1 A friend of mine once said, while tripping on acid, "Clouds aren't meant to do anything, especially form mushrooms." This was during the Cold War and he definitely had a point. No one wants mushroom clouds.

2 Flurpst!

3 This strikes me as racist.

4 But...but...THE POLAR BEARS!!!1!!eleventy1!

5 Everything is political under totalitarian governments

there's no actual politics, but everything is political

6

Dang. And I was just starting to get into that last thread...

*rolls eyes*

7 Thank You, HAL! That wasn't so fucking hard, was it?

8

Another important thing to glean from this discovery at CERN is overlooked.

Yes, it is important that this discovery refutes a pillar of global warming theory.

But what is also shows is how weak their models are.  Mathematical models are based on closed systems where all the inputs and output are understood.  What this whole story shows is how much of the mathematical models that they based all their theory on are based on assumptions.

Assumptions are not science. 

9 Anyone else notice a lot of AGW mentions in the news lately? Just related to hurricane and quake in the east or are they sensing a moment to get their mojo back. Al Gore rants etc. Listened to Hannity yesterday some Earthday orginization scrunt was unbelievably sanctimonious and condescending kept calling Hannity and the two other guys boys.

10 Yeah. It's bullshit. We know.

11 Al Gore's front loader of a gut hardest hit.

12 Good heavens, Miss Hashimoto: You're carbonated!!

13 Mittens supporter telling us how bad Perry is, 3... 2... 1...

14 Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

15

Now wait just a cotton picking minute. Our job is to tell you that Rethuglicans are anti-science. This will not stand.

 

16 Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years

*squirt*

Whew... daddy needs a few more houses!

17 Can a woman get legally intoxicated from a vodka douche? I always wanted to ask that. And please pass me a maraschino cherry...

18 I'm from Scranton!

19 16 Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure. Posted by: Peaches at August 30, 2011 08:59 PM (aMAEM) I... uh... REALLY am!

20 So is it Gorebull or not? Now I'm all confused.

_{That does explain why it really cools off at night though.}

21 Lies, cover-ups, and institutional thuggery are what Science is all about, didn't you know that? Salt, Alar, dioxin, vaccinations, the population bomb, the Piltdown Man, Proxy Frogs, nuclear winter... It's all SCIENCE!!!eleven!!

22 Hardest Hit

23 fuck the polar bears. put them on a Grayhound bus headed to Fla......... get used to the heat boys.......... just dont mess with Kbear or we will really be mad.

24 Holly crap!  Just when we think we've won, we find out that we have science on our side. 

25 Oddly, I've hardly scene a single word about the CERN experiment results in the MSM...

26 <sub>That does explain why it really cools off at night though.

Food for thought . . . I wonder if that also accounts for why it's cooler in the shade.</sub> 

27 Al Gore so fat if he melt it's Waterworld for reelz.

28 I wanna see you tie the stem into a knot. Posted by: Beefy Meatball at August 30, 2011 09:02 PM (bZ8J6) Wouldn't you rather see a moronette do it? With her tongue??

29 Sciencism, it's the new fascism

30 8 Thank You, HAL!

That wasn't so fucking hard, was it?

Posted by: David Bowman at August 30, 2011 08:57 PM (niZvt)

I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.

31 It doesn't look like the drunks of MSNBC, CNN and the others will quit drinking any time soon.

32 That does explain why it really cools off at night though.

Food for thought . . . I wonder if that also accounts for why it's cooler in the shade. 

Whoa.  My mind is expanding, and it hurts.

33 I never want to hear another liberal complain about the catholic church and galileo. I weep for my profession

34 Wouldn't you rather see a moronette do it? With her tongue??

Posted by: CoolCzech at August 30, 2011 09:04 PM (niZvt)

Is this a trick question?

35 I was behind some hippy in a Prius today with his bumper just covered with stickers like the assholic walking fish symbol with "Darwin" written in it, and one reading, "Faith is Believing in Something You Know is NOT True!" A true member of the Atheist Religion. I'd like to get a Walking Fish Symbol for my car with the word BIGOT in the middle of it.

36 Our Honey Badgers will kick the ever-lovin shit out of those polar bears.

37

you know how science is settled?

BY Teh Sarah ANNOUNCING FRIDAY, THAT'S HOW YOU DAMN RINOS!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry, its been a while, i feel better now

38 If you really want to get into the history of bad science, there's always Junk Science but even more fun (and detailed) is Numberwatch (dot co dot uk). Engineer and scientist disassembling, in detail, the scares and bad science of the last sveral years. Not many posts now, he's in poor health (and has National Health Service to boot). I was about to go for a walk but I'll try to dig up a few of the key articles about major scientific flaws that infest a *lot* of modern science and post links.

39

This still won't change Mittens mind about AGW.

...OK..maybe it will, but then he'll change it right back when the media tells him to.

40
I'd like to get a Walking Fish Symbol for my car with the word BIGOT in the middle of it.

I'd rather masturbate with a cheese grater than talk to one of those fuckin Prius clowns.

41 Do they secure Al Gore in a Lockbox at night?

42 Well, if Contessa Brewer says the Science is Settled, then it's settled.

43

Posted by: CoolCzech at August 30, 2011 09:06 PM (niZvt)

 

The theory of Evolution has more holes in it than the ManBearPig's warmening bullshit...

But if you point that out you're a dumbfucking, no-nothing, creationist anti-sciencer

44 >>Food for thought . . . I wonder if that also accounts for why it's cooler in the shade. 
Posted by: Peaches at August 30, 2011 09:02 PM (aMAEM)

I would have gotten there eventually, but it's comforting to know everyone isn't just depending on my brainpower alone.

_{...they could in short intervals. Then I need a rest.}

45 Does this mean we can treat all liberals like RACISTS!!! ?

46

our Southern guys would never even call them polar bears, would shorten it to something like......... well something like BBQ.

47 One of the key links at Numberwatch is the FAQ, which in this case answers some very important questions. Numberwatch FAQ He talks a lot about the standards scientists set in their studies and how important they are, like Relative Risk and what it means and why so many studies' RR is so low the result is meaningless.

48 I always hoped someone would discover why cloudy days were cooler than sunny days.

So happy it was in my lifetime. Exciting times!

49

Well, if Contessa Brewer says the Science is Settled, then it's settled.

I had dinner at Applebee's and my waitress - Contessa Brewer - told me she still thinks the science is settled.

50 53 Well, if Contessa Brewer says the Science is Settled, then it's settled. I had dinner at Applebee's and my waitress - Contessa Brewer - told me she still thinks the science is settled. Posted by: beedubya at August 30, 2011 09:14 PM (AnTyA) Did you pop the cap off your beer bottle with her pooter?

51 Did someone mention eyepopping graphs?

http://tinyurl.com/3k9mzdu

52 uhhh maybe nsfw

53 The CERN message is a little more subtle, they are saying dont get involved in AGW because it is political - not science. This tact started with the physics guys in the UK, and guys like Freeman Dyson and Lidtzen (sp?) in the US. Real science and math professionals are starting to walk away from the mix of corellations, models, and massaged data that is AGW.

54 When you have noted envirocomedian Bill Nye, famed puppeteer Jim Hansen, acclaimed political speech writer/database manager Oliver Willis, and Chuckie the Neanderthal Bicyborg writing your science for you, it's hard to argue agin' it.

55

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at August 30, 2011 09:01 PM (bxiXv)

*ahem*

56 55 Did someone mention eyepopping graphs? http://tinyurl.com/3k9mzdu Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at August 30, 2011 09:22 PM (UrPTC) I think that girl must have a lot on her chest...

57 Some scam explanations from John Brignell (Numberwatch, as mentioned above). Special attention to RR > 2.0 (relative risk), but it's all good.

58 *ahem* Posted by: DDT at August 30, 2011 09:24 PM (MLZxF) You could not possibly have expected a comprehensive list. I do have other things to do before the next election.

59

i have lunch under some shade trees with a few people i work with and some from other places that work close to me......... 100% of the people there dont think its quite settled yet............. and for the record, everyone has some kind of meat everyday.

60 (from an earlier post on this blog) "The take-home message from this research is that we just donÂ’t understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms."

61 Being a scientist is an attitude more than a profession. Anyone can be a scientist. It just requires an inquiring mind and a willingness to experiment. Isaac Fucking Newton had some questions about vision; he stuck a darning needle into the side of his eye socket and pressured his eye in various ways. He then recorded his observations. Doing so, he practically created the entire scientific field of optics.
 
The entire field of plate tectonics was created by Alfred Wegener after he noticed that Africa and South America looked like they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.
 
Global warming is a bullshit 'consensus' theory that has a very serious major problem -- not one of the models have made an accurate prediction about the future. Thus, they spend a great deal of time explaining why their models suck.
 
Then they want to spend trillions of dollars fixing a 'problem' that they cannot accurately define.

62

it kinda comes down to this and always has.

1. somedays in the summer its real fucking hot.

2. somedays in the winter its real fucking cold.

63 I've looked at clouds from both sides now...

64 Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

65 Then they want to spend trillions of dollars fixing a 'problem' that they cannot accurately define. Posted by: GnuBreed at August 30, 2011 09:34 PM (ENKCw) It would be more accurate to say "they want money and to control people."

66 GnuBred, exactly. Thats where I see the political off ramp, dont argue the science - the science will never be settled and most voters wont put in the time to understand. Governments wont admit they were scammed, but they can say: come back when you can accurately measure what you want us to manage. Which will likely be never, and it gives the real scientists time to conduct the experiments needed to kill AGW.

67

IIRC correctly, this hypothesis was put forward in The Great Global Warming Swindle based on papers by the AMS in the 1970s.

The Danes must have just cribbed it.....

Fucking Danes...what's so great about 'em?

68

it kinda comes down to this and always has.

1. somedays in the summer its real fucking hot.

2. somedays in the winter its real fucking cold.

 

See?? It's chaos

69 I feel vindicated. Been saying it's all about the Sun's energy for 40 years. Only I didn't have a multi-billion dollar atom smasher in my backyard. Bummer. It could be me everyone is ignoring.

70 Fucking Danes...what's so great about 'em? Posted by: beedubya at August 30, 2011 09:44 PM (AnTyA) Hey, give a dog a bone!

71

"The Danes"?

Svensmark?

Why does he keep calling him The Danes?

72

Fucking Danes...what's so great about 'em? How do they work?

FIFY.

73 *cough*

74 The sun is a racist pig.

75 What I want to know is why no matter what "problem" the left is constantly discovering through "science", the solution is always, always the same: more government control and less human liberty. It's almost as if the "science" is just an excuse or something. Odd, that.

76 Peer reviewed means nothing if certain peers are silenced like here and at Hadley. Disgusting. There should be a Nurenburg type trial and executions for this global lie.

77 It would be a great leap for Science! if the practice of good data collection could be somehow cleanly compartmentalized from the business of bickering over what theories best account for the data.

78

Thou Shall confess that Global Warming is real, and that Al Gore is the one true prophet Dr. Kirby, or we shall Ex Communicate you from the Science Community and you shall loose your funding!

Now Repent!

79 I'd rather masturbate with a cheese grater than talk to one of those fuckin Prius clowns.

Posted by: sifty, Foo Pitying Teahadi at August 30, 2011 09:09 PM (4CSeG)

Ok.  I admit it.  I laughed out loud for a solid three minutes.

80 I agree with Vic, the whole bunch of Global Warming conspirators need to be prosecuted and thrown in jail.  Think of the billions and billions of dollars they have cost not only our government but governments world wide.  Bilking people and industries out of their money and in some cases their livelihoods.  People like Gore should have their assets confiscated and thrown in jail.

81 Trillions are at stake, they won't back off.  Alarmism is no more scientific than what you hear from a free-energy generator scam artist.  However, it's all falling apart. The internet makes information control ever  more difficult, not that they haven't tried.  I knew physicists would one day take down this bullshit, once I heard Freeman Dyson discount the alarmism in a few short sentences.  It's a shame real scientists have to spend so much time and effort to disprove a sick eco-marxist fantasy.

82 52 I always hoped someone would discover why cloudy days were cooler than sunny days.

So happy it was in my lifetime. Exciting times!

Posted by: sifty, Foo Pitying Teahadi at August 30, 2011 09:14 PM (4CSeG)

Wow, you're right!  I've noticed the same when that when the big flaming ball isn't in the sky.  Think there's a pattern?

83 First thing is - OF COURSE the sun causes global warming. But - what KEEPS the globe warm, even on the side opposite the sun is the atmosphere? If we had no atmosphere, like Mercury or the moon or Mars, then we'd fry on the side facing the sun and freeze on the side away from it. If our atmosphere was too thick, like it is on Venus, then we'd never get rid of all the warming the sun adds to us and we'd melt. The issues really come down to 1. is our atmosphere is getting too thick to allow enough heat to leave the planet (no one seriously disputes this); 2. whether it's getting too thick BECAUSE of what we humans are doing (where the debate is currently stalled between the scientific consensus and others); and 3. whether we can do anything to reverse that effect or at least slow it down (which many, me included, think is where the debate should really be). So, the part this writer Lawrence Solomon is talking about that's clearly true - that the sun warms up the earth - isn't exactly news (duh); and the rest is just made up. Jasper Kirby doesn't need CERN for any of his research on the interaction between cosmic rays and cloud dynamics: he convinced China to build him a particle collider to his very own specs, and he's also directly involved with at least four other particle colliders. But besides all that, CERN has never even tried to interfere with let alone stop Kirby's research. Just last month Kirby and CERN published a joint release on the status of his project there: http://tinyurl.com/3n58q2w (warning: PDF) Last point: the Solomon article quotes something Kirby said in 1998; but Solomon fails to quote what Kirby is saying in 2011. What Kirby was talking about in 1998 was the basis of his theory that the effects of cosmic rays on clouds in the earth's atmosphere may account for a significant portion of increased resistance to heat escaping the atmosphere, and he was looking for sponsorship to advance that research. What Kirby is saying now - well, it's in the PDF, but here is the key quote: "This
 result
 leaves 
open
 the
 possibility 
that
cosmic 
rays
 could
 also
 influence 
climate.
" So in 13 years, Kirby has gone from 'cosmic rays may be the MAIN CAUSE of climate change', to 'maybe possibly cosmic rays have SOME effect on the climate'.

84

Rex, Kirkby (that's his NAME) was forced to rewrite the paper by Director-General Heuer in a rather public manner.  He had to say his results were not authoritative.  And heck, it means more funding for more research.

Don't be the last on deck as the evidence mounts against this, Rex.  This theory has yet to make a long-term prediction that is outside normal climate variations or trends going back centuries.  The 6% contribution of humanity to .04% of the atmosphere won't turn us into Venus, despite the Carl Sagan specials you may have seen as a kid.

85 I hear you Corkie; we'll just have to agree to disagree. Tell you what, though: I LIKE the idea of governments paying scientists a boatload of money to DISPROVE global warming and that humans contribute materially to it. That's one way science works: trying to prove the converse. If Kirkby (corrected) thinks he has a reasonable way to go after those, great - more power (and money) to him. But the fact is that in 13 years, far from proving his point, or even advancing it, he's actually come to the point of SOFTENING his position. And if you think he's having trouble finding money to continue his research, that's clearly not the case; nor would it be given the amount of money the oil and gas industry has at stake in this debate. More: Kirkby (still corrected) is pretty much as good as it gets these days for the converse to the consensus view. Now, I, like I expect many here, actually have a dog in this fight, because a big chunk of my investments are in oil and gas production; so I'd actually like to see the industry spend MORE money on projects like the one Kirkby (STILL corrected) is pursuing, so we can get something more substantial behind the converse side than denial. I'm driven to the conclusion that a big reason we DON'T see more work like that of Kirkby (and STILL corrected) is because there just aren't that many credible ideas out there for going after it; otherwise, instead of hacks like Solomon, we'd be seeing more work product on the converse from scientists.

86

Rex, Kirkby was sandbagged for years by the alarmists.  I remember reading their protestations.  Like you I approve of spending more money disproving the "oceans-will-drown-us-all-soon-if-we-don't-kill-all-our-cows" theory.  I believe AGW has a slight effect, just not enough to worry about because the water vapor/cloud feedback is negative at the low CO2 concentrations we'll see for the next millenia, assuming a linear rise.

Every time I blink reputable scientists are revising downard the physical effects of AGW at the same time the activists are become ever more shrill (climate change induces mental illness, war, refugees, etc., ad nauseum, ad absurdum)  After all this arm-waving, until Vanuatu disappears under the waves (not due to subsidence or erosion), I won't take CAGW seriously.  Heck, at this point I'd have to see our lifeguard stations drowned.  I'm not alone in this.  The next time a survey is taken of physicists, meteorolgists or geologists on this subject, I think you'll be surprised.  Not just the general public is becoming more skeptical.

87 Then: THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!

Now: THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED UNSETTLED!

And I'm lovin it!

88

The complete hypocrisy of the political overlords on AGW is shown with (as mentioned above) Gore's use of various luxurious methods of burning fossil fuels (far more than the average family), and moreso by the astounding arrogance of the Obama administration/EPA fascists blocking all attempts to drill for oil off the US coast (citing environmental AGW impact) while handing Brazil billions of US taxpayer funds to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil.

Furthermore, the scientists looking at the levels of CO2 pollution from burning ethanol versus regular gasoline have repeatedly reported that ethanol leads to MORE production of the "evil" CO2 than burning regular gasoline - because you have to burn more volume of ethanol than regular gasoline to drive a specified distance. So knowing this, how criminal is it that the EPA fascists are still requiring us to burn our food crops while adding more atmospheric CO2 in the process?

What kills me is that in discussing this issue with kids coming out of college these days, I ask them why they think CO2 is a toxin, and bad for plants, when they know plants metabolize CO2 similarly to how animals metabolize oxygen? I ask them how the polar ice caps on Mars were noted to be shrinking at similar magnitude to Earth's ice caps if mankind is supposed to be causing all the global warming/climate change instead of the sun (when they were still 'shrinking') - and they get the same dumbfounded look every time, just like the people in "Idiocracy" when told to give plants water to make them grow...("You mean, like, from the toilet?!?)

Hell, I work with other physicians (who you would hope had better than average understanding of basic scientific principles) who parrot the AGW propaganda and despite having no answers for simple questions that bring heavy doubt onto the cult of AGW - these other docs start sputtering the most ridiculous excuses usually centering on AGW critics being funded by oil companies. It's completely disheartening being unable to get through such intentional thickheadedness, and I weep for the future of mankind.

 

89 1. Is our atmosphere is getting too thick to allow enough heat to leave the planet (no one seriously disputes this); WTF! Not only do you layout some bs about the atmo being too thick, you then coat it with the old "Science is Settled" shtick. The issue is the rate of warming; are we in some runaway, feedback driven loop that will doom us all, or a normal increase from the Little Ice Age back the norms of the Holocene. Hence, all the tree ring crap, questionable stats in hockey stick reconstructions, and thumb on the scale adjustments to the temp record. Atmospheric chemistry composition is a sideshow, and one that isnt breaking your way either lately (reevaluation of GHG amounts and satellite imaging of non-uniform co2 distribution).

90

91 Rex, you do realize that your argument that "a big reason we don't see more work like that of Kirkby...is because there just aren't that many credible ideas out there for going after [the theory of AGW]" could be due to the fact that the AGW establishment has almost completely succeeded in blocking publication of papers that debunk AGW, right?

92

1. is our atmosphere is getting too thick to allow enough heat to leave the planet (no one seriously disputes this);

Really, no one?  Not even the NASA satellites that confirmed there had been no heat increase in the last decade?

2. whether it's getting too thick BECAUSE of what we humans are doing
(where the debate is currently stalled between the scientific consensus and others); and

the vaunted scientific consensus.  Note, not "science".  Nobody claims that science proves anything  regarding what you are saying.  Instead, all of the huxsters out there claim "scientific consensus".  Which means, scientists who agree with me count, those who disagree do not count.
3. whether we can do anything to reverse that effect or at least slow it down  (which many, me included, think is where the debate should really be).

well of course that's where you want the debate.  you don't want people to learn the actual truth about the sham science that does not support enacting the incredibly silly ideas you have to combat the non-existent threat.  You would much rather have a debate about "what we should do" than "what is the science".  That has been true about AGW alarmist from teh get-go.  Not one has ever wanted to have any actual science performed. 

93 This info is a terrific read. Thanks for the info.I am looking forward for more updates.