Marx was right about a (very) few things, but one of those was his oft-quoted gloss on Hegel about history repeating itself “the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”
And speaking of repeating farces, the anthropogenic global warming movement is reaching maybe its hundredth sold-out, standing room only comedic spectacular with the latest news that the purportedly disappearing arctic sea ice is back to “normal” levels after less than a decade. Next the over-breeding polar bears will be invading our cities. Attention Don Siegel, wherever you are. Meanwhile, it seems the Germans, of all people, have had enough of this farce and are closing their Global Warming Theater. (Well, I always preferred Schiller.)
But that doesn’t seem to have disturbed our President who appears to be moving full speed ahead with some form of cap-and-trade legislation – although he is playing both sides against the middle by simultaneously allowing off-shore oil drilling in certain areas.
And this is where the Luddite reactionaries of my title come in. According to the New York Times: While the oil industry, business groups and some Republicans offered muted support for the proposal, most environmental groups denounced it. And the senators whose support Mr. Obama is courting for highly contentious climate and energy legislation to be introduced in the coming weeks gave decidedly mixed reactions: For every senator who praised it as at least a partial answer to the nation’s energy needs, another raised alarms about befouled beaches and continued dependence on fossil fuels.
Befouled beaches and dependence on fossil fuels? They forgot about the polar bears. Oh, well. If there’s one thing that the the AGW debate has shown us it is that our politicians are about as qualified to rule on matters scientific as I am to compete in the pole vault in the 2012 Olympics. Maybe worse, because at least I know what a pole vault is. Imagine asking Barbara Boxer to define the second law of thermodynamics! [Stop picking on her.-ed. Okay.]
But this too is of little importance because the cap-and-trade legislation isn’t about science; it’s about money and control. Anyone the slightest bit interested in science would laugh the whole thing off in twelve seconds. Indeed, the entire environmental movement is verging on becoming an enemy of science itself. But before I go further, let me make clear WE ARE ALL ENVIRONMENTALISTS. And, yes, I’ve broken the unwritten Internet rule and put that in caps because, ironically, it’s very obviousness tells me it has to be emphasized. We all like clean air and water, okay?
However, even a quick perusal of the NYT story linked above shows us how little scientific judgment relates to the environmental decisions being made by our senators and other supposedly-concerned groups. It’s all about the same greedy local interests mixed with the self-interest of NGOs whose vested interest is in the Luddite status quo ante. There is no acknowledgement that there has been an advance in oil drilling technology in the more than forty years since the Santa Barbara spill, nor that these installations will be so far off shore as to be below the horizon while standing on our pristine beaches. And forget complexities such as wind power being more polluting even than fossil fuels. As I said, this is not about the environment. It’s about money and control. Like the health care legislation.
Well stated Roger.
I think it is ironic that those who oppose drilling despite significant industry strides to improve safety fail to understand that, if the USA does not drill, other countries with inferior environmental standards will. The net result will be higher trade deficits, less domestic oil and potentially great risks to the environment. These elites are soooo smart.
PS. Good luck on your quest to make the Olympic Team. If you need the names of several good London pubs just let me know.
Roger:
Can any of the megawealthy with beach property in California actually see any of the offshore facilities in their area?
Do offshore facilities anywhere interfere with onshore, beachfront or any other activities, including surfing, fishing and scuba diving?
keen insight,genius nuances in the choice of references,spot on reporting; I find great satisfaction in the knowledge that authors and readers are having this serious discussion in so civil a manner.This is the stuff that fires the light at the end of he proverbial tunnel.
When I first read “Fallen Angels” by Niven and Pournelle I thought it was ridiculous. Now it seems prophetic.
Don Rodrigo: Can any of the megawealthy with beach property in California actually see any of the offshore facilities in their area?
distance to the horizon = square root (13*height)
Distance to the horizon for a 6′ person is about 3 miles. If you were up an 20′ embankment, on the 2nd story of a nice house in Malibu you’d be able to 22 miles out.
Yea,but you’re preaching to the choir here,Rajah…what is needed here is a page from the Alinsky play book…simply ridicule Barokeydoke and everybody else who still thinks that human generated carbon dioxide is somehow making the planet overheat…personally,I think the issue here is far more insidiously Malthusian than mere money and control…limiting carbon dioxide emissions will do nothing to enhance agricultural production for a growing global population..and the prime AGW enthusiasts are well aware of this…so,like good little Malthusian barbarians,they see this as one step toward radically reducing earth’s total population by invoking ‘scientific necessity’ or some such drivel..and massive famine and starvation will be the outcome.
As I mentioned in another of your posts, Mr. Simon, these are people who believe that in order to save the planet they must not only get 300 million people using wind and solar, but 6 billion people to do so. Of course, even that presents problems because the enviros don’t want to give any land for the purposes of “renewable energy” (which violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, according to William Tucker over at NRO). And one must wonder why in the world they are so afraid of nuclear energy. Umm, that cat’s already out the bag and if its good for haughty Frenchmen and America’s sailors, then surely it must be good for the rest of us, right?
That being said, Jonah Goldberg over at NRO again wrote a really good article about drilling and the Left:
http://article.nationalreview.com/430040/fossil-future/jonah-goldberg
To add to your point:
US offshore production benefits the environment in the following ways:
1. US production has a lower “carbon footprint” than crude shipped half way around the world.
2. US production has much higher environmental standards than production in 3rd world countries.
3. US production has resulted in significantly fewer oil spills off our coast than tankers bringing in foreign oil.
4. There is good evidence that offshore production reduces pressure in the oil reservoirs and therefore reduces natural seepage. Studies need to be done, but offshore production will probably reduce the amount of oil entering our offshore ecosystems.
Given all of the above, it should be a no-brainer for environmentalists to insist on the rapid expansion of offshore US oil production. But that would require that they care about the environment and approach issues with a logical, scientific mind.
Is it any accident that the most ardent supporters of AGW, that I meet, also believe in crystals, white magic, angels, Area 51, that “real” communism would work, that JFK was assasinated by the CIA and that the US government blew up the twin towers with controlled demolitions?
Roger,
What do you know about science, Roger? Repeating whatever garbage you read in the fossil media isn’t nearly equivalent to understanding science. For example…
The decline in arctic sea ice refers to a negative trend (that’s a change in the average) observed in monthly (that’s also an average) anomalies of sea ice extent, which negative trend extends over the entire satellite observational period beginning in 1978. What do you think that a period of a few days in one month, in one year, has to do with this trend? Surely you understand that a declining average is not the same as every single data point being below a specified value? What is the specified value? “Normal” is also an average, what average do you think it refers to? Ok — it’s the average over 1979-2000, over the period of decline.
Here’s some science you can do, Roger. You have a browser and Excel right? Download the monthly anomalies for all months and years from NSDIC. To remove the seasonal cycle subtract e.g. the average value for March over the period 1979-2009 from every value for March, and do the same for every month. Plot the results, and highlight the month (March 2010) which Andrew Bolt highlighted in the linked article. Post the plot in this article so that your readers can see what a misleading guy he is.
Here, NSDIC have done some of your work for you. What do you think?
Politicians have advisers who have read textbooks, papers, and talked to scientists. It’s the politician’s job to listen to expert advice and to make the right decision, not to be the philosopher in the room. Which of those things (textbooks, papers, talk to scientists) have you done, Roger?
What almost every politician has, is an excellent education in logic. They wouldn’t, for example, equate the opinion of one journalist with…
Oh…
Then I guess you’ve researched how many lives are lost from breathing in the combusted fossil filth… right? Luddites… I’m struggling to see how advancing solar and battery technology is luddite compared to clinging to the burning of decomposed sludge and dumping the waste into the atmosphere?
Politicians have advisers who have read textbooks, papers, and talked to scientists.
I would be very interested in know who some of these wise advisors are. For example, who is Barbara Boxer’s AGW staff member and what are that person’s qualifications? Knowing some of the staff of some California state politicians, I sincerely doubt there is a technically knowledgeable person in the bunch. I’m willing to be convinced, but let’s name names.
Roger, as you see from the comment above at #10, when you step on the toes of those in the pews, their screaming still won’t drown out the choir.
I do have a different theory, if you would permit me though, Roger.
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the left adopts the smug and pedantic attitude. What I have come to believe is that the religion of leftism has long since crossed the moral line of conscience.
That is, who would be our “betters” have a fervent belief that we (the great unwashed) cannot be counted on to “do the right thing”. Therefore, in place of logic, reason, facts, evidence and truth…we are given the polemic pablum, more easily digested by our feeble faculties.
You see, there is no AGW. It’s a fraud. A scam. It was always a fraud and a scam. It wasn’t intended to be anything else. However, there was no way that leftists could convince thinking people to give up their treasure in a “redistribution” effort for “mankind” willingly in the numbers necessary to salve the egos of the terminally rebellious left.
So, they simply created a lie that would accomplish the same net effect.
And the lie, becomes the message…any attack on the “message” is an attack on the overall scheme. It must be demonized, ridiculed, lampooned, beaten back…so that the lie/fraud survives to do its end game deed.
Health care? Same thing. Look, no thinking person believes this nonsense that this bill was about health or care. It’s about “redistribution” …about the “have nots” getting into the pockets of the “haves”.
If you go through basically every leftist “issue”, you will find a fraud at the base of it.
They cannot win “hearts and minds” with truth…and they have given up trying. They do not have a conscience pang in the slightest about making up any whopper that will do the trick.
Pretend to be a centrist to get elected? Sure.
Pretend to care about Israel? If it gets 78% of the Jewish vote, go for it.
Pretend to have a global warming crisis? Absolutely.
Pretend that wasting trillions of dollars will “fix” the banking industry? Why not?
Pretend that the entrenched media has an ounce of interest in reporting actual facts? De rigueur.
It doesn’t matter that they do or don’t believe their own lies…it only matters if we do.
The earth has two poles. The ice at the South Pole has been increasing, while the ice at the North Pole has been decreasing. They have been balancing out for the 30 years that satellite measurements have been available.
Antarctic Sea Ice at Record High
04/01/10 – 09/12/07 – Climate Skeptic
“Some analysts have speculated that the new record low Arctic sea ice could be evidence of global warming. But is it? At the global scale, there is not one polar region but, in fact, two. There is also sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere. The Antarctic sea ice area reached 16.2 million squared kilometers in 2007 – a new absolute record high since the measurements started in 1979.”
5. Old Soldier: Fallen Angel Prophecy
‘Oath of Fealty’ as well:
California so desperate for dollars
that it allows China to Establish an
Enterprise Zone, where US citizens
can create new wealth, free of Govt.
bureaucratic restrictions.
http://venturebeat.com/2010/03/26/angel-investing-chris-dodd/
Some people cannot stand sapience;
Theirs or others.
Cap-n-trade may be a win-win for the dems and BO.
It will bring the dopey RINO’s back to the center – the nice, comfortable, bi-partisan center – were they will once again look not much different than the Democrats they seek to defeat this November. Republican environ-MENTAL-ists will have to decide if they truly believe all this global warming / climate change political hokum and chance alienating those conservatives who are poised to give them a huge victory in November.
Republicans leaders had better understand that they not only need to keep their base energized, but they also need to get all those who didn’t vote in 2008 to show up in 2010. They won’t accomplish that by helping pass another job-killing boondoggle like cap-n-trade.
And to those concerned about the view from Malibu homes. An oil rig 20 miles off shore might be visible, but as a mere speck on the horizon. Further, it should be a welcome sight to those who love freedom, because what that sight represents is capitalism – which represent freedom. (Sorry libs, socialism does not represent freedom)
Obama recently stated he would be willing to talk about drilling off shore, just weeks after he was willing to talk about real health care reform with Republican’s. We should understand his “willingness” the way it is meant; simply as an attempt to take one plank away from the Republican platform in November. Republican’s should push the issue before the election – continually attempting to introduce legislation opening up drilling and talking about it every chance they get.
If some CNN talking head wants to talk about any other subject, always redirect it back to true energy independence. “Drill Baby Drill” should be a clarion call for this election. Energy dependence has been a corner stone of left wing statist policy for decades and is a complete and utter failure. Little does the simplistic left understand the number of people who have died for their stupid and inept policies. We should end their power.
Just wanted to correct one statement made, post #10:
“What do you think that a period of a few days in one month, in one year, has to do with this trend?”
While correct as to non-scientifically trained individuals making the error of mistaking the events occurring in a short temporal period as a trend, your statement is however in error. An increase has been tracked by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (Boulder Co)for several months, not a “few days,” and has just returned to the 1979-2000 average.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
I have serious concerns about asking Barbara Boxer about basic arithmetic.
Since she had so much trouble with her House Bank checking account (where she got the nickname of Barbara Bounce), I would think her reply would be Barbie’s:
Math is tough!
sorry….Barbara Bouncer!
Just remember, Barbie. The sequence is One, Two and ‘many’.
That’s Senator Boxer to you, Roger :>)
Barbara Boxer to define the second law of thermodynamics! [Stop picking on her.-ed. Okay.]
No, don’t stop.
Ragging on Barbara Boxer is the civic duty of any sentient being.
“It’s about money and control. Like the health care legislation.”
Bingo.
Lazar, a lot of what you’re arguing comes down to, simply, a good old-fashioned appeal to authority. That’s fine — pick the authorities to whom you want to appeal, tell us who they are, we’ll make out own decisions.
The issue with the sea ice anomaly, however, is one that we can look at quantitatively, and then it gets interesting. Let’s first of all recall what the definition is: the anomaly is the difference between the current sea ice extent and the average for the same data (there’s some massaging to make the “same date” work with the peculiarities of the calendar, but not much.) Since it’s the difference from an average, it can be positive or negative. and since the average is itself a statistical quantity, to be precise we should refer to both the average and to the variance, which of course is conventionally done by looking at the standard deviation.
Sea ice extent has been measured only for about 30 years, which is frankly a very short baseline for a climatic measurement. Still, using that measurement, the anomaly has shown a declining trend for a while now, as you point out; it got up to about two standard deviations low, which is most normal situations is considered barely statistically significant. The chances of it being just random variation is about 1 in 20.
Of course there are some other issues, too. The average is constructed using data from 1978 to 2000, selecting only about 3/4th of the data available. As the National Sea Ice Data Center points out:
In other words, either there’s a real effect, or the effect has been in part an artifact of a selection bias.
The other side of that, though, is that we aren’t as interested in the anomaly as we are in the actual extent of sea ice. Compare that to, say, body weight: if you are trying to lose weight, it’s nice if the weight anomaly has a downward trend, indicating that through the vagaries of your normal life, you tend to stay below your average weight. On the other hand, if you have a long downward trend but as a result of recent events you’re back up to your average weight, you haven’t actually lost weight.
The selection bias is an issue in this weight loss analogy too. Let’s say you measure your “weight anomaly” using your weight from in December — right after the Thanksgiving glut and including all those lovely Christmas goodies. You’re starting from a “heavy” interval, and even if you had periods where weight went down, the average is relatively high.
This is a very good analogy, as in both cases were are looking at something that has a substantial variation over a short time — body weight over the span of a day, ice extent over a year — but different time scales. We’re looking for long term trends and long term effects that may be hidden in that short term variation.
And there, Roger is pointing something real: the current sea ice extent is back very close to the average. This is very much like dieting for 30 days, losing a couple of pounds, and then gaining it back.
And that’s the problem: just looked at as a statistical question, we’ve got a really small data set, a potential selection bias that is understood to potentially overstate the effect — and new data that appears to overwhelm what effect there seems to have been.
Roger is correct, under those circumstances, to wonder if there is any effect to be seen.
We all like clean air and water, okay?
‘Tis fine with me, Dr. Bones, but how cone Neocomrade Roger, Lord Simon, doesn’t like a complicated game of flim-flam with “carbon credits” that The Investment Society LLC can profiteer in?
Is it really all that different from the credit-default-swap fandango that gave us the Crawford Crash?
Healthy days.
But of course it *ain’t* Luddism when R. Simon sets out to prevent Economic Science from developing the next step onwards from credit default swaps, the “carbon credits” financial product.
Go figger.
I thought I would put my two cents in. I have worked in the R.O.V. Industry since 1980. An R.O.V. or Remotely Operated Vehicle is a remote controlled submersible vehicle used extensivly in the Oil Field, Tele Communication, and Scientific Research. The Oil Field is the bread and butter work for the industry and with out the Oil Field there would not have been the advances made in R.O.V.’s despite the claims of the likes of Robert Ballard and a few self serving others.
I have worked Oil Fields all over the world and help install the two largest free standing structures off the coast of California. What most people do not realize is that the coast off Santa Barbara has dozens if not hundreds of natural seeps where crude oil just seeps up. Almost 100% of the crude oil found on the beaches of California is the result of these very same natural seeps.
Californians use more oil than about any other state due to its’ size and populaton yet the good citizens of California do not want offshore drilling. I live in Louisiana where a good part of our income is derived from oil and natural gas and it is up to Louisiana and Texas to provide nearly all of the domestically produced oil in this country.
It is the hypocrisy of the arguments that environmentalists make that bother me almost as much as the Junk Science they use to support their claims. It seems to me if you do not have any skin in the game then you should not critize those that do. I worked a job in the late 1990′s where all the major oil companies capped and abandoned hundreds of wells offshore simply because of the cost of doing business in California where over regulation that did not improve safety of operation but just punished operators for being there.
The Man Made Global Warming Crowd is the same crowd that warned of other disasters that have always failed to turn out as predicted. You have to wonder why they can get any traction at all with such a dismal track record. Real Science has already suffered and real advances have been delayed or lost for a generation or more because we always seem fixated on the latest doom and gloom prophet. It must be something in human nature that allows many to be easily misled by these charlatans as history seems full of them.
Imagine asking Barbara Boxer to define the second law of thermodynamics…
On being asked that definition, I can certainly imagine Senator Boxer convening a staff meeting. Staff would be instructed to begin creating favorable conditions and publicity for the transfer of jurisdiction of the laws of thermodynamics to the Department of Energy. The good Senator would then instruct DOE to modify those laws for the good of the People – not those cranky nerds with slide rules whom she despised in her school days.
Green NAZI Luddites like Obama want to regulate (i.e. limit and CONTROL)the emission of that evil POLLUTANT CO2. They want this despite the fact that there is no scientific proof whatsoever that MAN made CO2 contributes in the slightest to Global Warming and despite the fact that the earth has been COOLING for the past 15 years while MAN made CO2 continued to RISE and despite the fact that CO2 is NOT a pollutant at all but a VITAL part of the cycle of life. More CO2 more plants , more plants more food for men and animals , less CO2 LESS food therefore MORE starvation. So apart from anything else including their sublime IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY Green NAZIS are anti LIFE.
# 3 Don Rodrigo who cares is a beautiful view better than financial breakdown, society breakdown and starving to death I dont think so. Why is the pathetic NIMBY view so often parroted by moonbats.
Merkel holds a PhD in Physics and still bought that crap science … can it get worse?
Excellent, Roger.
People like you must continue to speak out about this whole comic opera. We get all the same stuff here in the UK. “It’s about money and control.” Yes, and it is nothing to do with science.
Roger, good on ya. Obiwon and the ruling party are still at it because of the money, power and corruption of the Trade regime of cap/collect/trade. The luddites believe they are the smart people, worshipping at the altar of smart people, validating their status by their faithfulness to their leadership and ruling party dogma, true Madoff investors all. Note that the Hildabeast’s recent blast at the Cannucks was not based on Canada not dealing with the Arctic, but because they refused to cut in the “Trade” crowd of AGW Madoffs.
#21 Charlie Martin — Roger is correct, under those circumstances, to wonder if there is any effect to be seen.
Roger is correct to wonder in *any* circumstances given the anecdotal data from the 20′s, US submarine photos and data from the Nuclear Sub era, etc. The Watts site posted some older newspaper articles bemoaning the impending loss of sea ice that dated to the 20′s and 30′s.
Roger is also clever to pick a climate subject that is a complete loser issue for the chicken little crowd. The people who predicted ice free summers by now sure look silly.
Lazar, you’re making the wrong argument, as Charlie points out. To be blunt you need probably 100 years of data to even know what average should even look like; the anomaly is relative to a baseline that may not be representative.
Roger Simon — Anyone the slightest bit interested in science would laugh the whole thing off in twelve seconds.
Roger, you’re overall *wrong* to pick climate overall as the example of luddism. Good grief, Roy Spencer is generally hated by the chicken little crowd yet reports (accurately) that the UAH satellite data is showing Jan 2010 to be as warm globally as it has ever been. If Dr. Spencer says it, you can bet that he’s not hiding the decline or doing stupid stuff. There is warming, much of it natural, and some of it *is* anthropogenic, like it or not. I think most of the people I’ve read that are skeptical are also in this same boat — AGW is *not* a hoax. It is very much overstated though. It’s certainly not worth spending much time talking about or doing *anything* in public policy that is drastic. Slowly steering the economy via R&D investment would be wise and prudent anyway. No cap and trade stuff. None. Let’s do nuclear, spaceborne solar, etc.
The problem with pronouncing the whole thing as mere hoax is that this gives you no bargaining position to implement proper government investment. (The same R&D investment that helped birth computers, space stuff, GPS, etc.) By acknowledging that climatology is real and so is the fact that humans can and do affect their environment, this isn’t buying in to the notion that humanity is evil requiring punishment by Gaia. Rather, it is what makes you credible.
Roger, to break an unwritten rule: BRAVOOOOOO !
“…our politicians are about as qualified to rule on matters scientific as I am to compete in the pole vault in the 2012 Olympics.”
Let’s not forget that politicized scientists are no more qualified than you to rule on matters scientific. Politics and avarice have corrupted their objectivity.
“And that’s the problem: just looked at as a statistical question, we’ve got a really small data set, a potential selection bias that is understood to potentially overstate the effect — and new data that appears to overwhelm what effect there seems to have been.”
Precisely. The essence of the Warmmongers’ game is extrapolation from statistically marginal variations and weak correlations. Add to that scary forecasts based on kluged ‘models’ (which consist, essentially, of trying to approximate multiple partial differentials of unknown boundary conditions with second-degree polynomials) and you get the equivalent of ‘predicting’ the aerodynamics of an F-22 based on a paper airplane.
Lazar- the problem, of course, is that when the ‘experts’ the politicians rely on are frauds and charlatans, you get the policy equivalent of investing your life savings with Bernie Madoff.
“Befouled beaches”? There has never been a spill from a US offshore rig. Not one. “Continued dependency on fossil fuels?” That is a fact of life, inexorable and ineffable. There is NO viable alternative to fossil fuels.
You forget Santa Barbara.
One of the things for me is this: I want to get the stink of petrol driven vehicles out of town and if the idea if global climate change can help what do I care whether it’s more or less true or not
My next car will definitely electric …
Why isn’t your current car electric?
And, where does that electricity need to come from, and what kind of fuel will be used to generate it?
Now Sir, let’s be fair to the Luddites.
I doubt they truly want to impose their standards on everybody.
I have faith that they have excluded themselves from such onerous restrictions on lifestyle.
(Failure to add smiley was intentional.)
-
Why Roger L Simon is wrong in one pretty graph. Here’s an explanation…
The implications of his statement are either that…
a) arctic sea ice has not declined, or
b) arctic sea ice has stopped declining
Both statements are wrong. A linear trend shows arctic sea ice declining at a rate of 50,000 square kilometers (19,000 square miles) per year since 1978. Results from least squares give a 99% confidence interval of the ‘true’ trend being between negative 40,000 and negative 60,000 square kilometers (15,000 to 23,000 square miles) per year. The trend is significant at the 99.9% level. The solid blue circle is the value for March 2010, which month includes the wiggle touted by Simon as evidence against sea ice decline. Let’s be generous and assume that the sea ice extent for April will be entirely “normal”, such a hypothetical April 2010 is plotted as the rightmost open red circle, which is a distance of 1.0 million square kilometers from the trend line. Other points (not hypothetical) which exceeded that distance from the trend are again plotted as red circles. Note in particular the value for August 2006, which is the largest sea ice anomaly ever recorded by satellite. Yet the decline continued. Claiming that a single point reverses the conclusion of a long-term trend is errant nonsense, indeed, it is in terms of AGW denial “a repeating farce”. Even the linked Bolt article quotes WUWT as claiming that sea ice hit “normal” in 2001. You can’t see where in 2001 the decline stops? Because it doesn’t.
Whoops…
should be ‘August 1996′
G.L. Alston,
You don’t ‘know’ that at all. It’s empty waffling. If we had 100 years of negative trend then you or another would demand 500. All scientific knowledge is open to change and refinement upon receiving more data; that’s what makes it science; but that’s a truism. We work with the data we have. The data we have allows statistically strong conclusions.
You’re confused… the baseline is subtracted from every data point. Whether sea ice is declining depends on whether it is declining; the baseline does not effect computation of trends nor distances of data points relative one to another. Altering baselines only shifts the graph up or down.
If I understand it correctly, Obama said it was okay to do some exploration off the Va. coast. I doubt very much if honest to God drilling will ever take place there and if it does that will only be because drilling was nixed elsewhere.
If these guys think people are unhappy with them now, let them try to raise gas and energy prices and see what happens.
Lazar:
Give it up.
No.
Lazar — You don’t ‘know’ that at all.
Seriously?
Of course I do; the PDO by itself is a 30 year oscillation, and we have zero idea what the effect of PDO is. There’s about a half dozen oscillations that ought to be factored for, and something in the range of 100 years covers at least 3 cycles. Nyquist. Look it up.
G.L. Alston
There is no evidence of a 30 year period. Power is smeared over the (roughly) 15-25 year spectrum, but not enough to conclude even pseudo-periodicity.
As to your main point… you’re postulating a link from A to B without evidence, and using the lack of evidence to cast doubt on B! I vote unicorns.
For the record, RealClimate take apart the “best and most comprehensive” (James Delingpole) Der Spiegel article.