Friday, October 30, 2009

The new flat Earthism 

People who have followed the slow degradation of Al Gore's credibility will find nothing surprising in this post. But you should read it anyway. You know, so you are well prepared to disrupt all the best cocktail parties.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Oct 30, 04:43:00 PM:

Happily, Climate co-religionists are meeting shortly in Copenhagen to solve everything. Mark Steyn is on the case, and he reports that the definition of "environment" (such a narrow definition in algores universe!) is being expanded in Copenhagen to include every personal aspect of one's life. Obamacare is merely a prelude, according to the Copenhagen enviro-worshipers.

I particularly like his report on the toilet seat that measures body fat.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Fri Oct 30, 07:19:00 PM:

I wonder what the next excuse for a wealth redistribution scam will be?

The illuminati in the UN have tried reparations for colonialism, trade inequities, and racism...now it will be a reparation for "carbon".

I now see why it is called the "Green" movement.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the global warming magic is going to fly either.

What's next?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Oct 30, 10:33:00 PM:

Next? Why going Galt of course.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Sat Oct 31, 09:51:00 AM:

Very true. Obama has killed the Golden Goose and had a nice goose dinner (The Stimulus).

...and we haven't even seen the commercial real estate crash that is coming this spring.

...or the insolvency of the US debt service when interest rates rise close to 10% next year.

...or hyperinflation destroying what income "the rich" have available to redistribute.

How many times does Communism have to fail to make it clear to even the most doltish observer that it doesn't work???  

By Blogger Brian, at Sat Oct 31, 03:29:00 PM:

I'm happy to bet anyone here, a real money bet or course, that there will be more tropical cyclones in the next ten years than in the last ten.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Sat Oct 31, 05:04:00 PM:

Brian...for the love of God...give it up!!!  

By Blogger Brian, at Sun Nov 01, 01:03:00 AM:

JP: I'm a little bit sympathetic, I feel like a broken record.

Imagine the situation was reversed though, and that it was me that was asserting completely absurd statements that could easily be proven wrong in the near term future, and that everyone else kept offering to bet me.

I think they'd be tempted to continue to offer to bet me as long as I kept offering provably wrong assertions.

If TH or other powers-that-be here want to call it trolling, it's in their power to do so.  

By Blogger Don Cox, at Sun Nov 01, 05:48:00 AM:

I don't know enough about cyclones to make a prediction there, but I will be very surprised if the glaciers and ice sheets don't continue to shrink over the next ten years and beyond.

Now is the time to buy real estate in Greenland.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Sun Nov 01, 12:55:00 PM:

Well...considering that cyclonic activity is currently at it's 30 year LOW...and, NEWS FLASH!!...nature tends to do things in cycles....then it's a pretty good bet that cyclonic activity is going to go up.

It will, of course, be a perfectly natural phenomenon.

Followed...of course...by media hysteria and political posturing.

So, in a sense, my question about what the next form of environmental hysteria will be could very well have been answered.

Buckle down for the SUPERSTORMS!!!!! Unless, of course, you send all of your money to the government and purchase "wind credits" and outlaw farting in public.  

By Blogger Brian, at Sun Nov 01, 03:57:00 PM:

So if the chart posted at the link is merely showing a cyclical low, it doesn't disprove a link between AGW and cyclones. It takes a while for long-term climate to overcome weather.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Sun Nov 01, 09:03:00 PM:

The concept of AGW is becoming a zombie. Rational people are not believing it, despite the best efforts of political ideologues.

If cyclones are raging...it's because of "AGW".

If cyclones are NOT raging....it "doesn't disprove the link".

You know...this kind of crap really wears thin after a while...  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Nov 01, 09:39:00 PM:

The blithe reference to "AGW" kills me. There is nothing to the ghoul of "AGW", just as there is no evidence of "AGW" itself.

It's pure superstition and reason doesn't intrude. Brian might as well be talking about jinns in the desert, or ghosts in the attic, as talk about AGW.

Thirty years ago it was global cooling. Today, global warming. The common link between the two batshit beliefs is that our economy somehow is at fault, and the solution to both global cooling and global warming is to destroy our standard of living. Today, the enviro-worshipers would also have us eliminate household pets, turn vegan and give up reproduction. Even stranger sacrifices will no doubt be required. Should we throw some unlucky soul into the volcano Brian?

But those sacrifices are typical in human history of oddball religious beliefs. What's truly amazing is that there so many weird ducks still today, in the age of such great achievement, such wonderful advances in every field. Despite all the wonders of the world, there are those who are so easily manipulated by politicians seeking a path to power above all else.  

By Blogger Brian, at Mon Nov 02, 09:53:00 AM:

What also wears thin is "AGW isn't happening, and I refuse to put my money where my mouth is." From any single person that's fine and simply represents their personality, but from the entire community of skeptics it's pretty meaningful.

And once again, the false statement that a scientific consensus 30 years ago anticipated cooling, when in fact most scientists anticipated warming. Read the literature about this.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Mon Nov 02, 10:23:00 AM:

Brian, can you offer one clear proof of anthropogenic global warming? Anything at all?  

By Anonymous Brian Schmidt, at Mon Nov 02, 06:00:00 PM:

Anon- warming in the 20th Century, a good 50 years after the rebound from the Little Ice Age, was 0.06C/decade. Current warming, and the warming of the last 20-30 years, is 0.15 to 0.2C per decade.

The warming is accelerating, long after it should have finished recovering from a natural cycle according to skeptics. It is this continued acceleration that explains why climatogists expect warming to increase at an even higher per-decade rate later this century.

So that's just one piece that I find most convincing on a personal level.

And I know many people here think themselves as qualified as any climatologist PhD. to examine the evidence, but I personally fall sadly short of this level of brilliance. Given that, I look at what most experts think. Every national academy of science accepts AGW. The petitions put together by denialists consists primarily of people who aren't experts in the field, or who aren't even climatologists, or who don't actually deny AGW.

There are a few experts in the appropriate fields who deny AGW, but the ratio of mistaken Galileos to actual Galileos is so high that I think it's far safer to go with the scientific consensus.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Tue Nov 03, 06:39:00 AM:

Temperature measurements from where?? All I have seen is a series of weather stations, decreasing in number, and positioned on concrete slabs, near air conditioning vents and in urban areas.

Scientifically, it's a joke.

Then there is the tree ring fiasco...where the data seems to have been cherry picked to prove a point...and then suddenly isn't available for peer review.

Scientifically, it's a joke.

Then there is the ocean temperature and ice data...again tortured to prove a point.

Then there is the satellite data that fails to confirm any "greenhouse" effect.

Then there is that high quality piece of bat guano...the UN report.

I'm not a climatologist, but I have a bachelor degree and a doctorate in the sciences...and I have been taught HOW to think about data. Taught by very good people.

The data is crap. Pure crap.

The concept is intriguing...altho it is not clear whter such temperature changes, if proven, would be a good or a bad thing.

So, while I wait for a viable, accurate, peer reviewed test of this hypothesis...I would prefer not to send all of my money to a pack of thieves in Washington DC.

But that's just me...  

By Blogger Brian, at Tue Nov 03, 10:23:00 AM:

"All I have seen is a series of weather stations, decreasing in number, and positioned on concrete slabs, near air conditioning vents and in urban areas."

I think you should do a little more research then before being so confident in your viewpoint, because what you just said is ridiculous.  

By Blogger Brian, at Tue Nov 03, 10:29:00 AM:

Guess I should cover these as well.

"Then there is the tree ring fiasco...where the data seems to have been cherry picked to prove a point...and then suddenly isn't available for peer review."

Data was made available, McIntyre had it for years, and proxy reconstructions work identically without the Briffa sets and without trees, period.

"Then there is the ocean temperature and ice data...again tortured to prove a point."

There's no specific claim here, but ocean stations show the same increases as land stations.

"Then there is the satellite data that fails to confirm any "greenhouse" effect."

That's wrong, and John Christy would confirm that's wrong, although he'll sputter about what it means.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Tue Nov 03, 10:00:00 PM:

Weather Stations: Read and Weep

Tree Ring Fiasco: Read and Weep

Ocean Temperatures: Read and Weep

Satellite Data: Read and Weep

At the VERY LEAST, these divergent opinons betray the FAILURE of "warmists" to plead their case on the basis of rigorous scientific analysis.

Which is my point.  

By Anonymous Brian Schmidt, at Wed Nov 04, 05:00:00 PM:

Oh boy.

Take the last one you cited - satellites show a large warming, even the measurement by skeptic/creationist Roy Spencer. That disproves the lie that ground measurements are all urban heat islands, esp. since measurements are calibrated against rural stations, and show the same increase at night when heat island effects are minimal.

Ocean temps - are you serious, citing to 4 years of data? Try this:


Of course, if you think ocean temps aren't going anywhere, I know a way to make that an interesting proposition over the next 5-10 years....  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?