May 31, 2011
— Gabriel Malor Starting in about 2008, the global warming hoax slowly started to come apart. Scientists started to recant as none of their models accurately predicted current temperatures or sea levels. Then came ClimateGate. Just a few months ago polls showed that just 35% of Americans -- a new low -- believe in anthropogenic global warming. Just last week the G8 nations finished abandoning the Kyoto Protocol.
Faced with the widespread decline in their pet theory, what are global warming believers to do? Hit the panic button:
That is Newsweek's latest cover and it comes with a hysterical fantasy from the so-called science editor. The article is one of those piece of media paranoia that is so wrong it is hard to know where to start. Since I haven't got time to fisk the whole piece, here are five obvious errors.
First, remember when global warming believers said that single-year activity (for example, the annual lows in the 2000s) didn't equate to a climate trend? She doesn't:
Even those who deny the existence of global climate change are having trouble dismissing the evidence of the last year. In the U.S. alone, nearly 1,000 tornadoes have ripped across the heartland, killing more than 500 people and inflicting $9 billion in damage.
Is the "nearly 1,000" line, which is supposed to sound like a lot, even out of the ordinary? A glance at the NOAA's annual tornado statistics suggests that it's not.
And, as I wrote last week when Oklahoma and Missouri got hit, do not under any circumstances believe that graph demonstrates a trend. As the NOAA itself admits, tornado-detection is a much more advanced science modernly than in the past. Merely comparing numbers of tornadoes, is not a meaningful comparison. Contra Newsweek's panicked editor, the IPCC concludes "There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in.....small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust-storms."
Second, she overlooks the obvious:
The Midwest suffered the wettest April in 116 years, forcing the Mississippi to flood thousands of square miles, even as drought-plagued Texas suffered the driest month in a century. Worldwide, the litany of weatherÂ’s extremes has reached biblical proportions.
If the Midwest was wetter 116 years ago, you've got to wonder whether phenomena other than global warming are responsible. Say, a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon, perhaps.
Note the personification of the Mississippi. Ordinarily we would say that a wet spring caused the Mississippi to flood, not that the Mississippi "was forced" to flood, as if it would have resisted were it not for the cruddy humans causing global warming.
Third, she exaggerates or, well, lies about measured temperature increases.
And the temperature keeps rising: 2010 was the hottest year on earth since weather records began. . . . there is wide consensus that the 2 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming of the last century is behind the rise in sea levels, more intense hurricanes, more heat waves, and more droughts and deluges.
Note the curious circumlocution "hottest year on earth since weather records began." NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard correctly points out that the Newsweek panic editor overstated the amount of warming by almost 50%.
Fourth, she exaggerates or, well, lies about the weather of the past to imply that the weather of the future will be different.
From these and other extreme-weather events, one lesson is sinking in with terrifying certainty. The stable climate of the last 12,000 years is gone.
What "stable climate" of the last 12,000 years? Little Ice Age ring any bells, "Science Editor"?
Oh, on a lighter note, I believe that she's terrified. I just don't believe she's terrified of global warming. She's afraid that people aren't buying it anymore. And, since she has to resort to such obvious lies and exaggerations even to gin up some good-old-fashioned mob panic, you'd have to be a mental defective to fall for it.
And that's the fifth obvious problem with her article: the title -- "The Reality of Climate Change is Upon Us." Of course, rather than discuss reality, a good chunk of her article is made up of paragraphs that start "Picture [dystopian future not based on science, but on fear]." That's not reality. It's fantasy.
Moreover, it is not Newsweek's first panicked fantasy about the weather. Remember this?
Another Newsweek article cited “the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded”, killing “more than 300 people”, as among “the ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically”. But that article was published on April 28, 1975, when Newsweek listed the US tornado disaster of 1974 as one of the harbingers of disastrous global cooling, heralding the approach of a new ice age.
Pathetic, as is anyone who would fall for this bullshit.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
03:37 AM
| Comments (316)
Post contains 793 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2011 03:41 AM (th0op)
At that time I posted that the April high temp monthly average, as tracked by me, had actually decreased by 4°F from last year. Since it was the middle of the month I could say about May but it was running at that time lower. Well we are at the end of the month now and the average high temp for May has decreased from last year by 3°F.
These people are liars. Besides that, temperatures of the land mass do not have a whole lot to do with the frequency of tornadoes. (some but not all)
Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 03:49 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Dave C at May 31, 2011 03:50 AM (QIvCY)
http://tinyurl.com/3l2gmzs
Maybe a little rozy in a few of his predictions but most of them are hard to argue with.
Posted by: Shiggz at May 31, 2011 03:50 AM (mLAWK)
38 Were the "clingers?" I have always been open to "global warming"
*They refuse or get antsy to even acknowledge the suns possible role, makes me skeptical.
*That when you show them that huge statist authoritarian multi-billion dollar boondoggles wont budge things even .01% using their own models and they don't care, that makes me skeptical.
*That they personally fly/travel/large homes/central air in such a way to say they don't care one bit about their own carbon output, makes me skeptical.
*they get antsy if you point out that
- CO2 is .04-% of atmosphere
-Argon is .9+% "
-Oxygen 20.7% "
*That CO2 levels waxed and waned much much higher lower long before humans were around they get antsy.
*They have pets but complain about your midsized car, which makes a fraction of the carbon?
Even after all that being repeated over and over I am still open to Global Warming being a threat, but I do wonder if they still believe?
Posted by: Shiggz at May 13, 2011
Posted by: Shiggz at May 31, 2011 03:52 AM (mLAWK)
And CO2 accounts for such a minute portion of any climate change that it is not even measurable, even with the huge changes that happened millions of years ago. The idea that the minute changes in a minute effect is causing temperature changes in the past 100 years is ludicrous.
That is besides the FACT that we are actually in a cooling trend and have been so for the past 10 - 15 years despite the fraudulent data that tries to hide that.
Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 03:56 AM (M9Ie6)
Their readers, the few of them left, expect that. It confirms their beliefs.
In other news, I just signed up for a Twitter account. What could go wrong?
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at May 31, 2011 03:56 AM (4sQwu)
Posted by: Millions of climate refugees by 2010 at May 31, 2011 03:56 AM (FkKjr)
Besides, Newsweak knows that DISASTER sells copies much better than honest analysis for their targeted demographic (i.e dummies).
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 31, 2011 04:01 AM (ENKCw)
Heh heh. In the past, when a hurricane/tornado/flood came it was "SINNERS REPENT! THE END IS NEAR!"
Nowadays it's the same, but instead of overly excited religious zealots it's overly greedy (and also excited) enviro-nuts. Green traitors. I hope that this healthy skepticism toward AGW continues to soak ever deeper into the American mind. We must never get lax - we need to continue to drive home the point that those people are lying liars and enemies of progress. My thanks to Mr. Malor and those like him who carry on this great work.
Posted by: Reactionary at May 31, 2011 04:01 AM (xUM1Q)
http://postimage.org/image/ziievhes/
Posted by: Shiggz at May 31, 2011 04:01 AM (mLAWK)
Posted by: Jeanne of the North at May 31, 2011 04:01 AM (gJGr/)
My pink thing ice cream seemed to melt faster at Six Flags over Texas this weekend then I remember it doing back in the late 70s - think I should send this bit of info up to newsweek for thier records? Of course I remenber my pink thing in the 70s being a lot bigger and more dense back then but what does that have to do with melting fast?
Posted by: Mac Gootbone at May 31, 2011 04:02 AM (9KBWp)
We need to kill this climate change thing before the youngins are brainwashed and stupid enough to believe it. And vote.
Posted by: ParisParamusWhoReallyLivesInBrooklyn, NY at May 31, 2011 04:02 AM (tUIG0)
I wish the weather were nearly as predictable as this Newseek cover.
Posted by: Optimizer at May 31, 2011 04:03 AM (F56VB)
Posted by: ParisParamusWhoReallyLivesInBrooklyn, NY at May 31, 2011 04:04 AM (tUIG0)
Posted by: Pecos Bill at May 31, 2011 04:12 AM (j84s0)
Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 07:56 AM (M9Ie6)
Well of course it's cooling *now.* Cheryl Crow has stopping using more than one square of toilet paper!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 31, 2011 04:13 AM (LH6ir)
Screw Bin Laden I Bin hacked and am in a Climate of Crisis! The best you can help is please don't ask any questions or look into anything.
Posted by: Rep Weiner at May 31, 2011 04:15 AM (mLAWK)
She does a lot of work for the Chinese government. Amazing that she cares so little about the behavior of the largest totalitarian country on the planet when it comes to murdering its citizens, but is gung-ho and rarin' to go when they talk about carbon credit and sequestration (and they write her checks).
Oh, she also came to my house and lectured me about the evils of Israel, and how the Palis are downtrodden.
Global Warming is just another technique in the left's playbook. Alinsky would be proud.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 31, 2011 04:21 AM (LH6ir)
Posted by: Alisa at May 31, 2011 04:28 AM (GC5kU)
Ice floats. (And I think you mean volume.)
Posted by: Y-not at May 31, 2011 04:31 AM (pW2o8)
Considering Mitt would probably get a Pappa Bush level C- from conservatives and burn in hell if it existed from leftists... im not sure Mitt wants to bring up the "grades."
I think most conservatives would give Obama (affirmative action curved ) D for 4$ gas instead of 7$ gas.
Leftists would give Obama a (fellow alynski marxist+affirmative action curved) "C" for simply not being named Bush or Palin.
Posted by: Shiggz at May 31, 2011 04:31 AM (mLAWK)
Put some ice in a glass and fill with water. Allow it to melt, the level will not change.
Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 04:32 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Book Geek at May 31, 2011 04:36 AM (1+OO5)
Only recently have they been able to measure this using satellites and there is not enough info yet to determine a trend.
In addition, for both sea level and temperature, even using NASA and NOAA fraudulent numbers, there have been no changes that are not within the measurement uncertainty of the systems measuring it.
Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 04:36 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: GGE stands for Green Gas Emissions (I cause global warming!) at May 31, 2011 04:37 AM (f4gk9)
A portion of the polar caps are on land, so if it does melt the sea level will rise. Unless the antarctic caps grow. Or glaciers in other parts of the world grow. Or there is more snow. Or rain.
Wow. It's almost as if this is a complex system that can't be described with one variable! Who knew?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 31, 2011 04:39 AM (LH6ir)
Posted by: real joe at May 31, 2011 04:39 AM (w7Lv+)
Well I did say floating ice. If I am not mistaken the North pole is all floating ice (except for Greenland) and the South is on a land mass.
Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 04:41 AM (M9Ie6)
You got my hopes up for a minute there
Posted by: Dastardly Dan at May 31, 2011 04:42 AM (56hk3)
Looks like Ace finally stopped twitter prankpranking on twitter about 2 am.
Posted by: dagny at May 31, 2011 04:43 AM (Z2Al/)
Is Lady Gaga the new Oprah?
Building the perfect Republican.
/btw that tornado is pretty dark. Racist much, Newsweek?
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 31, 2011 04:44 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: Constitutional Law Perfesser Jugears McFuckstick at May 31, 2011 04:44 AM (qEac9)
This was long before we had the climate fraud E-mails and the first, second, and third discovery of NOAA bad temperature data and errors.
So any politician who jumped hard into the AGW scam and pushed from crap and tax is automatically either an agenda driven commie or dumber than a back of cheap Chinese hammers.
.
Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 04:47 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 04:49 AM (vdfwz)
Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 04:49 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Emil at May 31, 2011 04:49 AM (kiLx5)
Posted by: Tim Pawlenty at May 31, 2011 04:49 AM (NtTkA)
Posted by: political correctness czar at May 31, 2011 04:53 AM (VNi/L)
Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 08:49 AM
Sharon Begley. Perhaps the wife of Hollywood environut Ed Begley? You know, Hollywood wives like Laurie David are meteorological EXPERTS
Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 04:53 AM (vdfwz)
I was pointing out that yes, it is possible -- although unlikely.
Mostly I was making fun of the idea that this is a simple issue with a simple solution.
The ice in a glass question is actually an excellent one. It requires some basic logic that most people have a difficult time with.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 31, 2011 04:53 AM (LH6ir)
Pathetic, as is anyone who would fall for this bullshit.
"...one-fourth of Americans are retards."
Posted by: Kyle Broflovski at May 31, 2011 04:54 AM (cqZXM)
That is when it dawned on me this was a religion and not science -- a left-leaning, redistributionist religion. Time has proven us skeptics right and that is the way of science.
What troubles me now, even with the AWG crumbling around Al Gore's ears, is that if it had not been for ClimateGate, some of those now questioning the assumptions of AWG would still be silent.
To me, this is one of the most shameful episodes in science history, ranking up there with the Scopes' trial and the silencing of Galileo. Every scientist who participated in this sham should be ashamed.
The "science AHAHAHA editor" of Newsweak has good company and it is unlikely volumes of refuting evidence will shake her religious fervor -- look at the recent editorial in the Washington Post calling for "leadership" on climate change (in this sense, for rejecting Kyoto). I'm sure it was meant as wry humor but the editorialist did raise "jobs" way down in the article. That was for the shmucks who muddy up his planet.
Some of these idiot newspapers are not going out of business fast enough.
Posted by: Full Moon at May 31, 2011 04:54 AM (m75CK)
Posted by: Dr Charles Johnson, Scienceologist at May 31, 2011 04:54 AM (vdfwz)
I asked him why the solution was always a tax. If we were releasing too much CO2 why not simply give every man woman and child in the words a CO2 ration card. Every factory gets a ration card. Then everyone is limited to that. No taxes, no redistribution of wealth.
From the green-tard - no answer.
Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 04:55 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Rosana Dana Begley, Sharon's smarter Siamese twin at May 31, 2011 04:55 AM (n3S/Z)
Posted by: Bob Saget did not send you that picture of his weiner at May 31, 2011 04:58 AM (F/4zf)
The real problem is that people are not taxed enough and government doesn't have enough power.
Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 04:58 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: irongrampa at May 31, 2011 04:58 AM (ud5dN)
Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 08:53 AM (vdfwz)
Have you seen Sharon Begley's picture? I'm not even sure if she's the same species.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 04:58 AM (1fanL)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 31, 2011 05:02 AM (NtTkA)
Posted by: Randolph Duke at May 31, 2011 05:02 AM (YGNmh)
Posted by: dfbaskwill at May 31, 2011 05:02 AM (71LDo)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 31, 2011 05:05 AM (NtTkA)
Posted by: Book Geek at May 31, 2011 05:05 AM (1+OO5)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 05:05 AM (1fanL)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 09:05 AM
One of Glenn Reynolds signature lines is; "I'll start worrying about it when it looks like they're personally worried about it"
Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 05:09 AM (vdfwz)
Do I believe in climate change? Of course. It it caused by manmade carbon emissions? Ridiculous. There is not even any proof that increased carbon in the atmosphere causes warming. However there is quite a bit of fossil evidence that warming causes the oceans to release more carbon.
In the case of global warming the chicken did come before the egg.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at May 31, 2011 05:09 AM (Er/am)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 09:05 AM (1fanL)
Or the fact that he shows up to his "eco-rallys" in carbon belching SUV's or Limos, this after jumping off of his more horrific private jet. The 'tards truly are lost with most never to be found again.
Posted by: Truck Monkey at May 31, 2011 05:09 AM (yQWNf)
Damn right! Those Climate Conferences in Bangkok cost money when you've got to find 5 star hotels with running cocaine and ladyboy hookers and landing space for a few hundred private jets
Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 05:11 AM (vdfwz)
Or the fact that he shows up to his "eco-rallys" in carbon belching SUV's or Limos, this after jumping off of his more horrific private jet. The 'tards truly are lost with most never to be found again.
Posted by: Truck Monkey at May 31, 2011 09:09 AMThe fat phony even has the limos running to keep the a/c on so that Algore doesn't get all sweaty on the ride back to his private jet
Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 05:13 AM (vdfwz)
You're lying about global warming because we have a black president
Posted by: Judy the Civil Intellectual at May 31, 2011 05:16 AM (vdfwz)
Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 09:09 AM (vdfwz)
Only because I love that line so much: "IÂ’ll believe itÂ’s a crisis when the people who keep telling me itÂ’s a crisis start acting like itÂ’s a crisis."
Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 05:19 AM (1fanL)
The only reason this Newsweek article was written is because these tornadoes hit places with names like "Joplin" and "Tuscaloosa".
Had they hit nameless, faceless farm fields in Oklahoma, Kansas or Iowa, the article would not have been written.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at May 31, 2011 05:20 AM (BDH94)
Posted by: Trimming Aubrey's Beardsley at May 31, 2011 05:24 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:25 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:29 AM (WkuV6)
In reality they're the stupid characters in old cartoons walking around with a sign saying "THE END IS NEAR".
Posted by: Captain Hate at May 31, 2011 05:32 AM (CAI0v)
Posted by: fluffy at May 31, 2011 05:32 AM (4Kl5M)
"We must never get lax - we need to continue to drive home the point that those people are lying liars and enemies of progress."
This, +1000. We can't let up on these charlatans because they sure as hell won't.
They're leftists, and leftists - no matter how many times their philosophies, ideologies, hairbrained schemes and just flat out dumb fucking ideas have been proven failures - just keep their herd moving mindlessly in the downward spiral they arrogantly call "progress".
Debunk and ridicule until their hallowed institutions (The Daily Show and SNL) start making fun of them too.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at May 31, 2011 05:32 AM (A/oSU)
Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 05:37 AM (I/JRK)
Posted by: Trapperguy at May 31, 2011 05:38 AM (QfLaw)
Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at May 31, 2011 05:39 AM (MPtFW)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:39 AM (WkuV6)
Actually, it's a Gabe post, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is that the Earth has been warmer, on average, in historical times, and the results are known: greater health and prosperity.
I say: Pray for Warming.
Posted by: toby928™ at May 31, 2011 05:41 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:43 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: toby928™ at May 31, 2011 05:43 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: EricPWJohnson at May 31, 2011 05:43 AM (LFKqv)
Posted by: fluffy at May 31, 2011 05:43 AM (4Kl5M)
whoah - ho did that emoticon get there?
Liberals want free health care and 70 degrees all the time.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 31, 2011 05:44 AM (0fzsA)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:44 AM (WkuV6)
Morning, all! In place of Monty's DOOM threads, I recommend a thread like this every morning until he returns. One in which the tissue-thin beliefs of the left are ripped to shreds by our M&Ms.
...
Actually, I suppose that could easily describe every thread here at the HQ, DOOM or no DOOM. So never mind.
And just as a side note, who the hell put together that Newsweek cover, and are they old enough to use the computer without supervision? A half-blind fruit bat with a hangover and an immobilized left wing could do a better cover than that. What did they use, MS Paint?
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 05:45 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: fluffy at May 31, 2011 05:46 AM (4Kl5M)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:46 AM (WkuV6)
Newsweek is still in publication!
I mean, who knew right?
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at May 31, 2011 05:48 AM (s71zk)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:48 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 09:37 AM (I/JRK)
Please, provide links were it was 'easily and conclusively debunked.' My guess is any links you come up with will be tepid responses with lots of invective and motive questioning toward skeptics.
It is obvious to anyone with a scientific background that climatology is based upon really terrible assertions. Seriously, one fucking tornado season proves something? Science in every other field needs multiple entries and evidence. In climatology, however, 'models' trump actual data, and the fucking scientists involved state that.
And Climate-gate was a huge deal. Science is supposed to be about objective search for the truth, not hiding information or threatening scientific journals if they peer-review and publish opposing viewpoints.
One final question: Remember those "millions of climate refugees" your brilliant scientist buddies predicted in 2005? Where the fuck are they?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 31, 2011 05:49 AM (FkKjr)
Dude, you get what you pay for ...
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 09:48 AM (WkuV6)
This is true. And last I checked, a half-blind fruit bat with a hangover and a bad wing charges at LEAST $2 an hour. That's a bit too rich for Newsweek's "we sold for $1!" blood.
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 05:49 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Canday Candido at May 31, 2011 05:50 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Mary Clogginstein from Brattleboro, VT at May 31, 2011 05:51 AM (48wze)
Liberals want free health care and 70 degrees all the time.
and skittles.
and soaring speeches filled with silly promises about lowering the sea.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 31, 2011 05:51 AM (0fzsA)
Please, provide links were it was 'easily and conclusively debunked.' My guess is any links you come up with will be tepid responses with lots of invective and motive questioning toward skeptics.
Cue links to Daily Kos and DU in 5...4...3...2...
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 05:52 AM (4df7R)
Nice try though. I like the way you started praising Ace and the site before trying to proselytize us.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 05:53 AM (1fanL)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:53 AM (WkuV6)
Liberals want free health care and 70 degrees all the time.
and skittles.
and soaring speeches filled with silly promises about lowering the sea.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 31, 2011 09:51 AM (0fzsA)
And unicorns. Flying unicorns. With rainbow hooves.
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 05:53 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Hedgehog at May 31, 2011 05:54 AM (Nt7rO)
Posted by: Captain Hate at May 31, 2011 05:54 AM (CAI0v)
If you are really pushing AGW which category do you fall in:
1. eco-tard GAEA worshiping cultist who knows nothing about science.
2. SCAM pushing crook who makes a living pushing AGW and should be in jail.
3. Watermelon commie (green on the outside red on inside) pushing AGW and other green scams as a way to push global communism and fascist control.
4. Just an average liberal idiot who is dumber than a bag of hammers
Or you really just a shit-weasel troll who came on here to stir up trouble?
Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 05:54 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: laddy at May 31, 2011 05:54 AM (49mGu)
Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 05:54 AM (I/JRK)
That's a lot more tolerable if you are already drunk.
Posted by: toby928™ at May 31, 2011 05:55 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 31, 2011 05:55 AM (NtTkA)
You find out about all these horrible publications like TIME and Newsweek and Vanity Fair when you go to the doc or get your oil changed.
Shocka - they are magazines that prasie the all mightly Corruptocrat(D) and piss all over anything Republican. Media Matters approves.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 31, 2011 05:55 AM (0fzsA)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 09:53 AM (1fanL)
Methinks bleh is one of those "seminar callers" who try to get onto Rush and Levin and Ingraham and whatnot. Start off saying how much you like the show, how you usually agree with the host, then go completely off the reservation with the leftist BS.
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 05:55 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Trimming Aubrey's Beardsley at May 31, 2011 05:56 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: fluffy at May 31, 2011 05:56 AM (4Kl5M)
Attacking people based upon their credentials, not their arguments. Yep, you definitely are familiar with climate science and climate scientists.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 31, 2011 05:58 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: Hedgehog at May 31, 2011 09:54 AM (Nt7rO)
Happy birthday! And you have our sympathies. Motor Vehicles is Teh Suck anyway, let alone on your birthday.
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 05:58 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Mr Pink at May 31, 2011 05:58 AM (wJEIO)
Liberals want free health care and 70 degrees all the time.
and skittles.
and soaring speeches filled with silly promises about lowering the sea.
And unicorns. Flying unicorns. With rainbow hooves.
and stink-free unicorn flatulence ...that powers cars and stuff.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 31, 2011 05:59 AM (0fzsA)
Posted by: toby928™ at May 31, 2011 05:59 AM (GTbGH)
The useless piece of shit was supposed to be working the fry station this morning, but called in sick after he somehow found his way into my Oxycontin stash.
Posted by: bleh's mom at May 31, 2011 06:00 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: Trimming Aubrey's Beardsley at May 31, 2011 09:56 AM (PET8M)
I'm assuming you eat your hobos after a hunt? Or do you wrap them in Time?
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 06:01 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Hedgehog at May 31, 2011 06:02 AM (Nt7rO)
I had a delightful conversation with a Bammy-lovin' guy friend yesterday. His Barry love has been extremely diminished by all Barky's war-mongerin'.
Heh.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 31, 2011 06:02 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:02 AM (WkuV6)
I'm assuming you eat your hobos after a hunt?
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 10:01 AM (4df7R)
Oh, but of course. With some Grey Poupon.
Posted by: Trimming Aubrey's Beardsley at May 31, 2011 06:03 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: corsets at May 31, 2011 06:03 AM (8xXp5)
More barley means cheaper and more plentiful beer and whiskey .
Perfect moron logic and irrefutable proof of Gods love .
Posted by: awkward davies at May 31, 2011 06:05 AM (YCW1b)
Posted by: Ago Solvo at May 31, 2011 06:05 AM (k8JkR)
You're right that good science requires several lines of evidence and climate change absolutely has that. Critics tend to focus on problems with one or two lines while ignoring the other 97. There is obviously an enormous amount of uncertainty and the models are very complex-- anyone who doesn't say there is a lot of uncertainty is just playing politics. But there's a significant chance of serious warming with nasty consequences. That's what the science says-- not just modeling, but observed Whether that chance is 2% or 50% depends on who you believe. Either way, I tend to believe in insurance is a wise thing to purchase.
Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 06:06 AM (I/JRK)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:07 AM (WkuV6)
bleh,
There is no "science" involved in AGW. You say you know "climate scientists" and "climate science" - well then you lie.
there is no such thing. there is only a theory - which has absolutely no scientific proof behind it, and computer modeling, which is most decidedly not scientific in any way.
don't claim that somthing has been easily debunked a thousand times. that is pure lefitsm. Saying something is 'debunked' is not the same as actually challenging teh arguments made.
You cite to your own authority "I know science" and "I' know scientists" - that is not an arument, nor is it believable or persuasive. but it is typical leftists. Just as we are supposed to believe in AGW b/c a "consensus" of scientists "believe" in it.
You are right that AGW is most easily attacked through the "science", as there is no science. citing to manipulated temperature records - the unmanipulated raw data of which is now conveniently lost by CRU after they were found to have "hidden teh decline" is not science.
At this point we are not so much interested in debunking AGW, it has been debunked and the rats are abandoning the ship every day. We are more interested in making fun of the idiots who still claim a) that it exists and/or b) that there was ever any science behind it in the first instance.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 06:07 AM (wVhfO)
What part of the AGW/Climate Change "science" could be in any way considered "strong"? The only thing I can see they are good at is publishing flawed papers referencing each other's faked "science," while ignoring and blacklisting any dissenting viewpoints that are based on actual observational data and replicable experimental methods.
FIFY!
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 06:08 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:09 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Fletch at May 31, 2011 06:09 AM (4Kl5M)
bleh,
there is no such thing. there is only a theory - which has absolutely no scientific proof behind it, and computer modeling, which is most decidedly not scientific in any way. .
Posted by: Monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 10:07 AM (wVhfO)
Ahem....I believe I was here first.
Posted by: That Dude Who Created Every-friggin Thing at May 31, 2011 06:10 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: errhead at May 31, 2011 06:10 AM (XtEQi)
Posted by: Ago Solvo at May 31, 2011 10:05 AM (k8JkR)
Sadly, it is sometimes the only reading material in the waiting room at your average doctor's office. Well, that and Sports Illustrated or Parenting, both of which are always already taken by the time I get there. That's why I just bring a book with me.
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 06:10 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Mr Pink at May 31, 2011 06:11 AM (wJEIO)
Posted by: Cherry π at May 31, 2011 06:12 AM (+sBB4)
Posted by: polynikes-Romney supporter at May 31, 2011 06:12 AM (9zDBm)
Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 06:13 AM (I/JRK)
Posted by: Mr Pink at May 31, 2011 10:11 AM (wJEIO)
This is just another example of why I say the HQ should publish a book of witticisms entitled (Keep F*#!ing that) Chicken Soup for the (Hopelessly Inebriated) Soul.
Goldmine, I tell you. GOLD. MINE.
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 06:14 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 10:06 AM (I/JRK)
Everything above is completely untrue. AGW "scientists" have offered nothing beyond computer modeling. All of the alleged data supporting AGW stemmed from CRU, who "lost" the raw data leaving only their manipulated numbers.
Your claims to the contrary are hilarious. What's most funny is that leftists like you claim to believe in science, yet absolutely disregard it when it comes to something that supports their political goals.
You believe in "insurance" - that's your idiot argument? you want us to destroy our ecomony (coincidentally in wet-dream sync with leftist socialist ideology) not based on any actual science, but on what?
Someone came up with a theory that is completely unfounded by any facts or science, and now you think we need to act on that theory? That is insane.
You leftists are doing more damage to science then anything in the last 1,000 years. You are making it so that nobody is going to believe any science in the future because it is always going to be suspect as being manipulated for political purposes (which AGW is now).
Posted by: Monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 06:15 AM (wVhfO)
Posted by: Weather Islamist at May 31, 2011 06:15 AM (8/JR7)
Posted by: Cicero at May 31, 2011 06:15 AM (p03Eu)
No, it doesn't. Every single aspect of climate change has serious questions associated with it, or else the data is hidden, or else declared irrelevant. We also must take - in good faith - that people with a history of falsifying data for financial gain are providing us with good data.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim the world is approaching utter ruin in fifty years, you better have some great evidence to back it up (note: great evidence isn't a FORTRAN program that can't predict the weather tomorrow).
Whether that chance is 2% or 50% depends on who you believe. Either way, I tend to believe in insurance is a wise thing to purchase.
You also believe it's wise to call people who skew toward the 2% side of risk idiots? Sorry, you seem to be rapidly evolving your stance here.
Oh, by the way, what about those millions of climate refugees by 2010?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 31, 2011 06:16 AM (FkKjr)
lol
Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 31, 2011 06:16 AM (UOM48)
lol
Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 31, 2011 10:16 AM (UOM4
What the FUCK?!?!?!?
Posted by: General of the Army George S. Patton at May 31, 2011 06:18 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: Captain Hate at May 31, 2011 06:18 AM (CAI0v)
Posted by: Cherry π at May 31, 2011 06:18 AM (+sBB4)
There is no science with regards to AGW. Period.
160@ various critics, I'm not going to sit around all morning and defend myself.
In other words - I tried to cite to my authority (i.e., "I know scientists" and "I know science") and that wasn't enough to persuade you I am correct. I can't actually offer any arguments with cites to facts to support my argument, so I'm just going to say you are stupid and leave.
There is no remotely reliable evidence of global warming. If there were, someone, somewhere would cite it. The only evidence stems from manipulated data, the raw data of which was "lost" by CRU. Again, that is not science.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 06:19 AM (wVhfO)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at May 31, 2011 06:19 AM (DPM1U)
I've never seen a cogent argument that either is bad.
True story, I was in San Francisco on business back in '88 or so, when the watermelons were just starting to really latch on to this shady scheme, and I had to listen to another person fear mongering on AGW. I asked them if there was anyone who would benefit from warming, if it existed. They went blank. I pointed out that no worldwide climate phenomenon is not going to have winners somewhere and that any movement that denied that was simply propaganda.
All Crisis, all the time, don't stop to think about it, action now.
Classic agi-prop.
Posted by: toby928™ at May 31, 2011 06:19 AM (GTbGH)
Never mind that every study that has subjected plants to increased CO2 has seen the plants grow bigger, grow faster, produce more fruit and use less water!
F' em; lying scum who see nothing wrong with unlimited government control.
Oh, and will Chuckles the Klown be by any time soon to denounce us deniers?
Posted by: Jimmuy at May 31, 2011 06:19 AM (FJeA9)
Spengler, covering how this "Arab Spring" is like Carter and Iran multiplied many times over. Yellowstone super volcano its so big no one inside of it realized it was encompassing for along time until airplanes and satellites let people get a look at it from high enough above.
http://tinyurl.com/3swwczh
Doug Noland, covering productive vs unproductive credit and the differences in its effects.
http://tinyurl.com/42bskve
Posted by: Shiggz at May 31, 2011 06:22 AM (mLAWK)
Posted by: polynikes-Romney supporter at May 31, 2011 10:12 AM (9zDBm)
I agree. There should be a clear distinction made. I believe in global climate change, because it's happened in the past and will happen again. The great warming at the beginning of the earth's life-sustaining period when plants flourished; the tropical heat that allowed the dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures to grow so large and thrive for so long; the Ice Age, then the warming of the earth that shrank the great glaciers...
Climate change happens. It just DOES.
Now me, I don't like smokestacks. I think they're ugly and they stink. If I could, I'd get rid of them. Same with tractor trailer exhaust. But I'm not going to mandate that there can be no smokestacks and no burning of smelly fossil fuels, because we need those things. I really don't think anybody anywhere on the political spectrum would argue against clean, efficient energy sources if they are affordable, effective, and workable. That's the problem with so-called "green" energy solutions today; they are none of those things. They cost too much with too little payoff, and getting them to work with our current energy infrastructure is an expensive undertaking all its own. If we all had electric cars, where the hell are we supposed to plug them in when we're at work?
Until all of these issues are addressed and solved, I'll stick with what we know and what we can use.
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 06:24 AM (4df7R)
A cursory review of the Newsyweek discussion board shows 12 comments, 3 of which pertain to prolonged erections/XBoxes. Real debate occurs in the blogosphere.
When I saw Sharon Begley's photo...wow, I thought I had a receding hairline.
Be that as it may, the US climate in the near term (12 months) seems to be most influenced by the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the Pacific, yet the article makes no mention of that.
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at May 31, 2011 06:25 AM (DPM1U)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 31, 2011 06:25 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:25 AM (WkuV6)
And, finally, even if AGW was real, the USA can do nothing about it. Our emissions are nothing compared to China, India and South America. Even if we adopted Kyoto and followed it starting tomorrow, it would do nothing.
That's what is the biggest tell about all of this, that the AGW cultists want america to voluntarily tank its economy but don't seem to care much about what China, India, et al does.
if they really believed their silly theory, they would be spending all of their time working on Chia, et al trying to get them to change their behavior, instead of focusing on the U.S. Hell, you would be simply trying to get China, et al to get their environmental standards up to the U.S.'s current levels, let alone Kyoto or more drastic. You don't, demonstrating the unseriousness of your beliefs.
And don't give me that silliness of "if the U.S. leads, everyone else will follow". You know that is not true. China is not going to adopt economy killing policies b/c the U.S does.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 06:26 AM (wVhfO)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:27 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: toby928™ at May 31, 2011 06:27 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 31, 2011 06:29 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: toby928™ at May 31, 2011 10:27 AM (GTbGH)
You damn straight, homes.
Posted by: I'm Dolemite, bitch at May 31, 2011 06:29 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:31 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: PaleRider at May 31, 2011 06:32 AM (cQZV0)
Posted by: Pterry the Pterodactyl at May 31, 2011 06:32 AM (DPM1U)
Posted by: GregInSeattle at May 31, 2011 06:35 AM (B5cM9)
And, finally, even if AGW was real, the USA can do nothing about it. Our emissions are nothing compared to China, India and South America. Even if we adopted Kyoto and followed it starting tomorrow, it would do nothing.
That's what is the biggest tell about all of this, that the AGW cultists want america to voluntarily tank its economy but don't seem to care much about what China, India, et al does.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 10:26 AM (wVhfO)
Kyoto was such a fucking political scam to hamstring the US economy while not doing a thing to resolve "the problem" that even the shitheads in the Clinton administration knew it was DOA.
Posted by: Captain Hate at May 31, 2011 06:36 AM (CAI0v)
Years ago, tornadoes hit our area and did some damage. When the power came back on, I flipped to the news to see what was what, and was shocked when they said that we had been hit by 15 tornadoes. Before the power had gone out, I was talking to my friends mom, and she said there were only two. I was a little confused, so I did some research.
Here's how it works: When the funnel touches down, it's a tornado. If that tornado lifts off the ground, it becomes a twister. If that same funnel touches down again, it is once again a tornado, and is counted as a new tornado. So when the weather report said we were hit by 15 tornadoes, the image in my head was of 15 separate whirling death clouds ravaging my area. In truth, there were only two storm fronts, and only two reported funnels that kept pogo sticking up and down. Keep that in mind next time you see an official tornado count for an area.
Posted by: ScottBern at May 31, 2011 06:36 AM (JF/H+)
Posted by: Jimmuy at May 31, 2011 06:37 AM (FJeA9)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:37 AM (WkuV6)
Hey, why you hatin'?
He HEEE!
Posted by: piltsbury dough boy at May 31, 2011 06:37 AM (XyjRQ)
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 06:37 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: GregInSeattle at May 31, 2011 10:35 AM (B5cM9)
You'll have to pardon me. Seems I've taken to watching far too much OWN lately.
Posted by: GregInSeattle's coherent self at May 31, 2011 06:37 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2011 06:38 AM (tqwMN)
but what is the required course work to be a Climate Scientist?
'Computer Data Manipulation' is a freshman survey course. Then you have the more advanced courses in 'Verifying False Assumptions From Tree Ring Data' and 'How to Email Colleagues and Hide The Decline Without Getting Caught'. There's also a graduate seminar in 'Making Shit Up To Get Grant Money'. When going for the Piled Higher and Deeper, 'Passing a Polygraph' is a must interactive lab.
Posted by: RickZ at May 31, 2011 06:40 AM (qEac9)
Posted by: Mr Pink at May 31, 2011 06:40 AM (wJEIO)
Posted by: A half-blind fruit bat with a hangover and an immobilized left wing at May 31, 2011 06:42 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:43 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2011 10:38 AM (tqwMN)
You got a problem with italicized, bolded Arial Black, homes? Huh? HUH?
(I keed!)
And no. No they can't. Nor can they afford a decent graphics program (I think they're using a ghetto hybrid of Paint and Photoshop), and the chimp they hired to do their graphic design went on strike.
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 06:43 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Roy at May 31, 2011 06:43 AM (VndSC)
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at May 31, 2011 06:43 AM (pdRb1)
Funny- back when Greenpeace had the eejit beret and funny beard brigade out on Chicago streets getting signatures for their "fight the climate change, outlaw co2" crap, the favored conversation killer was always "Why do you hate trees so much? Why are you trying to starve them?"
Posted by: Chariots of Toast at May 31, 2011 06:44 AM (XyjRQ)
Posted by: PaleRider at May 31, 2011 06:45 AM (cQZV0)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 10:43 AM (WkuV6)
You make a good point.
(See, Gaia cultists? This is called listening to an alternate POV. It's actually really easy! You should try!)
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 06:45 AM (4df7R)
The science! The science!
Thirty years ago it was global cooling. Seven years ago it was global warming. 2 years ago, back to global cooling. Now? Global warming (now) and global climate change (beginning of the year)!!11!!!1!!1
Posted by: momma at May 31, 2011 06:46 AM (penCf)
But not too much since the space age.
Posted by: toby928™ at May 31, 2011 06:46 AM (GTbGH)
HA! Come join the reality-based community, retards!
Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 06:46 AM (1fanL)
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 10:37 AM (4df7R)
They'd never see it that way. They have a view of themselves as representing the best intentions that prevents them from engaging in true self scrutiny.
Posted by: Captain Hate at May 31, 2011 06:46 AM (CAI0v)
The June issue of Buns and Ammo profiled shirtless hunks in bandoliers patrolling devastated communities. So climate change is good for those of us in the gay NRA crowd.
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at May 31, 2011 06:47 AM (DPM1U)
Psssshaw, heathen- anyone who knows anything about real science KNOWS tree rings are weak sauce- the analysis of sheep's bladders and badger entrails, that's where the real data exists.
Posted by: AGW Temple Shaman at May 31, 2011 06:49 AM (XyjRQ)
Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 09:54 AM (I/JRK)
This statement all by itself is proof of terminal contamination. Even if it is a true statement (questionable) it does more hurt to the arguement than help.
Scientists are every bit as human as anyone else, and their desire to face ugly truths is no stronger than that of any other group of men. They have egos, and self interest. They also have political agendas. Given how often the "fringe nut" has proven the main stream of "scientists" wrong over the years, I'm not interested in a "consensus" based on crappy, unverifiable and unreplicatable data.
The solar-activity guys are mile and miles ahead in terms of their ability to back up their theory with facts. I'll lean their way until I see real, non-faked evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: Reactionary at May 31, 2011 06:50 AM (xUM1Q)
LetÂ’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Michael Crichton
National Press Club Washington, DC January 25, 2005
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 31, 2011 06:50 AM (LH6ir)
‘Malintent detection’ technology tested in the northeast United States by DHS
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has begun field testing new technology designed to identify people who intend to commit a terrorist act.
Nature reported that the DHS has been conducting tests of Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) in the past few months at an undisclosed location in the northeast.
The technology uses remote sensors to measure physiological properties, such as heart rate and eye movement, which can be used to infer a person's current mindset.
According to a Privacy Impact Assessment released by the DHS in 2008, the technology is intended to measure a person's malintent -- the intent to cause harm.
Posted by: momma at May 31, 2011 06:52 AM (penCf)
Like that guy in the UK who whined that climate-scientologists shouldn't have to show their work because people will just try to find faults with it. I could've sworn "people trying to find faults with it" used to be known as "science".
Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2011 06:53 AM (tqwMN)
Posted by: Killerdog at May 31, 2011 06:55 AM (jYAz0)
Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2011 10:53 AM (tqwMN)
You know, they're still trying to debunk my theories. Fuckers! I mean, can a Jooo get a consensus around here?
If my shit ain't consensusized, there ain't no consensus nohow. Peace out!
Posted by: Albert Einstein at May 31, 2011 06:55 AM (1fanL)
Posted by: PaleRider at May 31, 2011 06:55 AM (cQZV0)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:56 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Mary Clogginstein from Brattleboro, VT at May 31, 2011 09:51 AM (48wze)
--------
Anyone want to bet that Mary uses plastic (i.e. made from oil) barrettes to hold her braided armpit hair in place?
Posted by: Jim Sonweed at May 31, 2011 06:58 AM (FVhEi)
Posted by: Totally Hawt Honey Badger ben DOOM that yells En Fuego! at May 31, 2011 06:58 AM (GvYeG)
Posted by: PaleRider at May 31, 2011 06:59 AM (cQZV0)
I think he is the main cause of global warming. Or at least, local warming.
Posted by: momma at May 31, 2011 06:59 AM (penCf)
Posted by: Cherry π at May 31, 2011 07:00 AM (+sBB4)
Posted by: Mr Pink at May 31, 2011 07:01 AM (wJEIO)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 10:56 AM (WkuV6)
Neat. Nice to see somebody who isn't a liar and a scumbag working on the big ideas. Good luck in your work.
Posted by: Reactionary at May 31, 2011 07:02 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 07:04 AM (WkuV6)
And climate scientists want to hide their data? Warmist please!
Posted by: Albert Einstein at May 31, 2011 07:05 AM (1fanL)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 07:06 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: JackStraw at May 31, 2011 07:11 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at May 31, 2011 07:12 AM (zgZzy)
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at May 31, 2011 07:13 AM (zgZzy)
http://tinyurl.com/43rplwu
You might find the analysis part a bit murky (I sure did), but wade through it to get the gist and then look at the second illustration, which link the individual data sets to their corresponding graphical displays.
You will see that only two data sets yield a hockey stick. Both rely on data that was either falsified ("Hide the Decline") or handled with utter incompetence (in the Tiljander set a number of values were actually INVERTED.)
All the other sets (except the Speleotherms, which show cooling) yield no net slope and are thus useless to prove AGW.
It is also important to note that the use of Bristlecone pine temperature proxies to support a "hockey stick" have been widely derided by those who actually collect that data. Yet that's what Mann relied on, and what the libtards continue to point to as their iconic symbol for their new religious movement.
IOW Bleh, you're full of crap.
Posted by: Jim Sonweed at May 31, 2011 07:13 AM (FVhEi)
OT, but this is just too ridiculous not to share.
Link to Weasel Zippers:
Belgium: Professor Sued for Linking Islam with Anti-Semitism
On May 12 the [De Morgen] newspaper published the results of a study ‘Jong in Brussel’ by the Youth Research Platform. In the article Mark Elchardus said that antisemitism among Muslim students was theologically inspired and that there is a direct link between being Muslim and harboring antisemitic feelings.
Vigilance musulmane say that this goes back to the idea that every Muslim is antisemitic. His statements incite the public opinion to hate all Muslim citizens on the basis of their religious conviction...
Soooo, he's being sued for, as WZ so aptly puts it, "stating the blatantly obvious." Incredible.
Farewell, Europe. We hardly knew ye.
Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 07:15 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 07:18 AM (WkuV6)
I wonder if Mary Cloggenstein and Judy the Intellectual have ever met? If not, maybe we should try to get the two of them together.
(So they can talk to each other and stop bothering everyone else...)
Posted by: Book Geek at May 31, 2011 07:19 AM (1+OO5)
FIFY
Posted by: Barky the Boy Geophysicist at May 31, 2011 07:19 AM (FVhEi)
“It is popular lore that Einstein was right, but no such book is ever completely closed in science,” he said. “While the result in this case does support Einstein, it didn’t have to.”
Posted by: Hedgehog at May 31, 2011 07:26 AM (Rn2kl)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 07:28 AM (WkuV6)
CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. It doesnt take an Einstein to figure out it simply does not have the necessary MASS to transmit it's magically super kinetic energy level to raise the temperature of the surrounding 99.96% any noticeble amount. Like shooting a BB at a Kenworth.
Also, the 'science' models neglect clouds and sun, something which may be important when modeling climate.
Posted by: Schwalbe : The © at May 31, 2011 07:28 AM (UU0OF)
Posted by: toby928™ at May 31, 2011 07:31 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 07:33 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 07:34 AM (WkuV6)
Oh my god!! A DOUBLE TOMATO!!!
What does it meeeeeeeeaaaaan?!?!?!?
AAAaaaaaarrrgggghhh!!
What does it meeeeeeeeaaaaaaannnnnn???
Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 07:35 AM (gM4zK)
When we have a month of below-average temperatures: "Climate isn't weather! Only long-term changes are meaningful! Besides, global warming causes global cooling or something."
When we have a month of above-average temperatures and/or tornados that hit populated areas: "See! This proves you deniers are wrong! Can't you see the proof of global warming right in front of you?"
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 31, 2011 07:37 AM (SY2Kh)
VDH distilled the whole presidential race into a nice neat little package. I hope the candidates were taking heed.
Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 07:37 AM (gM4zK)
Give me your your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, your tired old post...
Posted by: Lady Liberty at May 31, 2011 07:38 AM (ihSHD)
oh, and Shelby Steel wrote a fine column last week about the icon known as Obama and how difficult it will to defeat said icon.
Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 07:38 AM (gM4zK)
nothing we didn't already say here from both VDH and Shelby Steel, but it's nice to hear that other people get it.
Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 07:40 AM (gM4zK)
Posted by: Cherry π at May 31, 2011 07:41 AM (+sBB4)
We have had the coldest spring in the Northwest ever in the history of the world. We have a snow pack so large that they are having to shut down all the windmills they built so the hydroelectric plants can get rid of the water.
You don't hear about that on the news to much.
Sharon Begley was the one that came up with the idea that any scientist who didn't beleive in global warming should be decertified. She's an evil one.
Posted by: robtr at May 31, 2011 07:48 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: GOP at May 31, 2011 07:49 AM (EL+OC)
soooo...
how bout that $2.5T increase in the debt ceiling?
it's currently at, what, $14+T?
so another 2.5T would be, what, a 18% increase?
Is that right? That's insane.
Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 07:50 AM (gM4zK)
First of all, for years the Global Cooling/Global Warming/Global Saming? camp pushed this idea that climate had been mostly static, until recent years where the Industrial Age caused our planet to cool/warm. Now, nervermind the fact that we have mountains of evidence that the Earth has endured warming and cooling trends in the past. The skeptical view was "Look, climate changes". What do they do? They change the topic to "Climate Change", call you an idiot if you still mention "Warming"...and proceed to take every change in climate as proof of climate change.
Well, yeah. Everyone believes in Climate Change. The difference is, you believe it's happening now for the first time ever. Please, explain to me how you believe Climate was relatively static until the Modern Era?
I have no science credentials...but I have logic. There's no evidence.
Posted by: Crazee at May 31, 2011 07:52 AM (H3ujh)
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at May 31, 2011 07:53 AM (vA9ld)
(Many) years ago I subscribed to this rag, now I read it right after Modern Bride and whatever other magazine I have no interest in while waiting for an oil change for my gas guzzling truck.
Posted by: Boglee at May 31, 2011 07:59 AM (rIUhr)
Posted by: Cherry ð
We're grilling suspects as fast as we can.
Posted by: Ballpark hotdogs at May 31, 2011 07:59 AM (fPOY0)
Posted by: A half-blind fruit bat with a hangover and an immobilized left wing at May 31, 2011 08:02 AM (RD7QR)
and oceans, oops"
Haaaaaa hem.
Posted by: daaaaaa Sun. at May 31, 2011 08:03 AM (XyjRQ)
Obama tells tomato victims of Joplin: “We are going to be here long after the cameras leave. We’re not going to stop till Joplin’s back on its feet.”
...and then he leaves
Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 08:04 AM (gM4zK)
Posted by: shivas Irons at May 31, 2011 08:06 AM (qu2SW)
Obama makes promise to tomato ravaged Joplin:
"We will be with you every step of the way. We're not going anywhere."
And then he quickly jetted away on Air Force One.
Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 08:06 AM (gM4zK)
Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord© at May 31, 2011 08:09 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: joncelli at May 31, 2011 08:10 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 31, 2011 08:11 AM (jPPat)
Posted by: Blackford Oakes at May 31, 2011 08:12 AM (Klxrr)
I think they should drop climate change and simply state that weather of all nature is bad and caused by mankind. Without mankind, there would be no weather.
Obviously, the history of the earth - up until the industrial age - was one of mild, uniform weather. there were never any radical changes in weather and never an weather extremes. In the zones of teh earth with seasonal weather, teh winters had the same mild winters with each day's low being the exact same as the previous years' low. Same with each years' summer temperatures.
There were no hurricanes, tornados, or floods. Teh wind patterns were teh exact same every single day. There were no ice ages, warming periods, cooling periods or other weather changes of any sort. You knew exactly what the weather would be each day. The level of the seas never changed, land did not erode, icecaps remained exactly constant.
Once the industrial age happened, suddenly there were wild variations in the weather. some days it was hot. Other days it was cold. There were winds and floods. It was horrific. Obvioulsy then, industry caused weather. We must end industry. Only by returning to our agrarian roots can we end the threat of weather. If we do so, the never changing weather patterns of the past will return.
Posted by: monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 08:12 AM (sOx93)
Tormato?
Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord© at May 31, 2011 08:14 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Dirty Old Man at May 31, 2011 08:15 AM (VYb7j)
Posted by: GMan at May 31, 2011 08:16 AM (sxq57)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 08:16 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 31, 2011 08:17 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: joncelli at May 31, 2011 08:17 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: joncelli at May 31, 2011 08:18 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 12:12 PM (sOx93)
Ah... thus... If a Tree falls in the Forest, and no one is there to hear it.. it does NOT make a sound in Liberal Think....
Thus, with no Human left to measure the Weather changes, it will not change!
Is this the Liberal Corrolary of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Theory?
However, If a Man Speaks in a Forest, and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2011 08:18 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Totally Hawt Honey Badger ben DOOM that yells En Fuego! at May 31, 2011 08:18 AM (GvYeG)
That's the next frontier of liberal Ludditism. Interplanetary colonization will be challenged on the basis of protecting native microbial life.
Posted by: Blackford Oakes at May 31, 2011 08:19 AM (Klxrr)
Posted by: Totally Hawt Honey Badger ben DOOM that yells En Fuego! at May 31, 2011 12:18 PM (GvYeG)
It'll make them take off their clothes.
Posted by: Crazee at May 31, 2011 08:20 AM (H3ujh)
That's the next frontier of liberal Ludditism. Interplanetary colonization will be challenged on the basis of protecting native microbial life.
Posted by: Blackford Oakes at May 31, 2011 12:19 PM (Klxrr)
That and keeping the Area a Pristine Wilderness, so our Descenents can enjoy it...
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2011 08:20 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 31, 2011 08:27 AM (NtTkA)
The only "New Normal" is the level of stupidity of climate-change writers for Newsweak. One can only wonder what new false crisis they'll dream up next to foist the New World Order on us. They've gotten increasingly irrational as time has passed and we've gotten smarter about where we get our information from (hint, it ain't Newsweak).
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 31, 2011 08:28 AM (d0Tfm)
Laura Ingraham made an keen observation today while chatting with VDH. She said we have collective yawns when we hear any of the current GOP candidates and at the same time we have collective gasps at the thought of having no one to challenge Obama.
Then she said 'yasps, we have have yasps,' which was cute. But it't true. We're nervous nellies about not having anyone to challenge Obama in 2012 but at the same time we summarily dismiss all who have yet to offer their service for the task.
Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 08:28 AM (gM4zK)
Posted by: Totally Hawt Honey Badger ben DOOM that yells En Fuego! at May 31, 2011 12:18 PM (GvYeG)
That's why they have beaches, silly.
More IDF women.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 31, 2011 08:29 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 31, 2011 12:28 PM (d0Tfm)
Ah.... next up.... Food and Fuel shortages.
They will use Ethanol to put more and more acreage out of actual food production, and use that as an excuse not to drill...
But because Ethanol does not really create a Net gain to worldwide energy resources (its takes about as much energy to produce and transport as you get out of it)... and more energy constantly being needed worldwide... we will hit a tipping point where we are out of Energy, so they produce more ethanol, which does not help.... and the cycle continues taking MORE acreage out of food production worldwide...
So.... Luddite Twofer... food and energy shortage...
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2011 08:32 AM (NtXW4)
I've always wondered how, in the last days, you could have the kinds of judgements that are predicted without people knowing it's supernatural. Oh, sure, I could see them knowing it's God and rejecting Him. "No good God would ever hit us with these disasters!". But not believe it's supernatural? Please.
However , it all makes sense now. Worldwide Earthquake? Climate Change. Blood falling from the sky? Birds were killed by Climate Change. etc. The thin veneer of science will provide a layer of rationalization.
Posted by: Crazee at May 31, 2011 08:38 AM (H3ujh)
Posted by: Russtovich at May 31, 2011 08:38 AM (YwUmn)
Posted by: The Anglo Saxon Chronicle at May 31, 2011 08:49 AM (agD4m)
...and then he leaves
Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 12:04 PM (gM4zK)
Posted by: Hrothgar at May 31, 2011 08:49 AM (yrGif)
Posted by: shivas Irons at May 31, 2011 08:51 AM (qu2SW)
"NEVER fuck with the original data!"
Tweak it all you want, annotate it as required, apply documented correction factors, but never violate rule one.
Posted by: Hrothgar at May 31, 2011 08:53 AM (yrGif)
If the ice caps melt oceans should actually recede. Posted by: Alisa at May 31, 2011
Recede?!? The oceans could will recede?!? Because of global warming ...er ... climate change ...er ... global warming ... er... climate change ?!? ... er.. whatever
Excellent. Receding oceans. Sounds very scary. I can work with that.
Posted by: Al Gore's investment fund at May 31, 2011 09:08 AM (Xv7f/)
Posted by: toby928™ at May 31, 2011 09:59 AM (GTbGH)
Journalism. Preferably from Harvard.
Posted by: Al Gore's investment fund at May 31, 2011 09:11 AM (Xv7f/)
Thanks Kratos!
Posted by: Totally Hawt Honey Badger ben DOOM that yells En Fuego! at May 31, 2011 09:29 AM (GvYeG)
Yo, tornadoes are the result of COLD weather, Newsweek asshats!
Posted by: logprof at May 31, 2011 09:34 AM (BP6Z1)
I suggest "News"week shut down the printing presses and servers to minimize their carbon footprint.
Then again, they don't have much of an audience so it wouldn't be that big of a deal.
Posted by: california red at May 31, 2011 09:39 AM (7uWb8)
Posted by: Al Gore's investment fund at May 31, 2011 01:08 PM (Xv7f/)
Actualy, he's partly correct... but floating Ice displaces its own Mass in Water... ie... so for floating Ice, it becomes a wash...
Some of the Ice at the South pole however, is sitting on a land mass...that Ice melting would increase the depth of the ocean.... problem is that that particular chunk of Ice if EXPANDING, not getting smaller.
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2011 10:08 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: MacGregor at May 31, 2011 12:35 PM (aZu84)
Isn't this the same Chicken Little outfit that trumpeted the coming Ice Age in the 70's?
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
Posted by: LibertyAtStake at May 31, 2011 03:36 PM (PmNi0)
Posted by: casey byrd at June 04, 2011 06:21 AM (eA7ni)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2926 seconds, 444 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at May 31, 2011 03:40 AM (PrXnz)