systems can dry up as they move into drier air, which the meteorologists often tell us.
When I compare what we “know” about upcoming weather, compared to what people “knew” one hundred, or two hundred years ago, it is night and day. The statements about how wrong forecasters can be strikes me as a kind of generalized “Know nothingism” which is the shadow side of AGW “beleeevers.” As a gardener and windsurfer, I find weather forecast VERY helpful, especially if one has one’s own experience to add to the mix.
Because meteorologists are not Gods, does not make them useless, but then, what good is the internet if one cannot exaggerate for effect?
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
By Noel Sheppard | November 07, 2007 | 18:58
If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?
We’re going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members — assuming journalism hasn’t been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.
Coleman marvelously began (emphasis added, h/t NB reader coffee250):
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
[...]
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history#ixzz1JQem6LAG
My husband always said he’s going to come back as a weatherman – it’s one of the only jobs where you can be wrong most the time and still get paid. Of course if Obama gets re-elected, he might opt for that job where you can be wrong all of the time and still get paid.
I love it when a weatherman informs us that the high for the day will be 60 and then in the next sentence reports the present temperature as being way above 60, and continues without cracking a smile as if he said nothing incorrect. The other item I love is a report of baseball size hail and they show us a BB sized hailstone. They cannot tell the difference between a baseball and a BB then we are expected to believe there reports of Global Warming as gospel.
In Hawaii, one of our news channels advertises themselves as the “Extreme Weather Channel”. Living in Hawaii for 30 years, I have only experienced two relatively minor hurricanes. The rest of the time we experience colds in the 60′s and high’s in the 90′s. The standard forecast consists of temps in the mid 80′s with windward and mauka (mountain) showers. Now THAT’S extreme. We do get some pretty cool waves on the North Shore, but that is hard to classified as extreme.
One other observation- ever notice that 80% of all weather reports are spent telling you what the weather was today (I guess they can’t get that wrong), while at the very end they quickly brush over the five-day forecast?
Ah, another delusional conspiracy theorist takes up the cause for Pajamas Media. I believe you might have set the record for bullshit per word. Congrats!
Earth Day Approacheth!
Earth Day, the day on which liberals, greenies, environmentalists, tree huggers, species lovers, and conservationists worldwide celebrate the glories of Mother Earth and Mother Nature and sneer at those of us who consider many of them fruitcakes, will be observed this Friday, April 22nd.
I hope it rains.
It’s not that I don’t recycle, conserve, do what I can, within reason, to preserve the environment. However, as with most things liberals do, Earth-Day-ists go overboard.
They protect the snail darter, an inconsequential 9 cm fish, by attempting to prevent the construction of a dam that would benefit tens of thousands, of people, not fish. They embed chunks of steel in trees which results in lumberjacks losing an eye or an arm. They advocate against killing baby seals and whales with no thought as to the thousands who earn their livelihood with seal fur and whale blubber. They cripple industry in the Gulf of Mexico by pushing for an end to deep-sea drilling. They cherish wetlands over habitable dry land. They prevent oil drilling and the construction of oil refineries to keep America dependent on foreign oil. They protest against global warming ignoring substantive evidence that it’s all a sham.
The list goes on and on of Earth-Day types demonstrating an empathic concern for nature and all things natural with little regard for people. The truth is that fish are still very plentiful, trees are a renewable resource, people can’t live in wetlands, we need oil to survive and thrive, and, though I think baby seals are cute, they’re animals and mommy and daddy seals will make more.
There is cause for conservation, but within reasonable limits and after acknowledgement that any and all conservation efforts should serve the planet’s foremost residents, not bugs, or worms, or fish, or trees, or seals, but Homo sapiens.
The good news is that Earth Day, after its heyday, is going the way of Arbor Day, Groundhog Day, and United Nations Day, occasions recognized mainly by the Nature Conservancy, the town of Punxatawny, and U.N. leeches. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4177)
The Last of Earth Day, 2011
By the mercy of God, Earth Day, 2011 is over.
If we had listened to my old schoolmate, George Carlin, it would have been over years ago. The planet is billions of years old and nothing humans have done or can do to it will ever change anything. After surviving billions of years, Earth doesn’t give a damn what we do. It adapts.
As Carlin says, “Twenty-five species that were here today will be gone tomorrow. . . There’s nothing wrong with the planet. The people are f*cked!. . . And we have the conceit that we’re a threat . . . some plastic bags and aluminum cans are gonna make a difference? . . . The planet isn’t going anywhere! . . . Ask those people at Pompeii how the planet is doing? . . . It’s a self-correcting system . . . ”
(See the Carlin 7 minute video and read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4208)