Monster Storm Brings Out Climate Blame-Stormers
- Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:27pm by
Mike Opelka
- Print »
- Email »
Any casual watcher of TV news realizes that weather sells and that should explain the seemingly endless updates on storms around the country. Most of us living in the NE corridor have had our fill of Old Man Winter and the fluffy white stuff he delivers almost weekly. We are generally concerned with how much snow is coming, how quickly will be it removed and do we need to stock up on the universal trio of food supplies taught to us as kids - milk, bread, and eggs? Some in the media are more interested in taking every opportunity to spin even the random weather event into a story.
As computer models were showing another snow storm was building and preparing to dump more snow and ice on the Midwest and the Northeast, MSNBC was looking into the WHY of this relentless winter of snow. Their answer? Global Warming. You and I did this.
It should be noted that the MSNBC statistics showed NYC with an annual average of 22 inches of snow. Most sources I have say this number is actually 28 inches per year.
A quick survey of the snow stats about New York City reveals that while the alarm bells have been ringing from the Global Warming crew, winters of large snowfalls have not been on the increase over the past decade . Let’s review the Top 10 Snowiest Winters ever recorded in New York City.
The snowiest winter on record in the Big Apple was back in 1995-96 - with 75.6 inches and that was a full 15 years ago.
The second snowiest was back in 1947-48 when 63.2 inches accumulated. And since people are often blamed for carbon pollution, it might be important to note that in 1947, America was home to fewer than 150 million citizens and certainly fewer cars were on the road.
Coming in at #3 on the NYC Snow Hit List was 1922-23 – with 60.4 inches.
Numbers 4,5, & 6 were all in the 1800s and all three had recorded snowfalls between 55-58 inches.
54.7 inches of snow was good enough to score the #7 position for the winter of 1960-61
1993-94 grabbed the #8 spot on the snow survey with 53.4 inches
1906-07 was in 9th place with a total of 53.2 inches
And #10 was 1933-34′s 52 inches.
The winter of 2010 -11 is certainly on track to be a record setter, but is it man’s fault or is this just part of the never-ending cycle called climate change? (Omission of the words “man-made” was intentional.)
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 707 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 558 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 374 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 366 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 362 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 366 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 374 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 291 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 366 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (180)
alrunner58
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:48pmAfter scaring me and my peers to death in the 70′s we would be in ice age in thirty years, I find these people jokes now. I used to think these people were cleaver to get the masses to believe the scam, now I dismiss their nonsense.
Report Post »Chicago Ray
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:45pmMonster Blizzards my %^&* There’s no heavy snow falling anywhere in the US right now. 5 pm central. I just knew this was alarmist %^&*(
I’m north of Chicago and we skated through the storm to the north in Wisco about 20 miles north and the one to the southwest will just Peter out. Bet on it ;) go to accuweather radar and see it there. No heavy snow anywhere. Just light flakes across the nation.
I’ve got a state snowplow driver sitting in a parking lot across from my house since noon.Not a flake since. Must be catching a good buzz there although bumming out because he already spent the overtime money!!
Report Post »9thCommandment
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:40pmIt is amazing that as the facts stare people in the face (especially those who don’t have $$$$ in this race) they still buy into Global Warming. Eventually their legs are going to smell like Urine.
Report Post »Chicago Ray
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:49pmThey just keep praying for the worst so they’re not proven the stooges they all are. Over and over these people buy the liberal company line. That’s why they hate the rich and successful. They can’t do anything right and need someone to blame for their endless self inflicted ills.
Usually a result of years of drug addled decision – making for most of them. I used to know a large handful of them personally.
Report Post »Mackerel
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:34pmAl gore has worked so hard to put an end to global warming and…………well……….his efforts were so great that he has actually reversed the man made problem. Throwing us into global cooling.
Thanks Al
Report Post »texasfarmer
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:32pmAnd by the way… watch her eyes blinking and body language. She doesn’t even believe it herself.
Report Post »texasfarmer
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:29pmBull crap. Two years ago Pittsburgh was exceptionally light in snow fall. So what is it? Is it getting colder or warmer? Dryer or wetter? Neither, its just weather.
Report Post »Oh yea. Carbon loading? What the hell is that?
Check out the group she is with. It consists of 8 environmentalists, in dire need of a real job, that send out press bulletins to further the global warming cause.
I can get 20 guys to sit around, drink beer then release a press bulletin. We would have a greater consensus and be closer to the truth.
Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:25pmThey Do Not believe in God,But believe in GorebAl Warming?
Report Post »flyguync
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:20pmOkay, let me get this straight. The polar bears don’t have any place to live because of carbon dioxide, we have large snowfall because of carbon dioxide – I must be confused – how can excess CO2 cause it to be both hot and cold? Sounds like the “scientists” are changing their story to match what is actually happening. This sounds a lot like carbon dating. When they first came up with carbon dating, they could only find things that were at most 6000 years old and they knew that couldn’t be right – they all “knew” the earth is millions of years old, so they just changed the carbon dating formulas to match that.
Report Post »Chicago Ray
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:52pmTouche. ‘Science’ on the fly. They have to substantiate their tenures somehow.
These globalwarmcold freaks remind me of the beginning of Ghostbusters where Murray says to Ramis or Akroyd “you’ve never worked in the private sector, they demand results!!”.
Report Post »GrumpyCat
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:12pmWhere in NYC is flat, open, and unmolested enough to accurately measure snowfall?
Report Post »truckinman36
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:12pmthe dog ate my homework and darned it its due to global warming
Report Post »CaptainKook
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:10pmScience is a Progressive SCAM!
The Bible gives you 100% of all True Knowlege and you WILL NOT FIND CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE BIBLE!
Report Post »Cape_Lookout_RW_Extremist
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:17pmCaptainkook, whats your opinion of Ken Ham’s Creation Museum near Cincinnatti?
Report Post »http://creationmuseum.org/
CaptainKook
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:21pmI saw the Smithsonian in Wash DC with the fake Dinosaur skeletons – THERE ARE NO DINOSAURS in the Bible
Report Post »Cape_Lookout_RW_Extremist
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:30pmSure there are. Job 40:15-24
Report Post »CaptainKook
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:37pmJob 40:15-24 (King James Version)
15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
See any DINOSAURS THERE?
NO!!
That was about ELEPHANTS – Maybe [except for the Tail part] – which DO exist!
NOT DINOSAURS!
Are you reading a False Translation?
Report Post »Cape_Lookout_RW_Extremist
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:10pmWhere has Al Gore been this winter? Save a spot for him beside Merdov! What a scammer!
Report Post »SlimnRanger
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 6:43pmOle Al is keeping a low profile since that sex scandel came out
Report Post »Scarab Sport
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:10pmCarbon Loading? The only carbon loading is from the hot air coming out of her mouth. Maybe it snows because it is winter? Duh!!!!!!!!!!! Lets not get into a frenzy because there is a little more snow than usual. Maybe we really need a little global warming to thaw things out. Oh, I forgot. It is now called, “climate change”.I own a house in St. Augustine, FL and the last three winters I had to replant all of the shrubs because the plants froze when the temp dropped into the low to mid 20′s at night and stayed there. Last year, the locals said they could never remember when it stayed below freezing every night for such an extended period of time. The low temps shattered all previous records.So much for global warming. Even Al Gore must have gone into hibernation. Have not heard much from that idiot lately. Or, maybe he is just wasting his time writing a fictional book on “climate change”?
Report Post »JohnnyJT South Philly
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:03pmGlobal Warming by any other Name is FRAUD
Report Post »evilbert
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:02pmOkay – But if Global-warming is Man’s fault, then is the ice caps on Mars melting Man‘s fault here on Earth or is it the Martian’s fault on Mars? I think it is our fault, because we all know for a fact that alien lifeforms are way much more smarter than we are. So the aliens would never emit carbon like we do, oh wait… Mars atmosphere is 95.3% carbon dioxide, 2.7% nitrogen, so they obviously want to produce carbon, but if the Mars atmosphere hasn’t changed, why are the caps melting? It couldn’t be a solar related cause. That would just be preposterous – it is Sarah Palin’s fault.
Report Post »HUNITHUNIT
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 6:20pmThe ice caps on Mars do not melt, they sublime. It is carbon dioxide ice.
Report Post »evilbert
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 8:53pmThe point still remains. Mars is heating up as well. Or at least it was. Just like the Earth. All throughout history, the climate has shifted and changed across the globe. If it didn’t how can one explain dried up lake beds, canyons carved by glaciers, etc?
Report Post »HUNITHUNIT
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 9:03pmJust because climates have changed naturally in the past, DOES NOT mean that human beings can not create, or at the very least, accelerate the process.
Report Post »MONEY_FOR_NOTHING
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:00pmThis woman is not a climate scientist. She is a climate propagandist. Big difference…
Report Post »home_of_the_brave
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:49pmThe Farmer’s Almanac says… “A year of snow, the crops will grow” So, will they be complaining next fall if there is an abundance of crops? It’s called seasons for a reason and has to do with solar cycles not man made gases.
Hill Country Patriot
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:49pmI love the global warming crowd… more predictable than the weather. I know several and I enjoy flaunting my carbon footprint in front of them every chance I get.
These people have a need to grasp onto something to give their lives meaning… other than that, they really have nothing. Sad but true.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:59pmHill Country Patriot;
For your sake, I hope they are not gun lovers.
Report Post »etetetet
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:05pm@DALE
Report Post »Naw – they’re not allowed to be. To much carbon footprint to pull the trigger (means they have to breathe), and Oh My Gosh, the carbon in the bullet – heavens to betsy – they just can’t stomach that.
tehehehehehehe
mentiljewel
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:45pmi think we should ALL buy suvs so we can get around better in all this snow–lol
MidwestMomof3
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:45pmThe last time I checked it snows (especially in the midwest) every single winter. As Born In MA said, some years more than others, but it always snows.
Report Post »Please…
Quit acting like it’s some kind of new catastrophe.
JohnQTaxpayer
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 7:50pmThe sky is falling
We must hold up the sky
Report Post »evilbert
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:42pmThe greatest part of Global-warming is that no matter the results or the weather, a global-warming alarmist can use it to support their global-warming theory. “Record snowfalls” – due to global-warming, “Ice caps melting” – due to global-warming, “record heat waves” – due to global warming. “No more record setting events” – due to anti-global-warming initiatives/policies by governments around the world. See how easy it is to use global-warming as a catch all for any weather event? Sure it is all a lie, but no matter how you slice it, it is ingenious. Those scientist may be frauds, but dam they are smart.
Report Post »Rubicon
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:55pm@ Evilbert- You are soooooo right on this issue. Thanks for the great posting.
“Damned if does, and damned if it doesn’t”
Report Post »Rubicon
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:56pmOoops, typo…
@ Evilbert- You are soooooo right on this issue. Thanks for the great posting.
“Damned if it does, and damned if it doesn’t”
Report Post »Dale
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:58pmevilbert;
I doubt they are as smart as you claim! If they were they would have started, not with ‘global cooling’, nor with ‘global warming’, but with today’s climate change – and we would certainly think them smart. However, since their stories change with ‘facts’ (really conditions), it is easy to chart their ‘growth’ (as in intelligence). They really show they have no foundation; that they have an agenda, and will say anything to advance their position. Truly pathetic!
Report Post »evilbert
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:30pmAh but sometimes, more often then not, changing your facts/story/etc, gives you more creditability. Just look at Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, and most of the Dems and even some of the Reps. They change their story all the time and they get re-elected over and over and over and over. If these climate scientists were not smart, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Never underestimate your opponent…
Report Post »MOVETERAN
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:53pmEvilbert, sad as it is to say I am affraid your right.
Report Post »jbl8199
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 6:35pmI couldn’t tell if you were being sarcastic or serious, but either way you’ve got a point. Global warming is bull crap.
Report Post »brickmoon
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 7:20pmShame on you, EvilBert, especially now, when we’re on the verge of a breakthrough in climate science:
WHN Reports on the Climate Change Prognosticator
Report Post »Mil Mom
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 11:06pmSee how easy it is to predict: In a former life they would have been “Fortune Cookie” writers or astrologers. Just get it out there and for someone it’s gonna do the trick, so everyone thinks you’re soooooooo clever. Then they all want to be just like you, and your theories are taught in the colleges because everything sounds intelligent if you smoke enough dope while you discuss it. ( I speak of the ones who always told me that‘s how they sat around at the prof’s house and solved all the world’s problems. Makes me a lot happier that I couldn’t make college fresh out of HS.)
Report Post »Those few who actually left college and entered the “real world” are trying hard to defend the things they so blythly accepted back then.
Maybe the schools would be better equipped to educate our kids if a sign on the Human Resources office read “Teachers Wanted,: No college degrees permitted!”
LadyIzShy
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:38pmits a shame that if you question the science they call ya a nutbag. I do not see the globe as warming not if you pull back and look over 100 years.. there are ups and downs and they average in
Report Post »tobywil2
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:25pmThey can’t prove their case so they are attacking the messenger. Their premise if false!
When the premise is false the only arguments that can be used are fear mongering, emotion, sarcasm, ridicule, attacking the messenger and misrepresentation of the facts (lying). Those who expect to reap huge profits from our misery caused by tyranny are experts at these tactics.
Report Post »The only relevant issue is freedom or tyranny!!!! http://commonsense21c.com/
butler180
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:37pmThe climate change advocates must keep up the mantra as they do not want to admit they have been had. It is hard to admit that you bought the lie. The earth is on its own timetable and there is nothing man can do to change that fact.
Showtime
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:53pmUnless the Progressives can convince us otherwise.
I suppose the Ice Age was due to automobile polution?!
Report Post »Born In MA
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:36pmOh Please, It’s winter, it snows, some years more than others. This year it just happens to be more this winter.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:39pmAgreed, so much for the global warming garbage; they predicted by now the ice pack would be gone from the arctic and antarctic areas.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:58pmI agree anyone remember 1967, 1979, we were snowed in for DAYS … in 79 it took the National Guard with backhoes and dump trucks to get us out .. no where to put the snow …LOL … they act as if “weather” was a new thing. ROFL .. no matter what happens these fools think it is man-made.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:25pmP.S. Follow the MONEY!
Report Post »taxed
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:41pmThis topic is evidence of why conservatives are far smarter than liberals.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com
Report Post »KenInIL
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:48pmAll the ******** should be restricted to tents and bicycles. Body heat and manual transportation. Eat your broccoli and shut up !!
Report Post »docgreen
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 7:58pmShovel ready? I suppose he’s going to pay people to shovel by hand! Long term job employment!
Report Post »LSX
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:35pmWhy oh why do these people even have a microphone?
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:38pmIt seems the more someone suffers from massive delusional complexes the more air time they are given to demonstrate their lunatic fringe theories. Case in point is that politicians actually expect us to fall for all the rhetoric they spew while failing to check the facts; note, not all politicians, just the majority of them.
Report Post »butler180
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:41pmBecause we the tax payers have given it to them. We support these elitist by watching their TV shows. Stop watching and hopefully most of them will go away
Report Post »MOVETERAN
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:50pmI would leave something sarcastic about this but how do you top Global Warming, OOOOOOPPPPPSSSS, I mean Climate Change for sarcasm?
Report Post »NoMoreGray
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:52pmIt’s not just MSM, you can’t survive in most Universities today if you do not except Global warming and (no God) evolution as the unquestioned premise for everything you do.
Report Post »Point?
The MSM is the itch, the rash is at our schools and is spreading unchecked.
CatB
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 4:56pmLOL ..it is called “weather” and it has been changing for eons … get over it!
Report Post »Ironmaan
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:07pmI am soo sick of these people; when will they ever go away? Their desperation is getting silly and my patience is nearing its end. I am going to aggressively denegrate any fool that brings up the subject and supports that goofy “gobal warming” or “global climate change” or whatever BS it is today. http://guerillatics.com
Report Post »Blessed are the cheesmakers?
82dAirborne
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:08pm@Snow – Well that explains why Mr.Obama loves the camera!
Report Post »tobywil2
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:18pmThey must truly think we are stupid!
THE GREAT “GLOBAL WARMING HOAX”
The proposals to combat “GLOBAL WARMING” have more potential to destroy our freedom and prosperity than any issue since WORLD WAR II. The cost of energy is increased by all these proposals. Energy is contained in all the products used to sustain our lives.
These proposals will be devastating to the poor, where the cost of survival consumes all their income.
Do you realize that these proposals are to combat an issue that has not even been proven to exist?
AND YOU LAUGH AT DON QUIXOTE?
THESE PROPOSALS WILL ONLY ENHANCE THE POWER OF THE “PEERS.” “CAP AND TRADE WILL DESTROY YOUR WEALTH AND FREEDOM!!
BRACE YOURSELF, THOMAS PAINE, REJOICE YOU “PEERS” THE TYRANNY OF
Report Post »KING GEORGE III IS BEING RESTORED BUT UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT!
http://commonsense21c.com/CLIMATE.html
tobywil2
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:20pmHer title should be changed from Climate Scientist to al Gore’s Witch Doctor.
Report Post »cnsrvtvj
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:23pmFirst it was global cooling, and then it was global warming; now it’s climate change. The latter covers it all for these people. Now it doesn’t matter what happens, because weather always changes. These clowns can’t tell me with any degree of accuracy if it will rain tomorrow, yet they know what the temperature will be in a hundred years within a tenth of a degree. What a scam.
http://www.donsmithshow.com – conservative news and political humor
Report Post »proudpatriot77
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:28pmSnows too much=global warming. snows too little=global warming. Sounds like the lefties have all their bases covered.
Report Post »shortdog24
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:30pmThe usual left win-win argument… if it’s warmer out, it’s global warming. If it’s colder out, it’s global warming. No matter what the outcome is, it’s global warming, caused by evil, filthy man and their terrible carbon…. that all plant life thrives in… oh, yeah, they have an explanation for why that is harmful too. It throws off the “balance”. They are lunatics.
Report Post »MsMonsoon
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 5:49pmIt amazes me how they can keep a straight face and spew this nonsense. Blah, blah, blah…
Report Post »drawls
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 6:04pmI would bet that you like most the others on this blog,including myself, do not watch msnbc and the only reason we know there still around is because it shows up here. I would much prefer msnbc not referenced here Have any of you ever heard them say ANYTHING intelligent??? We need to be very worried about this countries lack of leadership right now, cause we be in a bad fix..
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 6:10pmWe know how to measure snow, now how do we measure “stupid”? These commentators blather on and on when there is evidence (not the bogus evidence Gore used, bought and paid for) that this is a cyclical phenomenon as shown in the article and has nothing to do with global warming. I wonder if they get BS bonus’ because they deliver their commentary with a straight face. I hope so because the certainly look very foolish.
Report Post »jbl8199
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 6:31pmI never believe scientists, meteorologists, geologists, etc. because 99% of them don’t know their a$$ from their elbow when it comes to predicting mother nature.
Report Post »FreeToGovern
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 6:32pmPlease, please, please stop the madness!!! For real explanation see Piers Corbin at weatheraction.com. He predicted ALL of the snow storms in the Northeast back in November!!! Check out this link. http://bit.ly/hp3vsX
Report Post »booger71
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 6:50pmActually this winter is going to be like the ones I remember from the late 50‘s through the 60’s
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 7:00pmNotice to those in charge of Global Warming —
New England would like to politely ask that Global Warming be enacted immediately over the six states before the next storm hits, preferably tonight.
Thank you for your immediate and prompt action on this matter.
GONESURFING
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 7:48pmAnother know it all who knows absolutely nothing. Lets see, it’s getting colder, so it’s because of AGW. I guess that makes sense to brainwashed idiots.
Report Post »DisillusionedDaily
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 7:51pmI am sure, of course, that the La Nina weather pattern has absolutely nothing to do with the severe weather we are having! MSNBC will keep spouting the far left rhetoric and global warming crap until their very last viewer changes channels for the last time. I have a couple of pretty far out liberal friends, (yes, conservatives and liberals can be friends as long as they do not talk about politics), who told me that MSNBC is too far left for them.
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”
Report Post »George Bernard Shaw
docgreen
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 7:52pm@ironmaan!
Ironmaan, I’m with you! Tired of this BS!… I keep hearing them say the Oceans are rising and that the Glaciers are melting, away! Didn’t the Glaciers start melting after the flood or before, if so they have been melting for a long time! People say snow and rain made the Glaciers, have they ever thought maybe its not rain and snow that made them; but it was a great flood? and then they Froze? Just thinking!
Report Post »oldoldtimer
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 8:13pmJust another hack scientist looking for an Obama grant in exchange for their biased science based on false hoods.
Report Post »fertlmind
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 8:20pmLSX..
Report Post »Why don’t they have FACTS is the real question. Anyone with a brain knows that we are currently between two Ice ages and a little global warming will only temporarily prolong the inevittable deep freeze we are headed for. Ask the former co founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore. He gets it.
Michiganjohn
Posted on January 31, 2011 at 9:37pmBecause people like myself simply call it winter and move on.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 11:14amTo answer you question, the reason “these people,” meaning qualified experts with scientific knowledge that you lack, have a microphone is because their opinion matters more than the layperson or the author of this little blog that attempts to use a top-ten list to overcome massive amounts of careful, peer-reviewed scientific data. Such an attempt apparently works amongst groups of people that, on the one hand, believe in angels, historical characters who live to be 600 years old, walking on water, and other alleged suspensions of the laws of physics that can be found in the Bible, but, on the other, reject the conclusions of modern scientific research. However, it doesn’t work on the majority of educated people who understand the process of how science is made. Here are the facts:
1. scientists never built much of a consensus around the ‘70’s theory of global cooling; those who cite that to undermine scientists ought to go look at where such reports appeared (e.g., Newsweek rather than Science) and who wrote those reports (i.e., journalists, not climate experts).
2. the theory behind man-made global warming is sound, since the physics is uncontroversial and the mathematics is not contested; those skeptics who attempt to poke holes in the theory need to explain where the excess energy is going, since they haven’t done so.
3. the data is also well confirmed from multiple, independent sources. Temps are collected from a number of different groups working independently, and whose data is collected from the sea, atmosphere and ground. The systematic misstatement of temperature readings is impossible, although skeptics make this bogus claim all the time anyway.
4. the temperature record clearly shows a warming trend that has been going on for years, which is correlated with CO2 emissions, and which is changing at a much faster rate than anything we have seen in the past. While the author of this blog shows the top-ten list of NYC snowfalls, he doesn’t want you to see the top ten list of average temperatures on the surface of the earth, since they runs contrary to his narrative. (hint, hint: the last 10 years were again the warmest on record).
5. while scientists cannot predict with accuracy how higher energy applied to the climate leads to specific snowfalls in NYC, this doesn’t undermine the science. Here’s a fact for you: science cannot predict where each air molecule is going to go underneath the wing of an airplane, like predicting short-term weather effects in specific locations, our models cannot predict the chaos that occurs in the disequilibrium state under that airplane wing. But guess what? The physics we DO know, allows us to build airplanes that fly. So unless you are going to maintain that we haven’t mastered the science of flight, you cannot put up a weatherman claiming that the climate models cannot tell me how much snow NYC is going to get and say that you have rebutted the climate scientists. Our climate models, like our airplane models, are not perfect, but they are good enough in both cases.
6. True conservativism relates to the idea of being cautious about change since there are unintended consequences and man can make grave mistakes. The true conservative is careful about changing the law, engaging in a war, declaring a new social order, starting a revolution, undertaking dramatic medical procedures, etc. In this light, conservatives should be the first to recognize that the risks of ignoring climate change are much greater than those of taking action, since the risk of a false positive leads to slower economic growth, while the risk of a false negative leads to death and distruction–enough that even the Pentagon now has put war and security scenario-builders on that task. Furthermore, there is much that can be done that we should be doing anyway since it makes economic sense. Yet all I see are conservatives bashing the science and not acting very much like conservatives in that classical sense.
There is much more to say, but I’ll leave it at that. In case you are interested in learning why the skeptics arguments are wrong, have been proven wrong and should not be propagated, lest you look like an uneducated fool, check out skepticalscience.com. There you will see links to all the definitive science, as well as a blog where real experts debate the finer points of these issues. Or you can continue to talk nonsense. Ignorance is bliss, afterall. Your choice. Your reponsibility.
Curioso
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 11:40amLets see if I have this correct we overload the atmosphere with extra carbon this makes it hotter so more water is evaporated. The more water that is evaporated the more cloud cover we have so more sunlight is reflected back into space making it colder. Thus we get more snow in the winter and more rain in the summer because the overload of carbon in the atmosphere is making it hotter in the summer and colder in the winter. Uh I don’t think you can do that scientifically with empirical data. There is no overload of carbon according to all the measurements that have been taken. This is very curious logic for a scientist to have. I wish these people would review their own actual findings before they say illogical remarks like that. So much for the scientific method we have entered a time of no logic and political agenda instead of science. Whoa is Us. We have ascertained who the enemy is and have found that it is Us
Report Post »Curious
Curioso
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 11:53am@ABC
I don’t think you have been paying attention I have posted this link before please have a look at it. It will shed some light on this topic.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Curious about everything.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 11:54amCurioso, if you are going to critique the logic, then you ought to be clearer in your own. Are you referring to low-lying clouds, which generally reflect light, or high-atmosphere clouds, which trap it? There are a couple of intelligent warming skeptics that base their critique of the consensus around clouds and negative feedback loops. But most of the studies done so far contradict their claims, and they have little more than theory to support their own assertions. You can find more on this here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm
This scientists, like the majority of experts, believes that the net impact of clouds is either pro-warming or negligible. So she is not contracting herself at all.
Report Post »Curioso
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:08pm@ABC
Report Post »Did you even read what that link has to say about it. I think that .2 or .3 percent of 1% of all greenhouse gasses caused by humans is insignificant to the over all volume of other sources. They have charts and and graphes and lots of links to other sources. The satillite data for global temps for the last 18 years shows no signifacant increase in global temperatures.
So where is all the real data or is it a computer program that you are talking about when you put garbage into a model then you get garbage out.
abc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:20pmCurioso, I have been paying attention. However, the link you provide is to a site filled with junk science. If I am looking for an ‘education’ on mining engineering, I would possibly consult the author of that site you referenced, one Monte Hieb, since he worked as chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety. If I were an fossil hobbyist I would probably look at his amateur fossil website.
But he is not a climate scientist, which is why he has not published any scientific papers on causes of global warming. A search through the peer-review scientific journals where all new claims are tested and confirmed by scientists specialising in the field shows no ground-breaking advances in understanding by Monte Hieb or Harrison Hieb. Heck, the footnotes to the “information” he asserts on his site takes you to outside web pages that are not even related to the claims he makes and are over a decade old. One example of this is when he makes the bogus claim that temperature has not changed for 100 years according to satellite data and then links to an unrelated discussion occuring in 1997. How about linking to one of the three or four agencies collecting such satellite data? But that would show that there HAS been warming over that time period. Other links on his site are to pages that appear to be outside authorities, but in reality are just other websites he maintains that quote unsourced authorities that are probably Hieb himself–peer reviewing himself. Makes the U. of East Anglia emails look tame by comparison…
However he has published a lot of opinion pieces on global cooling, and the role of water vapour in global warming. This is the claim you made earlier–the one that I rebutted by providing you with real scientific knowledge on the matter. But you prefer to listen to the non-expert, who makes this colourful claim:
Water Vapor Rules
By Monte Hieb
Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.
I won’t take you through it because, until it is verified by peers, it is opinion masquerading as science, targeted to a gullible public. If I was looking for a real education on the role of water vapour I would get it from the horses mouths’ themselves; the scientific discussion at skepticalscience.com or at Realclimate.org, which are good places to start since they are positively swimming with references to peer-reviewed science. ALL of the false claims in the report you referenced are addressed at these two sites, with links to original peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that set the record straight. Heck, skepticalscience.com even has a convenient summary list of all the bogus skeptics’ arguments, which covers EVERYTHING in Hieb’s bogus website.
If Hieb is not interested in advancing scientific understanding via the time-honoured peer-review method, it’s most likely that his agenda is to create the impression that there is scientific doubt about global warming. A conspiracy? Who benefits – well, his employer – the coal industry. While the public believes there is doubt among scientists, there is less political will for a carbon tax. So people like Hieb publish junk science to create the public conditions that help the fossil-fuel industry stall the inevitable tax on carbon emissions.
Who else does this? Those conservatives that support the Koch Brothers, whose petrochemical and chemical operations would come under increased regulation and incur increased charges if this science were taken more seriously by the public and by the government. But as long as guys like Beck continue to privately admire and publicly support Koch and others in these dirty industries, it will be unsurprising that theblaze.com, among other media outlets, will continue their attempts to confuse and obfuscate.
Nice try. But I am paying attention, so next time, try a little harder.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:27pmCurioso, I did read that bit about how minute the man-made addition of carbon dioxide is compared to all the carbon dioxide in the world. But did you go read on the sites I referenced how scientists have explained that this small percentage actually can cause huge problems for the climate. The rest of the CO2 is in balance, but what we are adding is not. Your body has relatively large amounts of sodium in it, since it drives the Na-K pump that powers your nerves, but the addition of a tiny incremental amount of sodium can drive very dangerous conditions for your body in the form of high blood pressure if there is too much and blood vessel collapse or muscle cramps if there is too little. The fact that a small fraction of incremental sodium is added is IRRELEVANT. This is also true of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, where once again small changes matter. Check out the link on skepticalscience.com, which covers this point more clearly than I can here.
Report Post »biggreenboo
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:27pmI hate you “ABC”
Report Post »Curioso
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:36pmNice that you took the time to go check it out. Ask yourself this if the scientific method works in one science discipline should it not work in another? The information on that page shows overall trends as the are recorded in the geological record with estimations of temperatures of course since for most of the time the earth has been here we have not been there to take measurements.
Report Post »Clouds provide negative feedback
“Climate models used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assume that clouds provide a large positive feedback, greatly amplifying the small warming effect of increasing CO2 content in air. Clouds have made fools of climate modelers. A detailed analysis of cloud behavior from satellite data by Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville shows that clouds actually provide a strong negative feedback, the opposite of that assumed by the climate modelers. The modelers confused cause and effect, thereby getting the feedback in the wrong direction.” (Ken Gregory)
Quote from the site you sent me to.
The rest of the discourse said the effects are not known and that more study is needed. The scientists were speculating that there preconceived assumptions were correct as far as the cloud feed back goes. When you say probably causes you don’t know.
There was some interesting data on the site I sent you to according to the satellite data fro the last 18 years i say again no increase or decrease in global warming.
So in the end it all depends on what you want to be true. And want is not a fact.
abc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:51pmBigGreen, don’t shoot the messenger. I didn’t invent the rules of this universe, which seem to include something about there being no free lunch.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:02pmCurioso, first, all “facts” in science are contingent. That means that you need to think of them in terms of probabilities. As the research progresses, the impact of clouds will become clearer. However, the overall impact of clouds, based upon the majority of data out there, suggests that it is a positive feedback loop (i.e., causes more warming). I have met with Julio Friedman, who runs the climate research at Lawrence Livermore Labs, one of the leading research facilities with the computing power to model climate. (They also do nuclear anti-missile defense research, since those applications require similar amounts of computation.) I asked him this very question, and his response was that 10 years ago, this question could have undermined consensus on climate change. However, today this is no longer the case. Lindzen from MIT has been making the same argument for 10 years, so he has a different view. But it is a minority view. You can side with it, but you cannot claim that you have rebutted the consensus view. And if a true conservative is interested in minimizing catastrophic risk (you DO own insurance, don’t you?), then you ought to take Friedman’s view more seriously than your buddy Monte Hieb does. To say that scientists are just making up stuff because they do not know is to totally mischaracterize the science. It does a great disservice to all of us.
Report Post »Curioso
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:29pmI know this it would not be the first time that science has collaborated with politicians that have an agenda.
Report Post »Does not matter what that agenda is they can make the data they collect fit the scenario for which the intended outcome fits there agenda. They can leave something out of the equation or add something in. I am not convinced that what comes out of the United Nations is all true or those who say that it is settled. I also know this when you are talking about the weather and nature and the earth we don’t know enough about all the variables to be able to say so and so is so.
Like you said it is a probability. The geological record shows wide swings in the climate and we did not cause those. So why are we the cause of all this weather good, bad or indifferent.
abc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 2:17pmFirst, any scientist can be part of an agenda, but then it is no longer science. You should rightfully be on guard when a scientist talks like a politician. But you should not disparage good science by making false claims. The science behind climate change is not made-up science, as you claim. It is rigorously reviewed in journals that do not let you omit things, as you suggest. Fox News was all over the East Anglia University “controversy,” but did not report that there independent investigations into the supposed bad science revealed nothing that was dispositive of the results reached by those scientists in particular, much less the much larger group of scientists who do this kind of research. The scientists, acting not as scientists but as politicians or lobbyists, expressed opinions on how to market the research to lay people, and this was rightfully attacked since it amounted to oversimplifying and biasing the account of what the science says. This was wrong, but it was also unnecessary. Properly understood, the science on this issue is scary enough.
Also, scientists are not stupid. They know that mountains were once under the sea, and that Arizona has alternatively been tropical jungle and desert multiple times. The difference is the time scale over which those changes occurred, versus the current changes–today’s changes are much faster and worrying. When you make such obvious claims, it is either insulting to the intelligence of the scientific community or it correctly raises questions about your own intelligence. With all due respect, if you think that people with PhD’s are fallible, that is a good assumption. If you think that they have ignored the obvious, then you are overwhelmingly likely to be wrong. The real question, however, is who should we listen to? You? Or people who actually have a clue? Unless you plan to go to a plumber rather than a heart surgeon if you need triple bypass surgery, you likely already know the answer…
Report Post »Curioso
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 2:57pm@ABC
Report Post »Now I know who and what you are ABC. You are not the science loving person you pretend to be you are something else. I did not attack you personally I thouhgt we were having a discussion and you fell back to calling names and insults. I found some more on the discussion but since you are just a name caller and insulting on top of that maybe you need to do some introspection of your own values. I feel sorry for People that call others names and insult them because they disagree with their point of vue.
Try this link
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html
Curious how the name calling and insults come out. Hhhmmm
abc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:30pmNot sure how I insulted you. You made an insulting claim, that scientists freely omit facts from their research that don’t fit their preconceived notions. This is not only wrong. It is a claim of gross negligence and fraud on the part of professionals, whose careers would be ruined for far less. That you make it with impunity is unjust. That you are called out for it, even if it hurts your feelings, is the correct thing to do. To repeat, if you think that scientists are ignoring relevant facts, much less very obvious ones, then you are claiming gross negligence without any proof. This is a terrible claim to make and calls your credibility into question. If that is also an insult, take what you want from it; however, it doesn’t change the accuracy of my statement.
As for any connection between my being a nice guy or an obnoxious you-know-what, on the one hand, and the validity of the science, on the other hand, I do not follow the logic. The first man to declare the earth round could have been a child rapist for all I know, and if he was, it would not have altered the validity of his statement one bit.
Finally, the article you reference (through Fox) appears in a peer-reviewed journal, so it is a legitimate critique of the data and predictions generated by the models. Prior criticism by at least one of these scientists, as the article itself (Fox) notes, were explained to the satisfaction of that skeptical scientist. Moreover, the latest article (the one you cite) has been picked apart by other scientists who have criticized the research methods and its implications. You can find that critique on realclimate.org or skepticalscience.com, websites that I referenced earlier.
More importantly, the three scientists who authored this paper, while doing legitimate science, are going beyond their role as scientists and carrying on an agenda of the deniers. I already stated that it was wrong when the East Anglia University scientists did this, and you stated that you didn’t like when scientists pursued such agendas as well, presumably agreeing with me on this point. The question now, is why do you have no problem with scientists who are skeptics who engage in such behavior? As the following articles point out, the scientists are making claims that extend well beyond their research and are not supported by science. And they likely know this, but also know that the average lay person, who is not swayed by scientific research, but only pays attention to whatever reported facts reinforce what they already know (aka confirmation bias), will eat up such claims without question. You can read the articles here:
http://www.desmogblog.com/singers-deniers-misrepresenting-new-climatology-journal-article
http://nyghtshayde.newsvine.com/_news/2010/02/05/3859195-douglass-and-christy-bad-science-disingenuous-commentary
The first article is written by a non-scientist, but the second references the criticism of one of the leading scientists doing climate research at one of America’s most prestigious research labs.
Report Post »cstrasburger
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:30pmWhy Liberalism is a Psychological Disorder (clearly fits here)
It can be explained with great clarity why the kind of liberalism being displayed by Barack Obama can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.
A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do. A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do.
And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which overregulates and overtaxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.
It is clear the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind. When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains, and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious…
Report Post »MemphisViking
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:48pmEver notice the similarity between climate change “science” and evolution “science”? “Everyone” agrees with it, and no matter what they discover or what actually happens it’s “what we expected”.
Report Post »When your peers already agree with you “peer-reviewed”‘is meaningless. That’s like Obama claiming that Obamacare is Constitutional because Nancy Pelosi said so.
Curioso
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:52pmJust something to think about.
Make up your own mind about it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/05/science-climate-emails-code-release
This explains why I question any scientist or group of scientists that say it is all over with the Climate change debate.
Report Post »Like I said at the beginning with computer modeling garbage in garbage out plus when you have errors induced in the programming language used there is real reason for questioning the outcome of said settled science. It does not matter how powerful or what the computational power the the computer is if the program introduces errors. You will still get an erroneous data model.
Just curious about everything.
abc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 4:19pmCurioso, you are of course free to assume that multiple computer models independently built and independently run in multiple locations around the world are all particularly susceptible to error, while equally complex computer code designed to build and fly a 747 or deliver smart bombs–technologies that have worked very well for some time–are not. But it is strange that this author believes that a single mispelling in a climate model’s code will destroy the whole enterprise and the fact that a group of scientists do not want to release all of the code to the public is a smoking gun, but this same author doesn’t apparently think there are any errors in any of the code that predicted how a 747 or the new 787 wing will perform in mild turbulence, and the fact that Boeing is not going to release its code is okay. You are apparently taking it on faith that scientists who do climate research are uniquely untrustworthy or incompetent, and so is this author. I would like to understand why. The common meme is that because they get money from the government, they want to protect the gravy train. However, the skeptics take even more money from the much richer oil, utilities, chemicals and mining industries, and they apparently are not biased by those larger sums. In fact, the guys doing research at Lawrence Livermore told me that they could increase their salaries by 50% on average by going to work in the private sector, but they believe that they are doing important work so they stay where they are. This kind of refutes the common claim for why the computer science guys at Lawrence Livermore working on climate models are untrustworthy, while the guys doing similar work at Boeing or Raytheon are not. Either you show proof that all these different models have a systematic bias from a similar piece of coding error–a tremendous burden to overcome–or you must admit that you are revealing a huge bias that is really nothing more than faith-based bias on your (and this author’s) part.
Report Post »Curioso
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 4:45pm@ABC
Report Post »You don’t get it. The implication is that modeling an airplane wing and modeling trajectories and release mechanisms, potential explosive force as measurable and controlled by testing the explosives and getting real time measurements is the same as computer modeling of an entire biosphere planetary movement, solar output and millions and millions of other variables that impact real life weather are essentially at this time almost impossible to calculate, So your analogy to airplane wings and smart bombs does not hold.
Both of those have definite parameters that can be empirically measured and tested. The weather, the biosphere and the earth and solar system the suns output are all variable. You cannot build a computer model at this time that would be capable of giving an accurate estimate of what is going to happen with climate change in the future.
Curios about everything.
BlueBreadMold
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 4:47pm@abc
Point 1: I would like to note that “peer review” is just a collective way to say a group of people made mistakes as opposed to just one. I would like to point out that the people who claimed the world was flat reviewed their findings with their peers and came to the same “wrong” conclusion. (I find peer review to find fact just about as hilarious as polls to determine truth…) It is almost like a teenager explaining to their parent that drugs are ok because all of their friends do it and none of them are dead (yet).
Point 2. Correlation does not imply causality. Just because a set of numbers align or appear to move in a relationship does not make them in any way related. Because sales of ball point pens rose in the last hundred years does not mean that an increase in pen sales caused global warming.
Point 3. Presupposition. While scientist love to claim that they try to eliminate this from their data. It is an impossibility. I know legitimate scientists who can look at the same data and see completely different theories and possibilities. Each and every human being MUST have presuppositions in order to function in the world, and those suppositions can completely alter a persons findings given the exact same data.
I am not slamming science here, I consider myself a student of science and nature. Science has been a tool we have used to understand the world around us and (in some cases) build a better world. But science is INCAPABLE of explaining anything beyond the tangible world and has troubles with large portions of the tangible world. When people try to use science to “prove” or “disprove” anything supernatural, they are setting themselves up for failure. You cannot disprove something by lack of evidence, neither can you prove something that cannot be measured or repeated…. you see the dilemma.
My objection is scientists are elevating openly questioned “theories” to facts based on peer-review, correlation, and presupposition. None of which are “conclusive”, it just means that like-minded individuals are looking at the same data… and for some reason people who do not have “like” minds are not allowed to be in the peer group… (sounds an awful lot like the people who called the world flat eh?)
Ask a physicist (I know a few…) in the end the entire world must be taken on faith. At some point you simply must accept that the universe exists and we cannot know exactly what it is made of. (We can make a lot of educated guesses though…) We can observe parts of reality and in some cases predict within some level of accuracy what can/will happen… but we can hardly explain things as fundamental as gravity, energy, or life. Anyone who claims to know how and or why the universe works… is either a fool, a liar, or God… Since “many” scientists believe God cannot exist… what does that make them?
Report Post »kraussk
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 5:37pmI couldn’t agree more. Shut these idiots off from foaming at the mouth over ANY weather event, and we’d VASTLY improve the broadcast media. And let ‘em take Algore out to get a massage or something.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 6:05pmBlueBread:
“Point 1: I would like to note that “peer review” is just a collective way to say a group of people made mistakes as opposed to just one. I would like to point out that the people who claimed the world was flat reviewed their findings with their peers and came to the same “wrong” conclusion. (I find peer review to find fact just about as hilarious as polls to determine truth…) It is almost like a teenager explaining to their parent that drugs are ok because all of their friends do it and none of them are dead (yet).”
Nope. Peer review means that an independent source needs to verify that the work done followed a legitimate methodology and that other possible explanations have been ruled out. What you seem to be saying is that there is no difference between teenagers who love Justin Bieber, collective manias that drive up the price of tulips or Yahoo! stock, and how scientists conduct scientific method. This is happily false. While scientific method is not always followed correctly, and scientists can make mistakes, there is a huge difference between an earnest but human effort and widescale group think. I really wish you wouldn’t bash scientists so much. The very same type of work produced the cell phone you own and the medicines that may one day save your life. Show a little more respect.
“Point 2. Correlation does not imply causality. Just because a set of numbers align or appear to move in a relationship does not make them in any way related. Because sales of ball point pens rose in the last hundred years does not mean that an increase in pen sales caused global warming.”
I am pretty sure that scientists already know this, but thanks for reminding them (me?). The physics behind how increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere leads to higher temps is not a correlation. It is based upon both theory and observed data, and those two things fit together. And I’m pretty sure that there are no ball point pen sales being used as inputs into climate models…
“Point 3. Presupposition. While scientist love to claim that they try to eliminate this from their data. It is an impossibility. I know legitimate scientists who can look at the same data and see completely different theories and possibilities. Each and every human being MUST have presuppositions in order to function in the world, and those suppositions can completely alter a persons findings given the exact same data.”
Right, which is why you rely upon scientific method. Things like the null hypothesis and peer review are designed to overcome presuppositions. Now, some suppositions are impotant, since large framworks can guide thousands of scientists to pursue new research (think Kuhn here), but I think the sense you use the term, as a bias that hurts the integrity of research, is not really applicable given the safeguards that are used in good scientific research. Unless you can show that the research is not good, that the scientists are systematically dishonest, it is strange that this argument only comes up in the context of climate change (and sometimes evolution), but no in any other context involving scientific research. Is that a coincidence? Or do the critics have political or economic motives that are uniquely triggered by these two areas of research only??
“I am not slamming science here, I consider myself a student of science and nature. Science has been a tool we have used to understand the world around us and (in some cases) build a better world. But science is INCAPABLE of explaining anything beyond the tangible world and has troubles with large portions of the tangible world.”
Actually, science is quite capable of addressing everything in the tangible world, and is the only discipline to have done so with any accuracy and productivity. All other disciplines outside of science, which includes math, have done nothing to explain anything since they do not rely on empirical knowledge and testing, nor do they have any predictive value.
“When people try to use science to “prove” or “disprove” anything supernatural, they are setting themselves up for failure. You cannot disprove something by lack of evidence, neither can you prove something that cannot be measured or repeated…. you see the dilemma.”
Right. And science doesn’t do that, unlike disciplines like religion, which are flawed but persist precisely because science cannot explode their untruths (unlike in the physical world, where scientists have done it for a long time). Here’s the problem: the climate exists in the physical realm and can be explained by science. So I’m not sure what your point is here.
“My objection is scientists are elevating openly questioned “theories” to facts based on peer-review, correlation, and presupposition. None of which are “conclusive”, it just means that like-minded individuals are looking at the same data… and for some reason people who do not have “like” minds are not allowed to be in the peer group… (sounds an awful lot like the people who called the world flat eh?)”
That is definitely not what peer-review means. Go read the ‘74 commencement speech given by Richard Feynmann to the graduating class at CalTech. That is one of the most poetic explanations of what the scientific method is that I have ever read. It definitely is not what you describe. And Feynmann, a Nobel Prize winner and perhaps the greatest physicist since Einstein is a bit more of an authority to describe science than you, don’t you think?!?
“Ask a physicist (I know a few…) in the end the entire world must be taken on faith. At some point you simply must accept that the universe exists and we cannot know exactly what it is made of. (We can make a lot of educated guesses though…) We can observe parts of reality and in some cases predict within some level of accuracy what can/will happen… but we can hardly explain things as fundamental as gravity, energy, or life. Anyone who claims to know how and or why the universe works… is either a fool, a liar, or God… Since “many” scientists believe God cannot exist… what does that make them?”
Okay, you got me. We cannot explain everything, so we must conclude that we know nothing. We have to make some assumptions for things we do not yet know, so we should stop making cell phones and planes and nanotech robots. We should stop believing that just because we predicted with math that black holes exist and then found them and now run experiments to explain particles that exist inside of them, we should just throw up our hands and say that we cannot understand the climate and are doomed to always make software errors or suffer from malfunctioning thermometers. Sure. That would make sense and be applauded…if you were a big oil or utility CEO who wanted to avoid paying for damage caused by your carbon dioxide emissions. I’m sure that those making predictions about black holes (e.g., Einstein, Hawking, et. al.) would have been attacked by a bunch of partisan laypeople if the discovery of black holes would have forced the petrochemical industry to pay billions in additional capital expenditures. But luckily, it did not, so everyone left them alone. Climate scientists should be so lucky. You, on the other hand, are lucky that these same forces that seek to silence scientists and cast doubt on their work at every turn, are not attempting to undermine research being done on cancer, Alzheimer’s and other illnesses. If we constructed a rule that said that you couldn’t unfairly attack scientists unless you were willing to do without all the other fruits of their labor, including modern conveniences and life-saving drugs, then I think a lot of the people making spurious and insulting claims about scientists would suddenly become rather silent. Just a guess on my part.
By the way, we do have a very good working theory about gravity and can make a lot of valuable predictions about it. That we do not understand everything about it doesn’t invalidate what we do know, just like our inability to predict where all the atoms of air bouncing around in the disequilibrium state under an airplane wing doesn’t hinder our ability to make airplanes fly. Similarly, we may not have cracked the code to recreate life just yet, but we have built hearts in a lab and gotten them to beat on their own. We are very close to creating life already. You can be a little afraid of this, but you’re on the wrong side of history if you doubt what science can accomplish.
Report Post »BlueBreadMold
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 12:49am@abc
I wish that when people got together they got smarter, and could put aside their suppositions… but alas it is not true. Unfortunately when many in the scientific community say “legitimate methodology” they mean methods that we recognize and come to the same conclusion as us. It did not used to be that way, but this new science “theology” is deeply rooted in those who have been carried away in its dogma. I have come to love the slogan “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers…” (even if they are over educated…)
“What you seem to be saying is that there is no difference between teenagers who love Justin Bieber, collective manias that drive up the price of tulips or Yahoo! stock, and how scientists conduct scientific method.”
I like your example. Science, at least the current state… in my opinion is very much like that. I wish it were false… but it is proving otherwise in its actions. Those who disagree with scientific main stream lose their “peer” status, and are discredited, and therefore not allowed to “credibly” challenge. If you want to learn about the truth a bit check out this documentary: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. Although the film focuses on a completely different debate (particularly Intelligent Design vs Evolution), it does show clearly that science has become its own theology with its own dogma and political structures.
I am saying that peer-review as it stands is flawed, because those who don’t agree are not peers. I only state what I have seen and observed in my own “theory”, it is not bashing per say to say what I see. I show respect to those who deserve it. People who dig their heads into the ground and say the world is flat because we “collectively” say so… don’t fall into that category.
“The physics behind how increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere leads to higher temps is not a correlation. It is based upon both theory and observed data, and those two things fit together.”
CO2 in a green house sure… BUT its affect on the GLOBE I will still say is a theory, based on supposition, peer-review, and correlation. Which as it stands I believe to be flawed.
“it is strange that this argument only comes up in the context of climate change (and sometimes evolution), but no in any other context involving scientific research. Is that a coincidence? Or do the critics have political or economic motives that are uniquely triggered by these two areas of research only??”
Actually… you are quite wrong here. It comes up in every scientific field regularly. My personal favorite is economics. Major philosophical differences of any kind can reach wildly different results. A persons presuppositions affect how even basic problems are approached and what factors to include. I do not deny some people try to use “pseudo” science to make a point and it can be political or economic in nature. But I think you misunderstand, we (at least a few people) think that “climate change” and “global warming” is politically and economically motivated by people who are currently making laws and policy in this country and around the world. This is a convenient “theory” to accomplish a political agenda, and WE object because we disagree with the agenda, and I (with others) disagree with the science. (This is a perfect example of my argument… two people looking at the exact same data and coming up with different conclusions based on their suppositions…)
We should never stop learning, growing or doing (scripture says so…), but we need to give pause to the idea that science has become a religion to many that cannot be questioned. Science (in the past) did some great things. My point IS that recently much of what has been driving politics is a perversion of science, the “religion” of science if you will. And many scientists do not even realize they are playing the role without question because their “peers” said so. I think there are no bad questions… but science has been “perverted” by people who would use it to their own advantage, and I feel you are on the wrong side. (Even with good intentions no doubt.)
“Similarly, we may not have cracked the code to recreate life just yet, but we have built hearts in a lab and gotten them to beat on their own. We are very close to creating life already. You can be a little afraid of this, but you’re on the wrong side of history if you doubt what science can accomplish”
I’m glad you agree with scripture. Scripture says man can do ANYTHING when he works together… the bible… check it out some time, even if you don’t believe it, it has some great science in it for those who would listen. (even a “round” world for people who pay attention…)
I have a joke for you.
Report Post »A scientist creates life in his laboratory for the first time in history… he dies and says to God “Hey I made life”… God replies “Next time make your own matter to do it with and I’ll be impressed”
Samurai
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 5:16amLet’s see, a few years ago, they Climategate Hoaxers were saying there would be much less snow and that ski resorts would all go bankrupt due to man-made global warming (when, of course, there were a few years of lower-than-average snowfall.
Now, since we have a lot of snow, this is also caused by man-made global warming….
How convenient…
Actually, the scientist should be asking themselves why there is so little CO2, not why there is so much… There have only been two geological periods of less atmospheric CO2 over the past 4.5 billion: the Late Carboniferous and the Early Jurassic…. Normal historic geological levels have been around 1,000ppm, whereas now, CO2 is a mere 385ppm.
Another big problem is that CO2 is a much better plant food than greenhouse gas… H2O is about 650% stronger than CO2 and there is 8,000% more H20 in the atmosphere than CO2. Moreover, man-made CO2 only accounts for about 3% of total atmospheric CO2, the remaining CO2 comes from naturally released CO2.
So you’ve got H2O is 6.5 times stronger x 80 times more H20 than total CO2 divided by 3% man-made, which means that atmospheric water vapor is roughly 17,333 times stronger than the man-made portion of CO2. (that’s 1,733,333% for you math majors….)
Why are we still talking about this hoax as if it were real science. The climatologist should all be wearing clown shoes, red bulb noses, blue wigs and have dancing poodles running between their legs when they make these pronouncements.
Regardless
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 2:57pmBlue,
“I wish that when people got together they got smarter, and could put aside their suppositions… but alas it is not true. Unfortunately when many in the scientific community say “legitimate methodology” they mean methods that we recognize and come to the same conclusion as us.”
Nope. You didn‘t go read Feynmann’s commencement speech at CalTech, did you? If you had, you wouldn’t have written this.
“It did not used to be that way, but this new science “theology” is deeply rooted in those who have been carried away in its dogma. I have come to love the slogan “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers…” (even if they are over educated…)”
There is no dogma amongst the scientists, just the non-scientists claiming dogmatically that such dogma must exist. You are clearly not a scientist.
“Those who disagree with scientific main stream lose their “peer” status, and are discredited, and therefore not allowed to “credibly” challenge. If you want to learn about the truth a bit check out this documentary: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. Although the film focuses on a completely different debate (particularly Intelligent Design vs Evolution), it does show clearly that science has become its own theology with its own dogma and political structures.”
Wrong. Those who fail to do good science lose their credibility, as it should be. And the movie Expelled has been soundly criticized by leading scientific journals like Scientific American for making ridiculous claims, ambushing unassuming scientists and heavily editing interviews to spin appearances. The reality is that anti-evolution concepts like irreducible complexity have never been established, and credentialled scientists who try to make them have failed on the merits, and they have been rightly ignored because of their failure, not because of politics. This example highlights again your lack of understanding of why creation science, which is not science, has been shunned by scientists–namely, because there is no data to support it, not because it says something that scientists don’t want to hear for political reasons.
“I am saying that peer-review as it stands is flawed, because those who don’t agree are not peers. I only state what I have seen and observed in my own “theory”, it is not bashing per say to say what I see. I show respect to those who deserve it. People who dig their heads into the ground and say the world is flat because we “collectively” say so… don’t fall into that category.”
They are peers. They all write in peer-reviewed journals. Scientific results demand confirmation by peers. I’m not sure what you are claiming, since it doesn’t accord with the facts. Scientific journal contributions are not hidden in the sand but actually quite open and contestable by people who play by the same rules (i.e., use scientific method).
“CO2 in a green house sure… BUT its affect on the GLOBE I will still say is a theory, based on supposition, peer-review, and correlation. Which as it stands I believe to be flawed.”
Wrong. The atmosphere is a known entity that can be measured, and the emissions man puts into it are also a known quantity that can be measured. The physics applies. This is not a black box that we observe using indirect observations that are known only through correlation. The theory and the data both point in the same direction, so your analogy makes no sense.
“My personal favorite is economics. Major philosophical differences of any kind can reach wildly different results. A persons presuppositions affect how even basic problems are approached and what factors to include. I do not deny some people try to use “pseudo” science to make a point and it can be political or economic in nature.”
Economics is not as exact a science as the natural and physical sciences that govern climate research. So the analogy doesn’t hold. Economists rely much more on correlation since they cannot model things to the degree of accuracy that scientists can. Also, the problem I see with economists is not that they do not have some mathematical relationships to constrain what they say, it is that they willingly ignore those relationships in order to make political points.
“But I think you misunderstand, we (at least a few people) think that “climate change” and “global warming” is politically and economically motivated by people who are currently making laws and policy in this country and around the world. This is a convenient “theory” to accomplish a political agenda, and WE object because we disagree with the agenda, and I (with others) disagree with the science. (This is a perfect example of my argument… two people looking at the exact same data and coming up with different conclusions based on their suppositions…) ”
What agenda? That polluters should pay for their pollution? The conservative claim is that those that worry about climate change really just want to control other people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Assume for a moment that the science is clear, and that we can state exactly what the dollar cost impact of coal-fired electricity generation or gas-power automobiles in the US is. Those costs are currently not being paid, but need to be. Classical economic theory, as espoused by everyone from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, would state that you must add a tax to cover that cost (i.e., to internalize the negative externality). To argue otherwise would be to condone theft of the commons. This is exactly what a cap and trade system would accomplish, using market forces to boot. in other words, there is ABSOLUTELY NO SOCIALIST AGENDA behind what the folks who worry about climate change seek to accomplish. It is actually the conservatives who prey on the ignorance of people regarding science and economics that lead to painting this totally false picture of what is going on.
“We should never stop learning, growing or doing (scripture says so…), but we need to give pause to the idea that science has become a religion to many that cannot be questioned.”
Science is not a religion, except in the minds of some religious people who seek to put religion on equal terms with science by knocking science down. If I claim that teaching Darwin in science is a religious exercise, then I can demand that teaching about God and creationism can be put in the school as well. This is false, but it serves religious activists’ political ends.
“Science (in the past) did some great things. My point IS that recently much of what has been driving politics is a perversion of science, the “religion” of science if you will. And many scientists do not even realize they are playing the role without question because their “peers” said so. I think there are no bad questions… but science has been “perverted” by people who would use it to their own advantage, and I feel you are on the wrong side. (Even with good intentions no doubt.)”
The political pressures on science have existed since the beginning of time, from the pressure of kings on philosophers to design weapons that those great minds would preferred (however vainly) to have left undiscovered, to the reaction of religious leaders to scientific discoveries that contradict scriptures. Nothing has changed.
“I’m glad you agree with scripture. Scripture says man can do ANYTHING when he works together… the bible… check it out some time, even if you don’t believe it, it has some great science in it for those who would listen. (even a “round” world for people who pay attention…)”
I don’t believe in scripture, so I don’t agree with you on this. Scripture is static, while scientific knowledge is dynamic. There is no doubt which one reflects our best guess about the reality around us, and it isn’t the one that remains locked into bronze-age thinking.
“I have a joke for you. A scientist creates life in his laboratory for the first time in history… he dies and says to God “Hey I made life”… God replies “Next time make your own matter to do it with and I’ll be impressed””
God must be impressed then. We are building that kind of life as well, using materials that do not normally constitute life to create self-assembling nano-bots and other wonders. We are even inventing new materials (e.g., carbon buckyballs) to do this.
Report Post »