March 06, 2014

A Scientist Publishes Her Notes for an Upcoming Talk on the Causes and Implications of the 17 Year Global Warming Pause
— Ace

Interesting document.

You should know going in she's not firmly against global warming theory. But she is honest enough to confess that the theory, as currently understood, is wrong, at least in important details, and she's willing to "go there," at least in a speculative way, and consider the possibility that the theory is wrong in the main as well.

She seems extremely skeptical of last year's spin that the ocean is "hiding" huge amounts of heat by some unexplained mechanism.

She does seem to see some plausibility in another theory, the "stadium wave" theory, which isn't terribly surprising -- the Stadium Wave hypothesis is her own pet theory.

One of the most controversial issues emerging from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in warming of global surface temperatures since 1998. Several ideas have been put forward to explain this hiatus, including what the IPCC refers to as ‘unpredictable climate variability’ that is associated with large-scale circulation regimes in the atmosphere and ocean. The most familiar of these regimes is El Niño/La Niña. On longer multi-decadal time scales, there is a network of atmospheric and oceanic circulation regimes, including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

A new paper published in the journal Climate Dynamics suggests that this ‘unpredictable climate variability’ behaves in a more predictable way than previously assumed. The paper’s authors, Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry, point to the so-called ‘stadium-wave’ signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a stadium stand and sit as a ‘wave’ propagates through the audience. In like manner, the ‘stadium wave’ climate signal propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.

The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last.

But this seems to me a pure speculation. She's offering a possible explanation for how various forces come together (well, they nearly conspire) to push temperatures down (which then offsets, I guess, the increase in temperatures predicted by Global Warming theorists).

We are very far from "The Science Is Settled" when we're still thrashing about for the best speculation as to why temperatures aren't rising as predicted.

You can't say "the Science is Settled" and then propose the speculation that maybe the ocean is "hiding" heat by some unknown mechanism (and hiding it, by the way, in some place we can't actually find or measure), or the speculation of a chaotic system that self-organizes towards a cooling tendency.

Either of these speculations may turn out to be true -- but at the moment, they are mere speculations, which not only aren't proven but are still in fairly early stages of theorization.

That is, they're still pretty half-baked. They're hardly past the brainstorming phase.

A theory is as strong as it its weakest proof. Global Warming now relies, unavoidably, not only on mere speculations, but on speculations people can't even agree upon (in a "The Speculation is Settled" sort of "consensus").

This reduces all of global warming theory to the level of mere speculation.

Posted by: Ace at 02:27 PM | Comments (237)
Post contains 599 words, total size 4 kb.

1

Key word...."Theory"

Posted by: Bosk at March 06, 2014 02:29 PM (n2K+4)

2 Third!

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 06, 2014 02:30 PM (TIIx5)

3 The "ocean hiding warmth" hypothesis is from the same branch of science as the "dark matter" school: this has to be true in order for my theories to work. Its a priori argument, not scientific in any sense.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 02:30 PM (zfY+H)

4
Last!

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 06, 2014 02:30 PM (TIIx5)

5
Well, at least one of those was correct for a few seconds.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 06, 2014 02:31 PM (TIIx5)

6 1. CO2 2. ??? 3. Climate!

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 06, 2014 02:33 PM (5xmd7)

7 The science is settled wingnut. We're not telling you exactly what science it is. But we can assure you that it is settled.

Posted by: DangerGirl at March 06, 2014 02:35 PM (GrtrJ)

8 A Scientist Publishes Her Notes for an Upcoming Talk on the Causes and Implications of the 17 Year Global Warming Pause



It hasn't paused, it is actually decreasing and they are hiding it by "adjusting it".

Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 06, 2014 02:37 PM (T2V/1)

9 But , but ALGORE!!!1!1!!11

Posted by: CSMBigBird at March 06, 2014 02:38 PM (Fsvd8)

10 "It would only take one to prove me wrong." -Albert Einstein, commenting on his Theory of Relativity and its hundreds of Nazi opponents saying that the theory was wrong. 

Posted by: O'Bumbles and His Gang at March 06, 2014 02:38 PM (ndlFj)

11 Remember, the new hotness (heh) is climate change and/or climate chaos.


Protip:  Attempting to make your scientific theory non-falsifiable tends to be a sign that you are no longer engaging in science. 

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at March 06, 2014 02:38 PM (Gk3SS)

12 The idiots who have so willingly embraced the morphing of the Global Warming title for their movement, to 'climate change'....don't seem to understand that the climate on this planet has always been changing. 

Posted by: wheatie at March 06, 2014 02:39 PM (W4wxS)

13 sock off

Posted by: dfbaskwill at March 06, 2014 02:39 PM (ndlFj)

14 Yeah but non-falsifiable theories are not exactly new to science...

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 02:39 PM (zfY+H)

15 Protip: Attempting to make your scientific theory non-falsifiable tends to be a sign that you are no longer engaging in science. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at March 06, 2014 06:38 PM (Gk3SS) Word.

Posted by: String Theory Scientists at March 06, 2014 02:40 PM (hq5sb)

16 >>>The idiots who have so willingly embraced the morphing of theGlobal Warming title for their movement, to'climate change'....don't seem to understand that the climate on this planet has always been changing. they understand that little bit. but they have simplified things; they champion basically a single factor (CO2) as explaining most climate change. I don't think someone could name any other complex system in which one single factor explains virtually everything.

Posted by: ace at March 06, 2014 02:40 PM (/FnUH)

17 The climate models did not "fail" to predict the pause in warming. They weren't designed to predict a pause. They were designed to predict warming.

Posted by: wisenheimer at March 06, 2014 02:41 PM (kidco)

18 "This reduces all of global warming theory to the level of mere speculation." What I've been saying all along. Until a theory can forecast behavior accurately, it's just speculation. Since the polar ice is still there, snow is still occurring, water has not yet covered Manhattan, Guam has not tipped over, and so on and so on, and so on, AGW theory is at best unproven, and really more like disproven.

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at March 06, 2014 02:41 PM (SwHqo)

19 Chicken entrails and wooly worms......pure science.

Posted by: BignJames at March 06, 2014 02:41 PM (ZNQKl)

20 "I don't think someone could name any other complex system in which one single factor explains virtually everything."
Maybe women and shoes.
*ducks*

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 02:41 PM (zfY+H)

21 CT, You make no sense from the outset. Women can't be explained by any set of variables or theories.

Posted by: ace at March 06, 2014 02:42 PM (/FnUH)

22 Stadium wave, epicycles,  It's all Ptolemaic Hellenism to me.

Posted by: teapartydoc at March 06, 2014 02:42 PM (4U98b)

23 "She seems extremely skeptical of last year's spin that the ocean is 'hiding' huge amounts of heat by some unexplained mechanism."

I'm going with the "The Sun is hiding huge amounts of heat" Theory. Of course it still depends on the fringe hypothetical: "Such a hypothetical source of warming would have to be massive, however. On the order of magnitude of our own Sun."

Crazy, I know. But there it is.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 06, 2014 02:43 PM (1CroS)

24 Stadium waves cause global warming? 

What about vuvuzelas? Are they still okay?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 06, 2014 02:43 PM (8ZskC)

25 Everything those women said is bullshit.

Posted by: huerfano at March 06, 2014 02:43 PM (bAGA/)

26

Woo!

 

ace is cranking  them  out today.

Posted by: Count de Monet at March 06, 2014 02:44 PM (BAS5M)

27 Yeah but non-falsifiable theories are not exactly new to science... Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 06:39 PM (zfY+H) IMHO it comes to a discussion of "what is science." If you have a theory that effectively cannot be tested then you don't have science you have faith. Since Global warming (and my above sock) only seem to have things that either fall into the "support" or "inconclusive" category, it's arguable they aren't scientific per se. (And certainly not what I would call "science."*) FWIW, I'm not pulling that entirely out of my ass, the wife with her Physics degree has commented on this quite much. And our favorite Easter-Block-Defector undergrad physics professor was one of people who got us thinking along those lines. *If this were a liberal blog I'd play the "expert analysis bitches!" false appeal to authority card here. But it's not. So "MHO" rules apply.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 06, 2014 02:44 PM (hq5sb)

28 I don't think someone could name any other complex system in which one single factor explains virtually everything.


God?

Posted by: rickb223 at March 06, 2014 02:44 PM (d0Dmj)

29 You make no sense from the outset. Women can't be explained by any set of variables or theories. Posted by: ace at March 06, 2014 06:42 PM (/FnUH) I am insulted. We are absolutely explained by the theory of variability. Which means exactly whatever we want it to mean at any particular moment.

Posted by: DangerGirl at March 06, 2014 02:44 PM (GrtrJ)

30 Curry has always been an AGW believer, but an honest one who thinks her side has behaved badly. These days she seems she's about to go full skeptic. I'm sure she's already been attacked by the witch burners just for being open minded and ethical.

Posted by: stace at March 06, 2014 02:44 PM (9PXzx)

31 >>> don't seem to understand that the climate on this planet has always been changing What did humans do to cause the Laurentide ice sheet to melt? Let's just make sure we don't do it again.

Posted by: fluffy at March 06, 2014 02:45 PM (Ua6T/)

32 If your 100 year projection goes off the rails in the first 20 and you DON'T question it, what you're doing isn't science.

Posted by: --- at March 06, 2014 02:46 PM (rB/SB)

33 Bitches, man. Bitches.

Posted by: garrett at March 06, 2014 02:46 PM (xm+xZ)

34 Avenge me!

Posted by: Piltdown Man at March 06, 2014 02:46 PM (BAS5M)

35 >>>Curry has always been an AGW believer, but an honest one who thinks her side has behaved badly. These days she seems she's about to go full skeptic. I'm sure she's already been attacked by the witch burners just for being open minded and ethical. thanks, I know nothing about her, and appreciate this bit of background.

Posted by: ace at March 06, 2014 02:46 PM (/FnUH)

36 Allow me to introduce my "Giant Foam Finger" Theory of global warming.

Posted by: A Guy With A Ph.D. And A White Coat at March 06, 2014 02:46 PM (8ZskC)

37

fucking global warming this year.  LOL.

Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:46 PM (tVTLU)

38 What did humans do to cause the Laurentide ice sheet to melt? Probably a woman fucking with the Thermostat.

Posted by: garrett at March 06, 2014 02:47 PM (xm+xZ)

39 Posted by: ace at March 06, 2014 06:40 PM (/FnUH) Which is odd, because IIRC we've got more CO2 in the air than we did during the Jurassic (and nearby) periods when it was much warmer. At the very least they fail to acknowledge that it's entirely possible the system is largely self-correcting. (That is to say that as we get more CO2 something like increased cloud cover actually tapers the rise.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 06, 2014 02:47 PM (hq5sb)

40 Wisconsin along with Minnesota both have over 10,000 lakes a piece. We are told the lakes were formed by glaciers retreating. That must have been some kick ass global warming & that was before the Industrial Age & evil 4x4 trucks.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 06, 2014 02:47 PM (HVff2)

41 Ace: "This reduces all of global warming theory to the level of mere speculation."

There's speculation and then there's speculation. What we have here is speculation of the investor type. A coalition of interests is speculating in climate change in order to produce/consume artificial and fabricated wealth. Look at the investment opportunities that have been created de novo!

Oh, it's speculation all right.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 06, 2014 02:48 PM (1CroS)

42 Maybe women and shoes. *ducks* Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 06:41 PM (zfY+H) women and handbags, in my case. My son tells me, mom, you have a sickness.

Posted by: stace at March 06, 2014 02:48 PM (9PXzx)

43 The climate models did not "fail" to predict the pause in warming. They weren't designed to predict a pause. They were designed to predict warming. --- They were designed to transfer money.

Posted by: whoever at March 06, 2014 02:48 PM (pjMym)

44 IMHO it comes to a discussion of "what is science."

If you have a theory that effectively cannot be tested then you don't have science you have faith.


Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 06, 2014 06:44 PM (hq5sb)


Bingo bango.  What is trotted out as climate science is climate faith.   We still don't even know all the variables. 

There is now enough data to test the models against reality.   IIRC, all the models failed.   Um, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the issue is with the models, not with reality.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at March 06, 2014 02:48 PM (Gk3SS)

45

16...they understand that little bit. but they have simplified things; they champion basically a single factor (CO2) as explaining most climate change.

 

I don't think someone could name any other complex system in which one single factor explains virtually everything.

 

Posted by: ace at March 06, 2014 06:40 PM (/FnUH)

 

----------

 

Right.

In other words, they are grasping at straw men.

 

And as their great hoax is exposed...they are scurrying around to salvage their credibility.

 

Science is rarely ever 'settled', on anything.

 

Well, you have your absolutes...the basic elements and their properties.

But the way in which physical elements react with each other, especially in the realm of long-term climactic trends...is still unsettled and should be subject to ongoing study.

Posted by: wheatie at March 06, 2014 02:48 PM (W4wxS)

46 Causality. How does it fucking work?

Posted by: AGW True Believer at March 06, 2014 02:49 PM (xm+xZ)

47 Key word...."Theory"

Oh good Allah,

People who are involved in scientific inquiry use some layperson words to mean things other than the common definition.  "Theory" in science means "supported by a broad base of evidence, and little to no contradictory evidence". 

Look, I'm not arguing Anthropogenic Global Warming is real.  Not at all.  But when people glibly say, "It's just a theory", using the layperson's definition of "some random idea some people thought up", it's just childish wordplay.  It'd be like me saying, "I'm not cowed by you."  and my 5 year old nephew retorting, "Of course not, you're a person, not a cow."

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 06, 2014 02:49 PM (P7Wsr)

48 Folks on the right really should abandon talking about the left's anthropogenic global warming/change.

Henrik Svensmark and an Israeli scientist have come up with a real scientific and comprehensive theory for climate change that explains all the shifts and changes over all the billions of years the planet has existed, not just the last few decades. The fundamental theorem has been proven by experiments in the CERN Collider and mentioned in the "Watts Up With That" blog.

He has a book "The Chilling Stars: a cosmic view of climate change", and there is a youtube video/documentary on him and his theory "Svensmark: cloud mystery".

Check it out. It is THE theory not the global warming crap the left promulgates.


Posted by: Harold at March 06, 2014 02:50 PM (xTVTq)

49 "She seems extremely skeptical of last year's spin that the ocean is 'hiding' huge amounts of heat by some unexplained mechanism."

On the one hand, the thermophobes admit that their theory rests entirely upon the fidelity of enormously detailed, computationally intensive numerical models.

On the other hand, they feel at liberty to invoke hand-waving explanations of why those models are failing which involve "unexplained mechanisms" (of colossal size).

It's impossible to have it both ways on this.

If such "unexplained mechanisms" exist, then that is a prima facie indication that the modelers are in such shaky ground with their conceptual basis that they have no business trying to even build such models at this stage.

Note also that when scientists on the outside of the climate racket have come forth with other plausible hypotheses about significant influences which the computer models ignore (e.g., Henrik Svensmark and cosmic ray influence on cloud formation), they have been shouted down contemptuously by the mandarins of the IPCC.

People who are actually intent on doing science are _avid_ to learn about possibly overlooked influences, and to incorporate them into their thinking if found to be useful.

Posted by: torquewrench at March 06, 2014 02:51 PM (gqT4g)

50 Curry is what's commonly called a 'lukewarmer'. She is honest, and she has to live to some extent within the deluded-warmist milieu, and her honesty has cost her mightily among that crowd. If I were President I'd be happy to put her in a federal office. Not sure about EPA adminsitrator, there's a lot of Augean stable to sweep out there (fairly brutally, and by someone who doesn't much care about their reputation in the PhD world when they're done) before we reconstitute the place with honest people, but in some position to reevaluate the whole temperature-history situaton. Maybe NOAA administrator.

Posted by: JEM at March 06, 2014 02:51 PM (o+SC1)

51

What did humans do to cause the Laurentide ice sheet to melt?

 

>>>

 


Probably a woman fucking with the Thermostat.

 

>>>

 

 

F you!    My hands were frozen.  If you "men" had to go around  with your pee-pees exposed to the so-called heat you keep the home set for, you'd never  see them as they would shrink back into your bodies.

Posted by: A Woman at March 06, 2014 02:51 PM (BAS5M)

52 SO basicly it "paused" the instant the phrase global warming was first uttered. Sounds to me like quantum physics took over.

Posted by: UWP at March 06, 2014 02:51 PM (KAmBO)

53 They were designed to transfer money. That too.

Posted by: wisenheimer at March 06, 2014 02:52 PM (kidco)

54 alex, here is a  humongous banana daiquiri.
I'm well into mine already.

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 02:52 PM (nqBYe)

55 Computer models,  how do they fucking work?

Apparently not very well.

Posted by: Dang at March 06, 2014 02:52 PM (MNq6o)

56 If you have a theory that effectively cannot be tested then you don't have science you have faith.

String theory?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 06, 2014 02:53 PM (P7Wsr)

57 There is now enough data to test the models against reality. IIRC, all the models failed. Um, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the issue is with the models, not with reality. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at March 06, 2014 06:48 PM (Gk3SS) You know why I'm writing a dissertation on the wonders of animal research? Because the anti-animal research crowd wants to use computer models instead of animals. Which is insane. Even a set of congenetic mice is loaded with chaos and complexity that simply cannot be modeled by even the most powerful network of supercomputers. But setting that aside, I don't like "models" (taken here to mean specifically computer based models) because you can make them say whatever you want just by pushing the right buttons. It's bad enough that I can rig a study by choosing a particular strain of mice. (Hi anti-GMO study!) Imagine how much worse it'll be when you control everything from the ground up. You want a drug that shown to be perfectly effective with no side effects hold on. *beep beep boop boop* Here you go. Yeah, we need chaos and complexity in science. It's what reminds us we're fallible.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 06, 2014 02:53 PM (hq5sb)

58 >>>Curry has always been an AGW believer, but an honest one who thinks her side has behaved badly. These days she seems she's about to go full skeptic. I'm sure she's already been attacked by the witch burners just for being open minded and ethical. thanks, I know nothing about her, and appreciate this bit of background. Posted by: ace at March 06, 2014 06:46 PM (/FnUH) Judith Curry has already been basically slandered by Michael Mann (of hockey-stick fame) for "being in the pay of Big Oil" or some other such canard. Anthony Watts' blog, Wattsupwiththat, is good place to go to get the skinny on the climate wars, and science in general.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at March 06, 2014 02:53 PM (yDmQD)

59 >>> the so-called ‘stadium-wave’ signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a stadium stand and sit as a ‘wave’ propagates through the audience.

Wait, climate changing CO2 exists as a particle AND a wave?! How enlightening! Einstein would be so proud of these losers.

Posted by: LizLem at March 06, 2014 02:53 PM (BF+2f)

60 "She seems extremely skeptical of last year's spin that the ocean is "hiding" huge amounts of heat by some unexplained mechanism." This came up in last week's podcast and Ace seemed more upset than I thought he should be about the shoddy science of this out of yer ass "dodge" for the measurable temperatures failing to live up to the theory. I'm all like..."Sure! Go for it, Climatologists!" "Problem" solved, neh? Who would have thunk it that the world's oceans could be a huge heat sink? Fire up the SUV's baby! Because we are GOLDEN!

Posted by: Deety at March 06, 2014 02:53 PM (D8ONs)

61 Isn't "Curry " a Scandi name? Can't wait until the Article ice cap melts, leaving them homeless, bobbing around in the water in the vicinity of the North Pole. Bothers me that the water they will be floating in will bath tub warm at that point, tho'

Posted by: Mooch at March 06, 2014 02:54 PM (611Rk)

62 It's the Sun, stupid.

Posted by: garrett at March 06, 2014 02:54 PM (xm+xZ)

63 F you! My hands were frozen. If you "men" had to go around with your pee-pees exposed to the so-called heat you keep the home set for, you'd never see them as they would shrink back into your bodies.

Posted by: A Woman at March 06, 2014 06:51 PM (BAS5M)


which reminds me why in the hell were footsie pajamas made for adult women?

very nice to almost totally undress in a freezing home to tinkle!


i'm sure it was a patriarchy sumthing or other, just to see our boobs.

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 02:54 PM (nqBYe)

64
and there goes her funding.

As for man-made global warming, I present to you that space graph from the side bar (which still has no alcohol.)  We are pretty insignificant, even on an earth scale.

Oh and the sun.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 06, 2014 02:54 PM (gorVZ)

65

21...Women can't be explained by any set of variables or theories.

 

Posted by: ace at March 06, 2014 06:42 PM (/FnUH)

 

------------

 

And Mother Nature is a serial killer who eats CO² and laughs at man's puny attempts to control her.

Posted by: wheatie at March 06, 2014 02:54 PM (W4wxS)

66 >>>> "what is science."<<<<<

The reduction of phenomena to mathematics that can be used to predict future phenomena.

Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living... at March 06, 2014 02:54 PM (P/gm7)

67

Here's the leftist playbook, we are currently on Step 1:



Step 1:



Gay marriage legal. Anti-discrimination laws. Must serve gay weddings or go to jail.



Step 2:



Here comes "science". Ton of "research" to show that kids grow up fine and happy in homo households, in fact, in the end they'll say the "science" shows two dads or two moms or three dads and a donkey is a much more healthy environment for kids to be raised. Thus, there is no detriment to children at all from not having one mom and one dad.


Step 3:



Churches that discriminate against gheys are haters. Revoke their tax exempt status. Destroy these churches.



Step 4:



Churches that support gay marriage aren't churches, they're social events for lefties. These faux churches die. Religion dies. Family means whatever anymore.



Step 5:



Boot stomp human face. Forever.

Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:55 PM (tVTLU)

68 String theory? Posted by: bonhomme at March 06, 2014 06:53 PM (P7Wsr) See the sock just above .

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 06, 2014 02:55 PM (hq5sb)

69 thanks, I know nothing about her, and appreciate this bit of background. Posted by: ace at March 06, 2014 06:46 PM (/FnUH) You're welcome. She may not actually be going full skeptic, but much of her recent work seems to involve calling BS on the all-out alarmists. She's behaved rationally and ethically in the debate, from what I've seen. I'm not in any way an expert, and I haven't been keeping up with recent developments, but I participated in Anthony Watts surface stations project. One of my stations caused a problem for the GISS folks--that's my wee claim to fame. I just reported the location, of course--Watts and McIntyre did the analysis.

Posted by: stace at March 06, 2014 02:55 PM (9PXzx)

70 Thank you, willow.

*sips*


It's my understanding that string theorists get around the inability to test by positing that LOOK OVER THERE SHINY.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at March 06, 2014 02:56 PM (Gk3SS)

71

I'd  call  it  the  human-caused  climate  change  hypothesis,  not  theory.

 

FOIA,  the  unknown  whistleblower  who  leaked  the  East  Anglia  CRU  "Climategate"  e-mails,  provided  an  elegant  description  of  his/her  motivation   at  the  time  that  the  second  tranche  of  e-mails  was   released:

 

http://preview.tinyurl.com/bkzobul

 

 

Excerpt:

 

 

"We can't pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it's not away from something and someone else.



If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.


It's easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our "clean" technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.



Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don't have that luxury. The price of "climate protection" with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations."

 

 

 

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at March 06, 2014 02:56 PM (w41GQ)

72 String theory? You understand that if we're wrong, this will destroy the sweater.

Posted by: Dr. Weezer at March 06, 2014 02:56 PM (xm+xZ)

73 But when people glibly say, "It's just a theory", using the layperson's definition of "some random idea some people thought up", it's just childish wordplay. It'd be like me saying, "I'm not cowed by you." and my 5 year old nephew retorting, "Of course not, you're a person, not a cow."

I figure that people like this have signalled to me that they don't know Jack S about how science works. It's good to know so I can concentrate on others' arguments.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 06, 2014 02:56 PM (30eLQ)

74 >>> F you! My hands were frozen. If you "men" had to go around with your pee-pees exposed to the so-called heat you keep the home set for, you'd never see them as they would shrink back into your bodies. Gug, your woman need good clubbing.

Posted by: fluff at March 06, 2014 02:56 PM (Ua6T/)

75 fgs prescient.  please don't start that topic again.

gulps drink.

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 02:56 PM (nqBYe)

76 "women and handbags, in my case."
At least you didn't hit me with one. Its been my experience that conservative women have a lot greater sense of humor than others, though.
The problem with a lot of pop science is a mistaken use of argumentation. They use inductive reasoning (a method of determining a high degree of probability from data) but present it as deductive conclusion (a method of determining certainty by reducing data to only what is certain).
In other words, they should be saying "this is very likely the case" instead of "this is totally true and if you disagree, you're a nazi denier monster!!1!!"
Complicating matters is that global climate change theory is not probable to any degree of certainty, let alone a high degree.
And then there's the basic truth that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 02:56 PM (zfY+H)

77

"A theory is as strong as it its weakest proof. Global Warming now relies, unavoidably, not only on mere speculations, but on speculations people can't even agree upon (in a "The Speculation is Settled" sort of "consensus")."

 

Love,

Evolution 

Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:57 PM (tVTLU)

78 A lot of LIVs think that computers are magic. You can input any kind of a question or data to them and the spit out the answer you need.  In fact computers are machines and they do exactly what the programing tells them to do. 


If you tell the programing to predict a hockey stick, lo, it will produce a hockey stick.  And that is exactly what they did.  Not only that but they cherry picked the input data to feed it.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 06, 2014 02:57 PM (T2V/1)

79 String theory is interesting math but really shouldn't be funded by physics departments.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 06, 2014 02:57 PM (30eLQ)

80 **half naked with teeth chattering**

I can tell you according to the Barrel Man theory, global warming is a fucking crock.

Posted by: Zombie Denver Broncos Barrel Man at March 06, 2014 02:57 PM (oB6vm)

81
Seems somebody could make a killing with the theory the Earth is Cooling.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 06, 2014 02:57 PM (gorVZ)

82 52 SO basicly it "paused" the instant the phrase global warming was first uttered. Sounds to me like quantum physics took over. Posted by: UWP at March 06, 2014 06:51 PM (KAmBO)

Or the global cooling promoters should have stuck to their guns a little longer! I keed.

Posted by: LizLem at March 06, 2014 02:58 PM (BF+2f)

83 Speaking of gay marriage... I filled out a visitors card at the church we've visited a few times to get information about their theological class to see if it's close enough to our beliefs to justify going. (This was before the Noah/Dinosaur incident). Well, I got an email today from the pastor, inviting me and my husband to the class. One problem, they missread my handwriting and put the female version of his name in the email. Yes, apparently they believe that we are a very, very committed lesbian couple. It was a very friendly email, but how do you respond to that?

Posted by: Lauren at March 06, 2014 02:58 PM (hFL/3)

84 >>> Posted by: fluff at March 06, 2014 06:56 PM (Ua6T/) Nice job, Two Brows. "Modern" man can't sock puppet, never mind hunt.

Posted by: Erk at March 06, 2014 02:58 PM (Ua6T/)

85 The US Navy has a strong need to monitor ocean temps at various depths worldwide. While they may never have bundled the data and looked for trends ( though that is improbable) they most probably had a pretty big harvest. There are many layers of fail in not tracking the largest heat sink out there. Set that aside , the fact that the theory of oceans hiding thermal energy probably could have been looked at quickly and affirmed or denied by going to the Navy. The fact that the theory floated for so long speaks to sytematic weak science

Posted by: Mac at March 06, 2014 02:58 PM (Pb3wv)

86 You should know going in she's not firmly against global warming theory. But she is honest enough to confess that the theory, as currently understood, is wrong, at least in important details, and she's willing to "go there," at least in a speculative way, and consider the possibility that the theory is wrong in the main as well. Why, it's...it's...it's almost as if she were doing science or something.

Posted by: rickl at March 06, 2014 02:58 PM (sdi6R)

87 @17 As far as I know the algorithms these clowns use have never been published. The "data" they use are mostly conjectural and from compromised weather monitoring stations. And their entire theory is predicated on exactly one variable, C02 levels. To say global warming is settled science is an insult to actual science and is truly a scam.

Posted by: Kreplach at March 06, 2014 02:58 PM (J7sV0)

88 And as exhibit A of people to ignore in, well, almost every thread:

Love,
Evolution

This is the guy who said that Europe was doomed for not following the Bible's "plain English".

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 06, 2014 02:58 PM (30eLQ)

89 may i say i don't even know how to play hockey.
 just adding my 2 cents.

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 02:59 PM (nqBYe)

90 ‘unpredictable climate variability’ **** Heh. **deep breath** Heh, heh. (Couldn't quite summon a 'bwahahaha')

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at March 06, 2014 02:59 PM (g4TxM)

91 Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 06, 2014 06:57 PM (30eLQ) With all do credit to XKCD: Physics is to math, as sex is to masturbation

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 06, 2014 02:59 PM (hq5sb)

92 I rank global warming theory up there with phlogiston theory, except that the latter was at least honestly what they thought and it wasn't done to get government grants and funds.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 06, 2014 02:59 PM (T2V/1)

93 The heat is obviously being hidden in the phlogiston. Duh.

Posted by: zombie sir isaac newton at March 06, 2014 02:59 PM (hn5v5)

94 Raising the gas tax and taxing carbon would validate global warming.

Posted by: Thomas Friedman at March 06, 2014 03:00 PM (Aif/5)

95

Hey there willow!  Just wanted a repost. 

 

In all honesty I'm in favor of civil unions for the most part and frankly support polygamy in that way as well.  I definitely think property rights should be involved but frankly you can do that all by contract anyway.

 

The real tricky part is benefits.  So many lifer welfare cases DON'T get married b/c they get MORE benefits.   Imagine one dude with 20 wives, all on the same health insurance.  

 

So some rules must be drawn I suppose.  But I think that nothing is better for a child than having a mother and father, and therefore heterosexual couples should have priority in adoptions as well.

Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 03:00 PM (tVTLU)

96 "which reminds me why in the hell were footsie pajamas made for adult women?very nice to almost totally undress in a freezing home to tinkle!"
That's what the flap on the back is for, silly

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 03:00 PM (zfY+H)

97 See? Vic agrees with me and we went to school together.

Posted by: zombie sir isaac newton at March 06, 2014 03:00 PM (hn5v5)

98 It was all those horse, cattle, sheep farts that ruined it for us.

Posted by: English vineyards that are no more due to global warming at March 06, 2014 03:00 PM (mETGQ)

99 I have a pocket full of heat! Have some! *opens pocket, sprinkles heat*

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 06, 2014 03:01 PM (oFCZn)

100 What happens if the earth does warm - and we like it that way?

Posted by: whoever at March 06, 2014 03:01 PM (pjMym)

101 100 What happens if the earth does warm - and we like it that way? Posted by: whoever at March 06, 2014 07:01 PM (pjMym) Hooray for us!

Posted by: English vineyards that are no more due to global warming at March 06, 2014 03:02 PM (mETGQ)

102 "Yes, apparently they believe that we are a very, very committed lesbian couple. It was a very friendly email, but how do you respond to that?"
I doubt they even thought it through that far. They probably looked at the names and sent a card to each without stopping to ponder relationships or who that was.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 03:02 PM (zfY+H)

103 "which reminds me why in the hell were footsie pajamas made for adult women?very nice to almost totally undress in a freezing home to tinkle!" This is why I give all my bitches a Stillsuit.

Posted by: Stilgar Ben Fifrawi at March 06, 2014 03:02 PM (xm+xZ)

104

Lauren,

 

A good church should welcome all people, everywhere.  So nothing wrong there.  You should ask them about the doctrine though I guess. 

Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 03:03 PM (tVTLU)

105 Why couldn't the science be kettled? Because I really like kettle corn. Mmmm, sweet salty science.

Posted by: Joey "Two-Kettles" Biden at March 06, 2014 03:03 PM (J6JcG)

106 Make observations. Propose a hypothesis. Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis. Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis. If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 03:03 PM (nqBYe)

107 Once again, the word "theory" is being used incorrectly here.  You will note in the quote that the scientist calls it the Stadium Wave hypothesis.  The two words are not interchangeable.  A hypothesis is an explanation that has not been confirmed by testing and/or observation.  A theory is what you call a hypothesis after it has been so confirmed.

AGW was elevated to theory status incorrectly, by fudging the observational data.  An honest reappraisal would throw it back to the status of an unconfirmed hypothesis, and then into the ashcan of history once another hypothesis that actually fits the data is advanced and then confirmed.

There is clear evidence in the Vostok ice core samples that the earth's temperature, for at least the last 400,000 years, has risen and fallen in approximately 100,000 year cycles.  CO2 concentrations have been rising and falling in an almost identical pattern.  The problem is that the CO2 concentrations lag the temperature changes.  In other words, they are the effect of the temperature variations, not the cause.  That mechanism is well-known (there is a lot of CO2 dissolved in the oceans, but warmer water holds less gas, so when the oceans heat up the gas goes into the atmosphere). 

If the AGW idiots hadn't perverted the science so completely, we would be looking for the real underlying cause of the cyclical temperature variations, instead of wasting time blaming CO2.  By the way...we are currently at the peak of one of those temperature cycles.  What is really coming next is an Ice Age.  Whether or not we know what causes it (my guess/hypothesis is a combination of axial tilt and orbital precession), that's what we should be getting ready for (well, within the next 20,000 years or so, anyway).

Posted by: CQD at March 06, 2014 03:03 PM (4iOIE)

108 As Marty said to Rust, all I see and hear is conjecture.

Posted by: soothsayer at March 06, 2014 03:04 PM (/eo9F)

109 Proper science is honestly inquisitive: if the results aren't what you expected, or hoped, then you should be fascinated, not upset or trying to find out how secretly that actually supports your pet theory. Way too much of that going on for a long time in science now.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 03:04 PM (zfY+H)

110 What did humans do to cause the Laurentide ice sheet to melt?

Probably a woman fucking with the Thermostat.

Posted by: garrett at March 06, 2014 06:47 PM (xm+xZ)

Ah....the joys of the funniest blog on the internet.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 06, 2014 03:04 PM (QFxY5)

111 101 100 What happens if the earth does warm - and we like it that way? Posted by: whoever at March 06, 2014 07:01 PM (pjMym) Hooray for us! Posted by: English vineyards that are no more due to global warming at March 06, 2014 07:02 PM (mETGQ) Word.

Posted by: The thriving Viking colony in Greenland at March 06, 2014 03:04 PM (sdi6R)

112 @58 - please, let's not lower ourselves to the burn-the-witches level of the global-warming believers. Curry's position is that she takes incoming artillery from both sides. She's vaguely a warmist, she's not prepared to slough off that belief system entirely, but at the same time she recognizes just how...uh...crooked the Manns and the rest of the hardcore believers are. She is, for all intents and purposes, the kind of academic that the skeptic side needs to convert. And by 'skeptic' I dont' mean "CO2 doesn't matter" but "we think CO2 matters a little but the IPCC crowd hasn't a clue, let's get some reality here." Don't make enemies of the people who are effectively on your side.

Posted by: JEM at March 06, 2014 03:04 PM (o+SC1)

113 I know all the good hiding places for the deep ocean heat.

Posted by: Nessie at March 06, 2014 03:05 PM (BAS5M)

114 btw, I'm all caught up with True Detective. So go ahead and spoil away.

Posted by: soothsayer at March 06, 2014 03:05 PM (/eo9F)

115

ruh roh, boulder hobo is going to pull some ron burgundy "science" on us.  hahahaha.

 

Come again.  that's what she said.

Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 03:05 PM (tVTLU)

116  
Q = UA(T1 - T2)


Simple heat calculation where Q = the heat transferred in BTU

Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 06, 2014 03:05 PM (T2V/1)

117 prescient i get that. but  frankly i'm ready to pull my hair out. or maybe yours or aces, lol.
lets rest it for a moment and speak of tinkling in the cold or the hot
 or .
well... anything but that .

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 03:05 PM (nqBYe)

118 What did humans do to cause the Laurentide ice sheet to melt?


Probably a woman fucking with the Thermostat.

Posted by: garrett at March 06, 2014 06:47 PM (xm+xZ)

Ah....the joys of the funniest blog on the internet.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo


He can afford to be funny because the 'ettes can't get to him......

Posted by: rickb223 at March 06, 2014 03:06 PM (d0Dmj)

119 Can't 'warm' up to this subject.  Other stuff going on.

Posted by: NCwoof at March 06, 2014 03:06 PM (aUQgu)

120 The science is settled:  The AGW scam is a great way to bilk money off of you chumps. 

Posted by: Dr. Piltdown Mann at March 06, 2014 03:06 PM (5H5Ms)

121 "A good church should welcome all people, everywhere. So nothing wrong there. You should ask them about the doctrine though I guess." I don't have a problem with the email that he sent me. Of course a church should be welcoming to all. My problem is that I now have to respond to it while awkwardly addressing the fact that I'm not actually a lesbian.

Posted by: Lauren at March 06, 2014 03:06 PM (hFL/3)

122 You make no sense from the outset. Women can't be explained by any set of variables or theories. Huh. And your tribe thinks ours is weird because we sometimes tend to go to the bathroom in groups?! The concept of "explaining women" strikes me as quixotic at best... So, that's what you guys do when we herd into the bathroom!

Posted by: Deety at March 06, 2014 03:06 PM (D8ONs)

123 Damn you can't do anything in Pixy anymore.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 06, 2014 03:06 PM (T2V/1)

124 Global warming, eh? Why it's almost like somebody invented a fictional made up thing just to chuckle at people when they go out and really try to find it. Who ever heard of such a thing.

Posted by: A Snipe at March 06, 2014 03:06 PM (g4TxM)

125 I figure that people like this have signalled to me that they don't know Jack S about how science works. It's good to know so I can concentrate on others' arguments.

I like that.  I'm going to adopt this heuristic.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 06, 2014 03:07 PM (P7Wsr)

126 I don't know. USA Today poll had 73% of Americans believing in Global Warming. Clearly Global Warming Deniers are radioactive and should be jettisoned. Politically speaking. It's nothing personal, of course. They just are Unfit. Only slightly above the despised Atheists. And god knows we can't have them in the Tribe. Ick.

Posted by: Purgy McPurgistan at March 06, 2014 03:07 PM (ZPrif)

127 I'm storing the hidden heat in my ass.  How's that theory?

Posted by: Minuteman at March 06, 2014 03:07 PM (5H5Ms)

128

It is, ace, as another commenter (I believe here) put it well some time ago, the case that this AGW crap doesn't even rise to the level of hypothesis - it is best described as a conjecture.  And far, far from anything considered a theory.

 

Don't "the models" fail to predict anything, haven't they failed generally, including in explaining past, recent, known climate data?

 

In any case, this entire exercise - the ENTIRE thing - is a gigantic, jaw-dropping exercise in illustration of one of the basic logical fallacies (forget the latin term right now):  begging the question, or assuming that which is to be proven.

 

The most basic element of the conjecture - that small changes in CO2 concentrations, whatever their origin, can by themselves lead to significant changes in Earth's climate - is unproven, implausible, and pretty much meaningless given that the entire system - or even system of systems - that create climate is/are not understood and characterized.

 

So you're right, ace.  You're just dramatically under-stating the case.

 

Posted by: non-purist at March 06, 2014 03:08 PM (afQnV)

129 And your tribe thinks ours is weird because we sometimes tend to go to the bathroom in groups?!

The concept of "explaining women" strikes me as quixotic at best...

So, that's what you guys do when we herd into the bathroom!


We burp & pull each other's fingers while y'all are gone.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 06, 2014 03:08 PM (d0Dmj)

130 What did humans do to cause the Laurentide ice sheet to melt?



Probably a woman fucking with the Thermostat.

Posted by: garrett at March 06, 2014 06:47 PM (xm+xZ)

Ah....the joys of the funniest blog on the internet.



Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo


He can afford to be funny because the 'ettes can't get to him......

Posted by: rickb223 at March 06, 2014 07:06 PM (d0Dmj)


i Love  to hate you guys.

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 03:09 PM (nqBYe)

131

Willow:

 

Agreed!  Ok buddy, it's much more fun to talk about daffodils becoming people.  That's some "hard science".  LOL.  Every critique of so-called global warming is equally applicable to the bullshit idea of evolution.

 

Lauren:

 

Perhaps sneak in some reply with a Mr. or something in front of the name!

Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 03:09 PM (tVTLU)

132 121 My problem is that I now have to respond to it while awkwardly addressing the fact that I'm not actually a lesbian. Posted by: Lauren at March 06, 2014 07:06 PM (hFL/3) Easy. Just explain that your husband is a post-op female-to-male transsexual.

Posted by: rickl at March 06, 2014 03:09 PM (sdi6R)

133 Make observations.
Propose a hypothesis.
Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
Publish your hypothesis and all the data to see if others can replicate the same results using the same standards; and critically examine the standards.
If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.

Addendum.

Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at March 06, 2014 03:09 PM (hn5v5)

134 It's nothing personal, of course. They just are Unfit. Only slightly above the despised Atheists. And god knows we can't have them in the Tribe. Ick.

Posted by: Purgy McPurgistan at March 06, 2014 07:07 PM (ZPrif)

_________________

And the Irish...... Don't forget the Irish

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at March 06, 2014 03:10 PM (jucos)

135 So what's wrong with global warming anyway? Haven't us Wisconsin people suffered long enough? How many cars do I have to burn to get the thermometer to move past minus three degrees?

Posted by: grammie winger at March 06, 2014 03:10 PM (oMKp3)

136 As far as I know the algorithms these clowns use have never been published. IIRC, a number of models were released in the climategate leaks. The total lack of interest the US news media showed in those leaks is to their everlasting shame, not that they're actually capable of feeling shame.

Posted by: wisenheimer at March 06, 2014 03:10 PM (kidco)

137 Who ever heard of such a thing.

Posted by: A Snipe at March 06, 2014 07:06 PM

What cracks me up about this is Snipes are real!  You don't catch them by banging sticks together or whatever your Cub Scout friends told you, but the bird is absolutely real, and common.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 06, 2014 03:10 PM (P7Wsr)

138 In a a universe of seemingly infinite variables, they consider only one. Unexpectedly, they always get it wrong.

Posted by: Beagle at March 06, 2014 03:10 PM (sOtz/)

139 Deety i called that herding  a you look into the other stalls to make sure a creep isn't lurking with a camera.
And of course a moment to comment about the date we were with and if we need a safe word

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 03:10 PM (nqBYe)

140 It isn't necessarily true that the theory is wrong as much as it is unproven. The computer models are wrong

Geologic evidence already suggests periods of warming and cooling, unrelated to human activity. That evidence is not in dispute. The conclusions of ice ages and warming periods are not in dispute. We don't know but we're not currently arguing that point.

Geological evidence also suggests that early earth atmosphere was mostly carbon dioxide, until bacteria developed to extract that carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen and rock formations. That is also not in dispute. So 'global warming' as a result of atmospheric carbon dioxide is already discredited, and obviously there are naturally occurring carbon dioxide 'scrubbers', so again the idea of global warming as a consequence of atmospheric carbon dioxide is suspect.

The whole argument is over whether or not man made carbon dioxide emissions can cause global warming on a planetary scale, and whether or not a small incremental increase results in runaway warming. It all comes down to arithmetic. Can humans generate carbon dioxide emissions faster than the environment can extract that increase from the atmosphere? No one knows.

All the rest is theater.

Posted by: Jason Leikhuffer at March 06, 2014 03:11 PM (QIhBU)

141 Incidentally... A Little Courtesy Won't Kill You Remember these bumper stickers? When's the last time you've seen one? It was always a bad driver behind the wheel.

Posted by: soothsayer at March 06, 2014 03:11 PM (/eo9F)

142 The thing that has always killed me about the global warming craze (one of them at least) is how simplistic the whole thing is. We get more CO2 and the surface temps go up. Now for some simple systems, an A thus B type of reasoning can be true (and more importantly can be experimentally proven.) Anyone who takes an even cursory glance at the earth can see it is very much not a simple system. You have both internal factors (CO2, wind and water currents, cloud cover, vegetation) as well as even larger and harder to quantify external ones (cosmic rays or even better that gigantic thermonuclear reaction going off right over our shoulder.) In addition, you have competing systems where increases in one area are then offset (or at least competed against) by other processes. Global warming has always struck me as making a micro statement about a macro system.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at March 06, 2014 03:11 PM (TGgNi)

143 andy, yours is bestest.

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 03:11 PM (nqBYe)

144 I was just about to post scientific methods but 134 beat me to it.  The only step AGW has gone through is the last one where they publish bad data.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 06, 2014 03:11 PM (T2V/1)

145 I read somewhere that 97% of scientists approve of gay marriage.

Posted by: mugiwara at March 06, 2014 03:12 PM (6O8jl)

146 The models didn't just fail, they were hard wired to fail. People have taken the models, plugged in past existing climate data to see if the models would "predict" past global climate patterns accurately.
To make it more clear, they took data from, say, 1930-1940, to see if the computer models would accurately tell what happened in 1940-1950.
They were wrong. Every one of them spit out rapidly increasing warming. They were DESIGNED to give dangerous global warming as a result.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 03:12 PM (zfY+H)

147 the bird is absolutely real, and common. Fuck you, buddy.

Posted by: A Wilson's Snipe at March 06, 2014 03:12 PM (xm+xZ)

148 OT. But I am beyond outraged about damn near ZERO coverage on Obama pushing back (0)care until AFTER the prick is out of office. You'd think that the signature of his presidency going down in fucking flames would get even some of the sycophants in the media to fucking mention it? If some LIVLIB ever tells me that the media hasn't blown Barky since day one I am going to punch them in the face.

Posted by: Minnfidel at March 06, 2014 03:12 PM (gLjvy)

149 @128 - doubt it was me, but CAGW is not even quite a theoretical levels, it's a decent hypothesis. Once you get it up to a theory you have to provide a means of falsifying it, then we'll talk about a proof.

Posted by: JEM at March 06, 2014 03:12 PM (o+SC1)

150 138  What cracks me up about this is Snipes are real! You don't catch them by banging sticks together or whatever your Cub Scout friends told you, but the bird is absolutely real, and common.

Posted by: bonhomme at March 06, 2014 07:10 PM (P7Wsr)


Of course snipes are real.  I was one.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 06, 2014 03:12 PM (T2V/1)

151 Can we puhlease have warming -- any kind -- global or local.  Don't give a sh*t.  I'm freezing.

Posted by: NCwoof at March 06, 2014 03:12 PM (aUQgu)

152 Lauren, send a nice friendly reply and at the end tack on something like oh by the by my husband wanted you to know that he spells his name whatever.   Very neatly gets the point across without you having to spell it out any further.


prescient i get that. but frankly i'm ready to pull my hair out. or maybe yours or aces, lol.
lets rest it for a moment and speak of tinkling in the cold or the hot
or .
well... anything but that .

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 07:05 PM (nqBYe)


willow, I could just smish you to bits for that.  If you were here, I would give you all the rest of my mini chocolate cupcakes. 

Posted by: alexthechick - come for the Global Warming stay for the SMOD at March 06, 2014 03:13 PM (Gk3SS)

153 Physics is to math, as sex is to masturbation *** So, teenagers do math 10 times a day and old married couples do physics 10 times a year?

Posted by: A Snipe at March 06, 2014 03:13 PM (g4TxM)

154 The real problem these folks have is called basic physics... Energy cannot be created nor destroyed... but it can change form. A closed system... like the Earth's biosphere... will eventually reach a heat equilibrium... where energy in = energy out... Energy in? Sun... which varies a bit, but is fairly stable. Energy out? Blackbody radiation... What they call global warming, is changes in where the heat is stored within this closed system... because heat in, and heat out, will be the same UNLESS the heat in changes. Greenhouse gases just keep more of that heat energy trapped in the Atmosphere... keeping surface temperatures slightly warmer... But those forces are countermanded by the much greater heat transfer effects of Conduction, and Convection... They are just guessing.... the so called 'stadium wave' is nothing more than energy moving from one system, to another... caused by atmospheric changes... It does NOTHING to change the overall energy inherent IN the system.... ie... the GLOBAL effect. What they have called global warming... is nothing more than the slight warming of ONE part of the system... but that energy had to come from another part of the same system... and the natural forces within the system, will eventually bring it back into some equilibrium.

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 06, 2014 03:13 PM (84gbM)

155 >>>Damn you can't do anything in Pixy anymore.

Posted by: Vic at March 06, 2014 07:06 PM (T2V/1)<<<



Funny, Pixy is way more reliable than me.




Posted by: Global Warming Computer Program at March 06, 2014 03:13 PM (oB6vm)

156

Bonhomme:

 

They are real!!!  I can't wait to take my kids snipe hunting one day.  They are little fat birds that like to eat salt.  But when they eat salt they slow down and you can catch them.  They eat at night.

 

So boys and girls get your cloth sacks and sticks, pour some salt on a rock in a clear area of the woods, then at night wait behind some bushes with your sticks (so you can knock the snipes out) and the sacks to throw them in.

 

then dad and male friends and relatives will go through the woods and scare the shit out of the kids.

 

That is America.

Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 03:13 PM (tVTLU)

157 The hypothesis of runaway CO2 driven warming was worth investigating but the almost infinite number of variables in, as well as the actual written history of our climate, made it a real long shot.

Posted by: toby928© at March 06, 2014 03:13 PM (QupBk)

158 "It was always a bad driver behind the wheel. "
I don't know if I remember because of the sticker or what, but every time I see a car with a Jesus Fish on the back, they are awful drivers. Great witness, knucklehead.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 03:14 PM (zfY+H)

159 Tell them your husband is the butch one, Lauren.

Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at March 06, 2014 03:14 PM (hn5v5)

160 You don't catch them by banging sticks together or whatever your Cub Scout friends told you, but the bird is absolutely real, and common. They were a bitch to shoot down, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_Snipe

Posted by: zombie Fokker D.VII pilot at March 06, 2014 03:14 PM (5/IHD)

161 By the way:

QED

Posted by: NCwoof at March 06, 2014 03:14 PM (aUQgu)

162 Posted by: A Wilson's Snipe at March 06, 2014 07:12 PM

See!  Vulgar and common!

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 06, 2014 03:14 PM (P7Wsr)

163 Global Chaos....what CAN'T  it do??

Posted by: Passerby at March 06, 2014 03:14 PM (sOlwy)

164 scrolling backwards, I think I just reposted what Aetius said.

Posted by: toby928© at March 06, 2014 03:14 PM (QupBk)

165 willow, I could just smish you to bits for that. If you were here, I would give you all the rest of my mini chocolate cupcakes.

Posted by: alexthechick - come for the Global Warming stay for the SMOD at March 06, 2014 07:13 PM (Gk3SS)


and i would share them back .


i know its gotta be rough on you too.

love you alex.

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 03:15 PM (nqBYe)

166 At this moment 50% of the United States is under snow cover. Coincidentally it is the exact same area that was under massive glaciation in the past -- like 10k years ago. Milanovich cycles seems to be 'settled science'. Hence, because we are now in a period when the northern hemisphere will be receiving less sunlight for the next 7,000 plus years we should be doing everything possible to prevent such an occurrence -- which will bring about massive crop failures and starvation to the rest of the world -- we should bend over and let the lefties take us down the road to starvation for a billion or billions? My God, it is so obvious it makes my head hurt that people are so willing to let themselves be deceived.

Posted by: SE Pa Moron [/i] at March 06, 2014 03:15 PM (CnA98)

167

I suspect that the big reason why the Global Warmists are so desperately clinging to their theory, is...

 

Because they're afraid we will demand to get back all those things they've robbed us of, in it's name.

 

Like:

 

Freon - the good stuff, not the new stuff.

 

Incandescent Light Bulbs

 

Toilets that flush.

 

Washing Machines that actually get big loads clean.

 

Gasoline at $1.80/gal

 

I'm sure there are more things, but these are the ones that popped into my head first.

 

Posted by: wheatie at March 06, 2014 03:15 PM (W4wxS)

168

AGW= Money and dictatorial power.  Money and dictatorial power.  Money and dictatorial power, and money and dictatorial power.

 

Nothing more.  Nothing less.

Posted by: Soona at March 06, 2014 03:15 PM (rOX4+)

169 Good plan, AtC. I also feel that I should spread the very nice email far and wide to see that even the OMG SCARY BAPTISTS are accepting to a lesbian couple coming to their church.

Posted by: Lauren at March 06, 2014 03:16 PM (hFL/3)

170

Romeo13:

 

Bingo!!!  I just thank God we have the internets now so the thought cabal couldn't  force the "consensus" on everyone before they had a chance to think for themselves.

 

 

Wake me up when a daffodil becomes a neandarthal.  Too tough?  Ok fine, when a sparrow becomes a finch.

Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 03:17 PM (tVTLU)

171

Is there any theory espoused by the Left that has been proven true or correct?

 

Global Warming?

US is the bad guy, and if we are nice, everyone else will be too?

Welfare is the way to reduce poverty?

Taxing the rich will make the poor better off?

Minimum Wage increases mean more good jobs?

Getting rid of guns reduces violent crime?

Government Control of Health care helps the average man?

 

Posted by: rd at March 06, 2014 03:17 PM (D+lxs)

172 Look, Michael Mann couldn't hack it in any other field, so he's got to have those grants and that money. And if you've seen "Brain Candy" by Kids in the Hall, you get a little glimpse of the superstar scientist life. They're being silly but that isn't far from the truth.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 03:17 PM (zfY+H)

173 Physics is to math, as sex is to masturbation **** Does the Catholic church still recommend the algorithm method?

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at March 06, 2014 03:17 PM (g4TxM)

174 rougher*

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 03:17 PM (nqBYe)

175 168  Posted by: wheatie at March 06, 2014 07:15 PM (W4wxS)


Freon was banned for the first scam, the big hole in the ozone layer that was going to kill us all.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 06, 2014 03:17 PM (T2V/1)

176 Doesn't matter. The polls say Americans believe and support this. You guys just gotta accept you are dinosaurs. Time to get out of the way. History passing you by. Jettison stage left, even. The media, academia, and the ruling classes all believe it. The average American believes. We can't have this sort of radioactive fringe weighing us down. Nothing personal. But gotta purge ya.

Posted by: Purgy McPurgistan at March 06, 2014 03:17 PM (ZPrif)

177 That is America.

Pull the prank while they're young.  Most Cub Scouts get told about this trick before their first camp-out.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 06, 2014 03:17 PM (P7Wsr)

178 The US Navy has a strong need to monitor ocean temps at various depths worldwide. While they may never have bundled the data and looked for trends ( though that is improbable) they most probably had a pretty big harvest. There are many layers of fail in not tracking the largest heat sink out there. Set that aside , the fact that the theory of oceans hiding thermal energy probably could have been looked at quickly and affirmed or denied by going to the Navy. The fact that the theory floated for so long speaks to sytematic weak science Posted by: Mac at March 06, 2014 06:58 PM (Pb3wv) Are aware of the ARGO buoys? They have been tracking ocean temperatures, over quite a depth range, for a few years now. And no, they aren't finding that "missing heat".

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at March 06, 2014 03:18 PM (yDmQD)

179 @141 natural CO2 scrubbers Weathering of mountain ranges and land generally.

Posted by: Beagle at March 06, 2014 03:18 PM (sOtz/)

180 Has any noticed that 'Climatologists' are long on theory, and short on hard science? Silly question. I suspect that 'Climatologists' are not regarded with much respect by those in the Physical Sciences, at least not those who are not philosophically driven. After all, it's difficult to respect people who split their time between reading goat entrails, or casting bones. Not so long ago, as a matter of curiosity, I searched the entire membership of the Academy of Science, and found exactly *three* people who even mentioned 'Climatology' as an area of interest, and none as their primary interest.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 06, 2014 03:18 PM (aDwsi)

181

I didn't find any  hidden heat in The Deep. 

 

 'Bout froze  my nipples off.

Posted by: Jacqueline Bisset at March 06, 2014 03:18 PM (BAS5M)

182

Bonhomme:

 

Seriously??  Those bastards!

Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 03:18 PM (tVTLU)

183 Speaking of science...anyone going to watch the rebooted Cosmos? I think it premieres on Sunday.

Posted by: LizLem at March 06, 2014 03:19 PM (BF+2f)

184 "Nothing endures but change." Shit Heraclitus Said, Vol. I (33rd ed.)

Posted by: garrett at March 06, 2014 03:19 PM (xm+xZ)

185 And besides the science of agw, I have yet to see any case that the downside, were it to be occurring, offsets the upside of warmer average yearly temperatures. I got into an argument back in the early 90s when this hysteria started by noting that there is no planet-wide phenomenon that doesn't help some area, and that since no one ever talked about that, the whole thing was pure propaganda. I told them to get back to me when the French vinters start complaining about being undercut by cheap English wine again.

Posted by: toby928© at March 06, 2014 03:19 PM (QupBk)

186

"There is nothing new under the sun."

 

Shit my Grandpa said (1st ed.)

Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 03:20 PM (tVTLU)

187

142
Incidentally... 

 

A Little Courtesy Won't Kill You

 

Remember these bumper stickers? When's the last time you've seen one?

It was always a bad driver behind the wheel.

 

Posted by: soothsayer at March 06, 2014 07:11 PM (/eo9F)

 

----------

 

Yeah. I remember.

 

This sentiment was parlayed into Political Correctness.

 

Which actually can get you killed...if you are in the Military.

 

Posted by: wheatie at March 06, 2014 03:20 PM (W4wxS)

188 Then soothie, have you seen this?

http://youtu.be/X8zTSDFiI24

Posted by: wheatie at March 06, 2014 07:09 PM (W4wxS)


My God.   It's.   It's all so clear now! 


Oh goody goody gumdrops.  I can hear the ice pellets slamming into the window.


*kisses willow on cheek*  love ya right back

Posted by: alexthechick - come for the Global Warming stay for the SMOD at March 06, 2014 03:21 PM (Gk3SS)

189 Pull the prank while they're young. Most Cub Scouts get told about this trick before their first camp-out. Ah, the old 'Snipe in the Pocket' trick. The Cub Scouts of Searchlight love that one.

Posted by: Harry Reid (D) at March 06, 2014 03:21 PM (xm+xZ)

190 168   wheatie

Shower heads that work

Gasoline without freakin ethanol

Low power bills

Inhaled meds that deliver relief and don't cost a friggin fortune

EPA disbanded

Real jobs for real people

Posted by: NCwoof at March 06, 2014 03:21 PM (aUQgu)

191 This Global WARMING would be BENEFICIAL to us. We need more POCKETS of it on a GLOBAL scale.

Posted by: Snipewing Plover at March 06, 2014 03:21 PM (1CroS)

192 Nood

Posted by: Jacqueline Bisset at March 06, 2014 03:21 PM (BAS5M)

193 What a wonderful dodge. Just gen up a theory that "The heat is hiding". Oh, well, it's inexplicable otherwise, so that sounds like good theory.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 06, 2014 03:21 PM (aDwsi)

194 or it rains on the just and the unjust.

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 03:21 PM (nqBYe)

195 NCwoof - Newsletter?

Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 06, 2014 03:22 PM (aDwsi)

196 Posted by: Mac at March 06, 2014 06:58 PM (Pb3wv) The Navy has the data, and has compiled it... but will not release it... Its inconvenient to the meme that Global Warming is a greater threat to us than the Russians... as the Admirals have been saying for awhile now.

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 06, 2014 03:22 PM (84gbM)

197

Fun factoid and I gotta run:

 

The Aztecs (people, not shitty vehicle) had about 35MM people under their rule/empire.  It is estimated that they sacrificed 250,000 people to their gods PER YEAR, which would be a rate of about 2 an hour.

 

But the conquistadors, those are the bad guys.  LOL.

 

Make sure not to trample any daffodils (otherwise known as people) on your way home!!

Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 03:22 PM (tVTLU)

198 The only way that you can call this set of selective fallacies science is to dub it Social Science. It's more like required spew to gain entrance to a cult. As many people have noted what REAL science is actually settled?

Posted by: ontherocks at March 06, 2014 03:22 PM (ACXx7)

199 Look, I'm not arguing Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. Not at all. But when people glibly say, "It's just a theory", using the layperson's definition of "some random idea some people thought up", it's just childish wordplay. It'd be like me saying, "I'm not cowed by you." and my 5 year old nephew retorting, "Of course not, you're a person, not a cow." See! That just proves my point! (And my mad un-cowing skillz, FTW!) It's okay that your 5 yr old nephew doesn't grasp the efforts made to remain uncowed by the adults in his life, no child should. Also, as a practical matter, if parents generally gave up on refusing to be cowed by you, there would be a rash of orphans with livestock.

Posted by: Deety at March 06, 2014 03:23 PM (D8ONs)

200 one last thing i watched Christy's thing at cpac   , and he did well.

now listening to Cruz (legal insurrection)

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 03:23 PM (nqBYe)

201 For a while, scientists not working in the climate fields backed these guys because of professional courtesy and the presumption that experts in a field you aren't a part of know what they're talking about. But Climaquiddick let the cat out of the bag and that big consensus fell to bits quickly as the other fields started looking more closely at methodology and data.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 03:23 PM (zfY+H)

202 If a theory is not repeatable, and cannot be verified independently it is not science fact, it is science fiction.

Posted by: LFW - Honorary Pointy Eared Vulcan at March 06, 2014 03:23 PM (vVSOO)

203 138 Who ever heard of such a thing.
Posted by: A Snipe at March 06, 2014 07:06 PM
What cracks me up about this is Snipes are real! You don't catch them by banging sticks together or whatever your Cub Scout friends told you, but the bird is absolutely real, and common.
Posted by: bonhomme at March 06, 2014 07:10 PM (P7Wsr)

What about me???

Posted by: Cow Tipping at March 06, 2014 03:24 PM (BF+2f)

204 Of course snipes are real. I was one. Posted by: Vic at March 06, 2014 07:12 PM (T2V/1) WORD!!!

Posted by: Wesley at March 06, 2014 03:24 PM (qoKTg)

205 Real science is only settle to a high degree of probability. There's no such thing as 100% certain, only very, very likely in science.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 03:26 PM (zfY+H)

206 Probably a woman fucking with the Thermostat.


Better than kcufing a toaster.

Posted by: Retread at March 06, 2014 03:26 PM (cHwk5)

207

155 The real problem these folks have is called basic physics...

 

Romeo13:  There you go using big pseudo-sciency words like "equilibrium".  What does equilibrium have to do with hockey sticks and getting that sweet government grant money?

Posted by: Minuteman at March 06, 2014 03:26 PM (5H5Ms)

208

Chris Taylor:

 

I agree!  Kuhn; Popper...

Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 03:26 PM (tVTLU)

209

Theory is Sexy, and easy.  Theory attracts Headlines and GRANT MONEY!

 

Proof is hard, boring time consuming drudgery.  Data takes time to analyze, and sometimes is self contradicting, messy, and does not always support your theory.  And if you are unethical, the data can be manipulated, lost, found, and massaged to "prove" your theory.  (I am looking at you Dr. Mann and also, completely separate, the 100+ papers withdrawn by IEEE.)

Posted by: rd at March 06, 2014 03:27 PM (D+lxs)

210 196 MikeHammer


Que?

Posted by: NCwoof at March 06, 2014 03:27 PM (aUQgu)

211 Mac at March 06, 2014 06:58 PM (Pb3wv)

Navy's ocean data
There was a thing many years ago about environmentalists wanting to do a whale census, and convinced the Navy to let them sit with the navy sonar techs and do a count of the biologicals, until the Navy figured out how much strategic information about the capabilities of the Navy sonar system was being given away, and made public..

Posted by: Jason Leikhuffer at March 06, 2014 03:28 PM (QIhBU)

212 So the heat is hiding. Come on heat, come on, I know you're out there, c'mon heat, cmere boy..

Posted by: Minnfidel at March 06, 2014 03:29 PM (gLjvy)

213 'Bout froze my nipples off. Posted by: Jacqueline Bisset at March 06, 2014 07:18 PM (BAS5M) Yeah, I noticed they were outstanding in the cold.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at March 06, 2014 03:30 PM (yDmQD)

214 149 OT. But I am beyond outraged about damn near ZERO coverage on Obama pushing back (0)care until AFTER the prick is out of office. You'd think that the signature of his presidency going down in fucking flames would get even some of the sycophants in the media to fucking mention it? If some LIVLIB ever tells me that the media hasn't blown Barky since day one I am going to punch them in the face.

Posted by: Minnfidel at March 06, 2014 07:12 PM (gLjvy)


It's pretty astounding that a president would champion legislation in his first term, then NOT let it enact until he was out of office in his second term. It is like it is a massive fraud, or something!

Posted by: Cow Tipping at March 06, 2014 03:33 PM (BF+2f)

215 "I don't think someone could name any other complex system in which one single factor explains virtually everything."

Ahem.

Posted by: Bad things what happened in Germany from 1920-1944 at March 06, 2014 03:34 PM (kUgpq)

216
I liked the warmth swallowing ocean theory, it basically said the earth heals itself.  So we need to do nothing different.

*throws another log on the fire*

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 06, 2014 03:34 PM (gorVZ)

217 196 MikeH

Let me know what you're askin-- just too ignant to figure out.  Having panic attack. Halp!

Posted by: NCwoof at March 06, 2014 03:35 PM (aUQgu)

218 I am depressed that I won't see anything green outside for another 3 months. Time to pull out the bourbon.

Posted by: Minnfidel at March 06, 2014 03:37 PM (gLjvy)

219

A moment of remembrance for the East Anglia leaker. May he never buy his own drinks.

Posted by: dr kill at March 06, 2014 03:37 PM (uJbZ6)

220 198 Fun factoid and I gotta run: The Aztecs (people, not shitty vehicle) had about 35MM people under their rule/empire. It is estimated that they sacrificed 250,000 people to their gods PER YEAR, which would be a rate of about 2 an hour. But the conquistadors, those are the bad guys. LOL. Make sure not to trample any daffodils (otherwise known as people) on your way home!! Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 07:22 PM (tVTLU) Also, they required, under penalty of death, vast quantities of tribute from the conquered villages, in the form of numerous bushels annually of jaguar and rare bird pelts--merely for decorative purposes. But since they were not southern white conservatives, it's ok to do what they did.

Posted by: stace at March 06, 2014 03:45 PM (9PXzx)

221 What is really coming next is an Ice Age. Whether or not we know what causes it (my guess/hypothesis is a combination of axial tilt and orbital precession), that's what we should be getting ready for (well, within the next 20,000 years or so, anyway). --- Less than 20,000 years, and we are already in a long-term cooling trend. The ice age (actually, the glacial epoch) will last 100,000 years. This book, while not really well written, gives a lot of interesting information about the earth's climate cycles: http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/the-book/

Posted by: whoever at March 06, 2014 03:45 PM (pjMym)

222 221 Also, they required, under penalty of death, vast quantities of tribute from the conquered villages, in the form of numerous bushels annually of jaguar and rare bird pelts--merely for decorative purposes. Posted by: stace at March 06, 2014 07:45 PM (9PXzx) And that's why the conquistadors were able to succeed despite being greatly outnumbered. The neighboring tribes were only too happy to assist them against the hated Aztecs.

Posted by: rickl at March 06, 2014 03:58 PM (sdi6R)

223 And that's why the conquistadors were able to succeed despite being greatly outnumbered. The neighboring tribes were only too happy to assist them against the hated Aztecs. So, an outnumbered but technologically superior force brought down a brutal adversary by making friends with locals who hated their overlords? Clearly, there is nothing new under the sun...

Posted by: Brother Cavil at March 06, 2014 04:04 PM (m9V0o)

224

I was at a talk given by a specialist on the solar wind.

Did you know that it literally (like Joe Biden sez) peels the atmosphere off Mars?

So, is it possible that the solar wind, comprised of particles and electromagnetism could possibly affect the earth's climate?

But, what she did was totally gloss over the bit about how the sw affects earth, and said it was "controversial".

However, I saw the graphs and she was so fucking close, so close...

That won't help the grant process to disprove the basis for the majority of grants given.

Oh well.

Back to your regularly scheduled lysenkoism.


Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Commissar at March 06, 2014 04:05 PM (HQml1)

225

Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models.Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models.Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models.

 

Models--count how many times she used the word.

 

@peeteysdee

 

 

Posted by: Peter S. Dee at March 06, 2014 04:18 PM (M1pME)

226 One of the funniest things I saw recently about Global Warming was a mocking post at either Wattsup or Climate Depot about the top ten theories about the "pause" in warming. It wasn't the joke on the surface of it - which was to put the list on the Wayne's World top ten list. What I found really funny is that they were all real theories offered by the warming crowd, and so, REAL. Which also means, NOT modeled. So here we have ten different ideas about how the climate works that could possibly explain a 17 year pause the direct cause-effect relationship between CO2 and global temperatures that were "scientific" in nature, but not a one of them was actually included in the models of the earth's climate. Ten NEW factors that could be explaining global temperature fluctuations less than one degree celsius - including the sun - that are not modeled. Which begs the question - how many OTHER factors are not modeled ? And if those 10 aren't, but all ten of them could justifiably explain the entire fluctuation in global temperatures - or the lack thereof - over 17 years, how the FUCK is anyone supposed to believe they have any clue at all how climate changes from one year to the next!? I mean, really. Furthermore, I pondered this thought the other day, too. Consider yourself a member of the reality based, pro-science, anti-religion crowd. You are totally hip to the idea of the godless creation of life, the big bang, the macro AND micro evolutionary theories where from chaos comes the order of inexplicably complex life, and intelligence. Given that backdrop of an exceptionally complex and ordered system where single celled organisms can evolve into sentient humans, how the hell do you explain that the very same set of systems includes a climate / atmosphere where a few hundred ppm of CO2 throws the whole thing into chaos causing the entire climate to crash and destroy the whole planet ?! Seriously. Cognitive dissonance anyone ?

Posted by: deadrody at March 06, 2014 04:35 PM (+Dpo7)

227 Less than 20,000 years, and we are already in a long-term cooling trend. The ice age (actually, the glacial epoch) will last 100,000 years.

Posted by: whoever at March 06, 2014 07:45 PM (pjMym)

Well, yeah but I was hedging my bets.  We've been bouncing up and down in a narrow range at the top of a cycle for a while, and I wanted to allow for another bounce.

Good news:  once it starts cooling it will only cool for 50,000 years.  After that it will start to get warmer again!

Posted by: CQD at March 06, 2014 04:36 PM (4iOIE)

228 @83 Lauren, IIRC the correct response is "That's all right, Pastor, we're not welcome at the Piggly Wiggle anymore, either."

Posted by: Stringer Davis at March 06, 2014 04:47 PM (xq1UY)

229 Dark Matter is the stuff that explains what has been observed. Matter that we can detect (it interacts with electromagnetic energy) is being affected by gravity that is too strong to be explained by the mass of detectable matter. So, instead of upending gravity physics, scientists hypothesized there exists matter that produces gravity but does not interact with electromagnetic energy (dark matter). There is nothing crazy about this hypothesis. The challenge is to find a way to detect dark matter directly. As for AGW, the more you ignore the data and speculate like crazy, the more you might as well invoke demons battling with angels to explain the data. I earn my salt as a chemist and I help my company make and sell tangible products (pharmaceuticals). My company wants facts and logical thinking because those two things when properly combined with hard work can produce something my company can sell. AGW hacks sell junk because the folks for whom they work sell junk. It's junk all the way down. I have more respect for a twisted, meth-addled carny than these AGW criminals and buffoons.

Posted by: eman at March 06, 2014 05:57 PM (AO9UG)

230 Global Warming / Climate Change?

I am still waiting for an article to be published that shows there is something more to these models than merely averaging a bunch of 'adjusted' surface temps and extrapolation to these models.

Ah, I have 230 comments above which may point in the general direction...

...

Posted by: Burnt Toast at March 06, 2014 06:11 PM (80R0X)

231 106 Make observations.
Propose a hypothesis.
Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.

Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 07:03 PM (nqBYe)


Somewhere in there,

ASSUMPTIONS are clearly stated.


One assumption wrong it goes into file 13.

Posted by: Burnt Toast at March 06, 2014 06:14 PM (80R0X)

232 Bluntly put, this speculation is designed to prevent facing the fact that there hasn't been any global warming for 17 years which puts the whole "Oh-My-God-We're-All-gonna-DIE! theory in file 13, ...the toilet. 

Posted by: Speller at March 06, 2014 07:47 PM (J74Py)

233 "Dark Matter is the stuff that explains what has been observed."
Dark Matter is a stuff speculated to exist solely because it helps certain theories and interpretations of data make sense. Its entirely invented, which isn't to say it cannot be true, only that its just ... guesswork. Its a supposition, not anything scientific or evidentiary.
That's fine, have fun speculating. Just don't call it science.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 09:55 PM (zfY+H)

234 Please don't lump dark matter in with this AGW crap. We observe spiral galaxies rotating as though immersed in the gravity field of a much larger cloud of "dark matter". We postulate it is composed of weakly interacting massive particles or massive compact halo objects. We do not claim that humans cause it or that the science is settled, so STFU you dark matter deniers.

Posted by: Ironwood at March 07, 2014 02:53 AM (UrH3o)

235 Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last. Which means we can test the hypothesis. That's how real science works. You propose a hypothesis, you test it. If it works, you keep it and try to refine the idea, if it doesn't you discard the idea and think about what you've learned and how it all fits together and try to come up with a new hypothesis, and test that. And so on.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at March 07, 2014 04:41 AM (1hM1d)

236 Indeed. AGW is no longer a theory at all. It is a hypothesis. As in a speculative explanation that could match the observed facts. If empirical observations and scientific analysis reinforces the hypothesis, it can rise to the level of a Theory. Then maybe a law. Einstein's general theory was NOT a even a theory until it was conclusively observed that the Sun's gravitation actually BENT light. AGW is no where near the status of a Theory.

Posted by: Kevin at March 07, 2014 09:00 AM (ZxZvp)

237 The "cause" is already "settled" - all the 'missing heat' is hiding up Al Gore's butt. Has to be, the alternatives have all been disproved, leaving only two possibilities: AGW is a hoax, and the missing heat in Al Gore's butt.

Posted by: Aarradin at March 08, 2014 10:28 AM (4T3FG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
213kb generated in CPU 0.2796, elapsed 0.4229 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3696 seconds, 365 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 108249
  • Files: 522
  • Bytes: 3.6G
  • CPU Time: 205:28
  • Queries: 4224891

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0