March 16, 2010

"Just look at what has been happening for the last three days," Al Gore said.

"The so-called skeptics haven’t noted it because it’s not snow. But the downpours and heavy winds are consistent with what the scientists have long warned about."

Now, what's the rule on whether we can observe the weather and say something about climate change? I'm just trying to get this straight. I think the rule is: Weather can be used as evidence of climate when it supports the theory of global warming anthropogenic climate change. There's also a corollary: Whatever happens is evidence global warming anthropogenic climate change. Another way of putting this is: You may only make statements of belief in global warming anthropogenic climate change.

See how easy it is to be a member of the Church of Gore?

Go. And sin no more.

171 comments:

MadisonMan said...

Politicians should not talk about science.

Pogo said...

If anything that happens means there is "climate change", then there is no evidence that falsifies it, therefore, AGW is not scientific reasoning.

More simply, if everything is AGW, then nothing is AGW.

AllenS said...

Gorentology.

MadisonMan said...

If you're interested in climate statistics for the past winter, here is a nice link for the US and Canada, and here's a link for 2009, globally.

Quayle said...

Pogo is dead on. What kind of correlation is it when any value of x gives a single value of y?

Or put another way, if any subsequent or second observation is automatically caused by CO2, then everything is caused by CO2. new cars, David Beckham's ruptured achilles tendon, the results of the special Olympics - they were and all must be caused by high levels of CO2.

As Karl Popper said, "I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. ... It must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.

Quayle said...

Oh, one other thing Popper said:

The old scientific ideal of episteme — of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge — has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever.

garage mahal said...

There is a church with some weird members who believe in kooky conspiracy theories about weather alright....

AllenS said...

Tiger Woods: "There's too much CO2 in the air. I can't help myself."

WV: fropooki

That's a good one.

kent said...

"I'm serial! I'm SUPER-serial!!!"

Theo Boehm said...

I really wish now that Mark Twain hadn't made that joke.

Mikio said...

AGW affirmers have scientists informing their opinion. AGW deniers/skeptics don't trust scientists. They instead trust conservative talk show hosts, conservative reporters, and conservative politicians as higher authorities on science. Oh, and themselves, of course, and their own hatred of "damn hippie" environmentalists.

Pogo said...

AGW has caused my basement to leak again this spring, made my favorite shirt rip, and makes me feel not-so-fresh.

traditionalguy said...

Gore lies. The rain in March has never been a predicted result from CO2 rising. The trillions more borrowed money to be spent on Al's friends windmill scams won't add a job that hasn't been lost twice in oil and coal production. The need for overseas oil will end the day we drill here and drill now, and not a second sooner. The crashing of what is left of this bankrupt backwater (see, Detroit)will defang the US military. That is always the Soros and friends #1 goal. Then our resources will be taken at gun point by the Russians and Chinese. Lies have consequences.

Pogo said...

"AGW affirmers have scientists informing their opinion."

Ha ha ha.
Man, you kill me, dude.

vet66 said...

I suspect that all the politicians who are removed from office in 2010for voting for Obamacare are being promised jobs in Gore's green economy. When el nino strikes it is AGW. When la nina strikes it is AGW. When neither inflicts their weather altering presence on Gaia it is AGW. We don't need no stinking solar warming or natural oscillations. By GAWD, I mean Gore, the very breath we exhale is a pollutant.

Note to Gore; this cow has been milked dry. Now you are just playing with it. For the cows sake at least you have warm hands.

Let's call AGW what it really is meant to be: Anthropogenic Gore Warming.

mvl said...

Liberals have always been right about everything, in my long history of interacting with them.

Fred4Pres said...

This is the type of poor argument that gives trial lawyers a bad name. It is disingenous.

Fred4Pres said...

That is why we say March Comes In Like A Lion and Goes Out Like a Lamb. Because it is all about the global warming.

Of course in Australia they probably say, September Comes In Like A Tasmanian Devil And Goes Out Like A Wombat or something like that.

Quayle said...

AGW affirmers have scientists informing their opinion. AGW deniers/skeptics don't trust scientists. They instead trust conservative talk show hosts, conservative reporters, and conservative politicians as higher authorities on science.

And conservative talk show hosts don't have scientists informing their opinion?

Actually, I have a science degree, and I don't trust any scientist who cooks the data and abuses the scientific method by using a string of unverifiable assumptions in a sequential computer model.

That, sir, is not science. That is "what if" stuff.

Salamandyr said...

If you're interested in climate statistics for the past winter, here is a nice link for the US and Canada, and here's a link for 2009, globally.

My one quibble with that data MM, is that the areas showing warmer temperatures are largely in areas where we have fewer resources to measure it. For instance, it's fairly well known that cities create heat blooms around them. If the temperature data from South America comes from observation stations largely centered around urban areas, with fewer back country stations compared to say, the US, then that will push the overall average upwards. Likewise temperatures over the ocean.

I can't say for sure that's the case, perhaps we can measure global temperatures with a fair degree of accuracy and granularity with the use of weather satellites (though I still imagine satellite coverage over Africa and South America is less than over the Northern Hemisphere), but I think it's something to be aware of.

Big Mike said...

@Mikio, you have it precisely backwards. You need to go back to college and take some good math classes.

Lincolntf said...

Nobody can credibly claim to believe in any of the AGW hysteria any more. If someone starts hopping from one "settled fact" to another, for years, as each subsequent "fact" is debunked, you can infer that they are full of shit.
Anyone still peddling the Party line re: catastrophic climate change is a liar or a hopeless naif, plain and simple.

Mikio said...

Conservatives ignore facts like this -- 97% of climate scientists active in research affirm AGW -- and instead push the lie that there is no consensus or that scientific consensus is meaningless. Either way, they're both stupid lies as is thinking Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh is better informed about about the subject.

Lincolntf said...

So you're saying that "climate scientists" agree with "climate activists" over the existence of AGW? No shit, Sherlock, they're the same people.
They invented it, along with all the "data" to prove it.

AJ Lynch said...

Gore says this stuff with a straight face- he coulda been an actor.

MadisonMan said...

(though I still imagine satellite coverage over Africa and South America is less than over the Northern Hemisphere)

Polar-orbiting satellites give great polar coverage, and much higher resolution than satellites sitting above the Equator. I think most satellite studies use polar orbiters only for exactly that reason. Once you get poleward of, say, 60N or 60 S, the pixel footprint from the satellite sitting over the Equator is huge.

Pogo said...

I would very much enjoy pouring a pitcher of water over Al Gore's head, saying Sorry dude, it's that damned global warming.

EnglishKanighit said...

@Mikio

From your linked article:

"A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments."

themightypuck said...

I don't want to get into an AGW debate here, but just because Gore says some stupid shit about AGW doesn't necessarily mean AGW doesn't exist.

Quayle said...

"Conservatives ignore facts like this -- 97% of climate scientists active in research affirm AGW -- and instead push the lie that there is no consensus or that scientific consensus is meaningless."

And do you think that scientists are immune from knowing what side of their bread is buttered, and who is likely to butter it more?

Modern Science is infused with all kinds of conflicts of interest that are rarely accounted for by gullible masses.

Maguro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maguro said...

Conservatives ignore facts like this -- 97% of climate scientists active in research affirm AGW.

The Climategate emails already demonstrated that they achieve their near-unanimous consensus by exclusion. Those with the temerity to question AGW theory just get kicked out of the climate scientists club, and those who choose to remain are believers by definition.

It's like saying that 97% of Muslims believe in Mohammed's divinity. It proves nothing.

Big Mike said...

@Mikio, here's the money quote from your own link:

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Everyone agrees with the former, but did the article tell you that the period from around 1600 to around 1850 was unusually cold and is called the "Little Ice Age"? Hmm? Would not one expect the global temperatures to rise relative to a time when the climate was unusually cold?

As to the second, also true, but does the article address what sorts of human activities are the drivers? For instance the eastern United States was once almost entirely covered in forests from the Atlantic ocean to the Mississippi river and today those forests are gone. Slash and burn agriculture in today's tropical rainforests contributes more CO2 to the atmosphere than all the cars and all the fossil fuel power plants in the entire world (while removing vegetation that absorbs CO2, BTW). The article doesn't mention that, does it?

(You don't have to take my word for it; you could look it up. If you are as interested in real science as you pretend, you will look it up.)

Meanwhile we know that the climate has been much warmer than what we have today, and even what has been predicted for the end of this century. This was called the "Medieval Warm Period", and we know from historical records, not to mention archeology, that for a period from around 1000 AD to about 1450 (or perhaps a little earlier) people were able to live in southwestern Greenland using no more than ordinary medieval farming technology. Care to try that today?

The article you link to is an example of lying by telling only part of the story.

Peter V. Bella said...

Whipping rains, floods, rising seas, drought, pestilence, avalanches, earthquakes, and the rest are all found in the Old Testament. Then there were all those other historic geological and climatic catastrophes of the ancient world. Add to that the book of Revelations.

Substitute some modern language, and voila, the great American crisis is born. Like the great American novel. Great reading, controversial, and all pure fiction.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

What everyone else said to Mikio about incentives, but also,

Who, exactly, has said "Ignore the scientists and listen to Beck/Limbaugh"? Althouse is not quoting a radio host, she's quoting Al Gore, and then demonstrating, based on her own logic, that Gore is nonsensical.

Gore's nonsense is obvious to most people who are paying attention and not influenced by incentives or religious zeal, so it's no surprise that radio hosts, other bloggers, and a lot of average joes have pointed out similar logical failures.

You're creating a straw man, dude, and it's pretty pathetic. Try arguing why what Gore says (that weather is not climate, except when it is) makes sense and see how that works for you.
- Lyssa

Seven Machos said...

Mikio -- Your argument falls apart embarrassingly and sadly because most conservatives -- especially the ones here -- pay no attention to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

I wouldn't even know who Glenn Beck is if it wasn't for leftists telling me what he says all the time.

Peter V. Bella said...

Is there actually a definition of a climate scientist? Is there some kind of universal concept that defines what climate science is?

Or can any meteorologist, geologist, nuclear physicist, astronomer, chemist, biologist, political scientist, social scientist, behavioral scientist, or astrologer claim to be a climate scientist?

Peter V. Bella said...

Oh, I just remembered, Gore did study theology. I guess theologists are climate scientists too. It fits in with the whole apocalyptic science fiction theory of the earth being destroyed by_________
Fill in the blank.

William said...

I see a willful refusal of Americans to face the fact that their obesity is causing severe displacement of the earth's delicate eco-crust. Don't you think it's a trifle suspicious that all these earthquakes are suddenly happening just at a time when Americans are packing on the pounds and further compounding the problem by making their elaborate meals on granite counter tops. Let me break this down for you: when an elephant steps on a pottery vessel, the weight causes the surface of the pottery vessel to crack. Thus so with the tectonic plates of the earth and the pudgy Gore family. You can deny this all you want but the evidence is there before your eyes.

Mikio said...

Hey, AGW deniers/skeptics! If AGW is fake, explain the following…
Chevron affirming AGW.
ExxonMobil affirming AGW.
BP affirming AGW.
Shell affirming AGW.

Now why would your precious oil companies like these ones here join with us tree-hugging, America-hatin', hippie environmentalist, God-hatin' Marxists and intentionally knock their own wonderful, freedom-representin' product like that for the sake of a huge, scientific hoax? It doesn't make sense!

Seven Machos said...

Mikio, are you a clever satirist?

Original Mike said...

"I wouldn't even know who Glenn Beck is if it wasn't for leftists telling me what he says all the time."

Heh.

Lincolntf said...

Mikio, it's called a "shakedown".

It's also the result of Al Gore and Co.'s success in building the brand of "AGW", and making it into an ubiquitous symbol of some vague original sin, while at the same time offering redemption for those who made sacrifices.
Oh, and what red-blooded American company doesn't capitalize on stupid trends for marketing and PR purposes?

The Drill SGT said...

I thought all this AGW was solved when Althouse voted for the Won.

Hasn't the Earth begun to heal and the rise of the Oceans slowed yet?

Rialby said...

I'd also like to remind you all what garage or FLS or someone said here just a few weeks ago after Chile and Haiti - if you drop an ice cube into a warm glass of water, you will have cracks. Ipso facto, earthquakes can be blamed on climate change nee global warming.

EnglishKanighit said...

@Mikio

"Hey, AGW deniers/skeptics! If AGW is fake, explain the following..."

Considering that in the past any study that could be even remotely tied to the oil industry was met with claims from alarmist that such ties was evidence of lack of scientific rigor, then your links obviously indicate such a deficit for AGW.

Rialby said...

Btw, if Sarah Palin had said - the oceans will cease to rise if you elect me, Tina Fey would be a billionaire for just restating that real statement in a bad Wisconsin accent.

Unfortunately, our President said it and it just got added to the pile of nonsense that he and Doofus McScrewup spew on an almost daily basis.

Michael said...

Yep, those climate scientists have long warned that it was going to pour over the weekend in the NY area. And you deniers and "so-called" skeptics didn't even bother to bring umbrellas did you? See. See.

Lincolntf said...

Fortunately, the whole AGW argument is over, at least among the thinking class. Bummed I never got a rational attempt from a Lib to answer my question... "Why would scientists break the law to hide data that proved them right"?

Oh well. Everyone remember to celebrate Nov. 19th this year. "Whistleblower Day" has a nice ring to it, no?

Brian Hancock said...

I'm with Instapundit (to paraphrase), I'll start treating AGW like a crisis, when those are saying it's a crisis starts acting like it.

Borepatch said...

The best analysis of the whole AGW/ClimateGate situation is at The Devil's Kitchen.

It walks through the process of WHY the science (and engineering, and economics) is being short circuited, and where.

And yes, it comes out where you'd expect, but it's a brilliant analysis and well worth your time if you're 50 comments deep into a global warming post.

Issob Morocco said...

@Mikio, if you read the article it doesn't not quite match up to your insinuation. Let's breakdown the details.

First only 33% responded to the request (3416 out of 10200), of those asked to respond who did respond 27.5% thought man was leading cause of AGW. Hardly the type of poll numbers to say the matter is resolved as you did.

Secondly, one has to ask why would an environmental scientist want to measure opinions of their colleagues? Would that not be better left to social scientists, statisticians and opinion researchers?

Oh that is right the authors wanted to "...overcome criticisms of earlier attempts to gauge the views of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor.".

Hmmm, sounds like he did not like the previous criticism of another skewed poll so he sidled up with a former student to take on the necessary and rigorouse defense of AGW. An axe to grind if you will.

Third point, bias drips from the paragraphs, which should not be a surprise given the left leanings of the organizations like the American Geophysical Union which are presenting this article back in 2009.

The group that most agrees with their questions is of course the one group in the know, because, "They're the ones who study and publish on Climate Science." Yes only those in such overwhelming agreement can see the truth is what the Pro AGW researchers say. Therefore no further study is needed. Just move on.

But they can't leave well enough alone on such a positive note so they have interject their personal biases like dissing the low agreement numbers of the evil "Petroleum Geologists" and gasp "meteorologists". But never fear it is understandable why they disagree, petroleum and short term phenomenon studiers are just too much in denial to see man's harm.

So as Disraeli so aptly said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics.". Digging into your weak case, one sees why so many are challenging the religion of Gorentology (props to Allen S.)

Cheers!

Henry said...

March: In like a lion, out like a moron.

Roman said...

If bulls#$t was lightning, Gore could set the world on fire!

dbp said...

"Mikio said...
Hey, AGW deniers/skeptics! If AGW is fake, explain the following…
Chevron affirming AGW.
ExxonMobil affirming AGW.
BP affirming AGW.
Shell affirming AGW."

Would you be listing oil companies as credible experts if they denied AGW? No?

I didn't think so.

Henry said...

@Borepatch -- Thanks for the article. Excellent stuff.

Kirk Parker said...

7,

"Mikio, are you a clever satirist?"

"Nah, just regular-type."



wv - 'mentakid'

TMink said...

From the Jewish and Christian traditions, if someone claims to be a prophet and is just blowing smoke, you kill them.

Now I do not wish any harm on my former senator, but there is something to be said for tradition.

Trey

Comrade X said...

Will no one rid us of this corpulent priest?

Shanna said...

Whipping rains, floods, rising seas, drought, pestilence, avalanches, earthquakes, and the rest are all found in the Old Testament. Then there were all those other historic geological and climatic catastrophes of the ancient world. Add to that the book of Revelations.

Gore talks very much like the religious folsk who say it’s about to be the end of times because there was an earthquake yesterday. I roll my eyes at them too (not sure if that makes me a bad christian but I do :).

Hoosier Daddy said...

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.

Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?

Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.

Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!

Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...

Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!

Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Ghostbusters, 1984

vet66 said...

Isn't that precious? Deny oil companies the ability to expand drilling for oil and demonize coal producers for producing coal. Then wonder why they jump on the climate cow to get their share.

Palin famously stated; "Drill, Baby, Drill" and we see how far that went even when the facts showed a marginal drilling footprint in ANWR. It is clear to all but the most obtuse that the fix was in to enrich Gore, Soros, G.E. and all the groupies looking to get their share of the pie.

I keep looking for real estate fire sales on beachfront property in the Hamptons but no deal. Even if I had the money they wouldn't sell to the nouveau riche just the blue-bloods who are in on the scam.

WV: fedneti = money taken from the rest of us by the government for snake oil schemes.

Mikio said...

Quayle -
And conservative talk show hosts don't have scientists informing their opinion?

Indeed they do not. Because if they did, they’d come to the rational conclusion that it’s more likely 97% of climate scientists active in research are to be believed than 3%. Instead, they’re informed not by scientists, but by their own hatred of environmentalists. Period. When have you conservatives ever said environmentalists were right? I rest my case. Hatred and bigotry form your opinion, not reason.

And do you think that scientists are immune from knowing what side of their bread is buttered, and who is likely to butter it more?

Scientists want to do science. They don’t wake up every day so they can spend their whole day lying. Your tinfoil hat’s working very well for you obviously.

And you’re just illustrating what I said in my first post:
“AGW deniers/skeptics don't trust scientists.”

I challenge you to show a shred of honesty and admit that’s true.

EnglishKanighit -

As for you, nothing in your copy & paste refutes anything I’ve said. Your post is pointless.

Maguro -
The Climategate emails already demonstrated that they achieve their near-unanimous consensus by exclusion.
You’re believing tabloid bullshit. Grow a brain.

It's like saying that 97% of Muslims believe in Mohammed's divinity. It proves nothing.

You as well are just illustrating what I said in my first post:
“AGW deniers/skeptics don't trust scientists.”

Big Mike -
The article you link to is an example of lying by telling only part of the story.

You also think you’re smarter or more honest than 97% of climate scientists active in research. I don’t. I trust them, not a dumbass like you or Sean Hannity.

And you as well are just illustrating what I said in my first post:
“AGW deniers/skeptics don't trust scientists.”

lyssalovelyredhead -
Althouse is not quoting a radio host, she's quoting Al Gore, and then demonstrating, based on her own logic, that Gore is nonsensical.

No, she’s not. You and she are just typical conservative liberal-haters attacking Al Gore because he’s an easier target for you than the 97% of climate scientists active in research who collectively are a stronger source on the subject than ANY source you dumbasses have for your side. That’s just reality.

Seven Machos -
Mikio -- Your argument falls apart embarrassingly and sadly because most conservatives -- especially the ones here -- pay no attention to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

No, it doesn’t fall apart. Beck and Limbaugh are just representative of how weak your side’s sources are compared to ours. We completely trump you. This is why oil companies themselves have caved in, like I showed in my previous post. This, too, is just reality. You morons can’t handle reality.

bagoh20 said...

The preacher violates his own sermons far beyond any of his flock, but the flock still fills the collection plate. It's pretty standard big-church religion.

Mikio said...

Issob Morocco -
First only 33% responded to the request (3416 out of 10200), of those asked to respond who did respond 27.5% thought man was leading cause of AGW. Hardly the type of poll numbers to say the matter is resolved as you did.

You obviously don’t understand what statistical sampling is. I have no patience for your idiocy. Go look it up.

Secondly, one has to ask why would an environmental scientist want to measure opinions of their colleagues? Would that not be better left to social scientists, statisticians and opinion researchers?

An independent researcher was part of it, dipshit. Learn to read:
“Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded.”

Third point, bias drips from the paragraphs,

No, it’s your own brain drowning in bias that makes you think that.

dbp -
Would you be listing oil companies as credible experts if they denied AGW? No?

Of course not, because their motives would be clearly more understandable in that case of being deniers/skeptics themselves for self-preservation. That they’re doing the opposite is what’s so powerful. You can’t get that on your own because you’re a conservative and, sadly, retarded.

Seven Machos said...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

bagoh20 said...

Mikio,

You really need to update your facts, the few facts you use. The truth has left your arguments behind months ago.

bagoh20 said...

Virtually every pro AGW expert was using the exact same data which has been invalidated and admittedly so by it main authors. The AGW clingers are like those staying in the bunker after the preacher's predicted Armageddon never comes. "We like it in here; all our eggs are in this basket now."

Seven Machos said...

As you can easily see from his cold and emotion-free review of the arguments, Mikio is clearheaded and objective. In no way is this personal or religious for him.

John said...

Mikio,

I am curious how accurate you think measurements of global temperature are.

+/- 3 deg?
+/- 1 Deg?

Give us your number.

Anyone else who thinks they know feel free to chime in too.

John Henry
www.changeover.com

Seven Machos said...

It took human beings thousands and thousands of years to get beyond the simpleminded and foolish belief that the gods change the weather because of the way humans act.

Oh well. Enlightened thought had a good run there for while. Right, Mikio?

Synova said...

Oil company motivations to do lip service to AGW are entirely understandable and profit based.

Statistical sampling on something self-selected to voluntary responses is not statistical sampling.

And also, to whomever pointed out that lack of proof isn't proof of lack... you're right. But it's the job of science to get the proof and actually make the case and so far it has not happened.

Consensus isn't science and never has been. It is, however, a good way to get more funding.

Mikio said...

"Climategate" is a hugely overblown scandal involving a handful of climate scientists. Yes the matter needs to be investigated to the hilt. Let it be. I'm 100% confident it doesn't change the overall near-certainty of AGW. To say it's representative of the climate science research community as a whole is a big, steaming turd of a lie. You idiots trumpet it like it is, though, because lies and cherry-picking are all you've got.

Seven Machos said...

Mikio -- Human beings can't change the weather. Your beliefs that you feel are so cutting edge are the same emotive barbarianism that led peoples to establish religion in the first place. What is truly hilarious is that you have so proudly take the gods out of the equation, yet you end up with such a laughably primitive premise.

The name-calling also makes you sound really, totally serious, too. You fucking asshole. You toolish cunt. See, now I am also intellectually superior, just like you.

bagoh20 said...

I want to know what we are supposed to do if the rerunning of the data in less biased modeling shows declining temps since the end of the warming period around 2000 which followed the Maunder Minimum and continuing on into the future. Do we start subsidizing Hummers? The Lewinsky initiative?

Kensington said...

I worked for BP in the 1990s. The culture and environment was sheer Moonbat from the top down.

That's the case at big corporations far more often than many liberals realize or care to admit.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

I said: "Althouse is not quoting a radio host, she's quoting Al Gore, and then demonstrating, based on her own logic, that Gore is nonsensical."

Mikio said: "No, she’s not."

So I check the original post. AA said: "'Just look . . . ' Al Gore said."

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that she was quoting Al Gore there. The rest of her post goes on to point out the absurdity of his statement, thus demonstrating his statement as nonsensical.

Try to keep up.

bagoh20 said...

""Climategate" is a hugely overblown scandal involving a handful of climate scientists. "

That handful provided virtually all the data in support of AGW. If the lying ones are all anybody listened too, and they are, then they are all wrong. If everyone cheats off the same idiot in class, everyone fails.

Seven Machos said...

Let's all get together and discuss this vital issue at a posh location. We'll all fly on big jets. We'll stay in the best hotels and that you the most energy. We'll dine on delicious food.

Then, we'll come back on big jets and tell everyone that they must live their lives using less energy and paying the government lots of money to combat the evils of global warming. It's the only way. Otherwise, the gods will be angered and they will raise temperatures even further.

Lincolntf said...

Mikio-
Why would the leading experts at the most influential "climate science" factory in the world break the law to hide data if it proved them right?
It's impossible for me to rationalize, even theoretically, but you can take a stab at it if you'd like.

Seven Machos said...

No one even knows what the data is or how it was collected, but everyone agrees about what we should do about said data, except evil conservative fuckface rubes.

Roger J. said...

Ah the Mikio troll reemerges--tell you what dude (or dudette as the case may be). Establish your personal credibility by publishing for the readers your CV, degrees and from whence, and papers you have written for peer reviewed journals.
Then your opinions might merit consideration. I am betting that isnt going to happen. And from what I have seen of your posts you havent the remotest idea of the scientific method. But by all means persuade me otherwise.

Issob Morocco said...

@Mikio, what is the common thread to the 4 oil companies agreement on the AGW?

The UN's disgraced IPCC. Which was mostly developed with the input of the CRU at East Anglia University, which you cite as something which should be investigated, but then proceed to diminish them as minor players in this matter.

Oil companies are market driven, so they will use what they think their customers want.

When your arguments incorporate personal ad hominum attacks as defense of your position, it becomes time for you to return to your village. They miss you and need your guidance and leadership.

Cheers!

Synova said...

Glad to know you have faith, Mikio.

Even if it is faith in a man selling green indulgences for massive personal profit.

It's funny, really, how the preferred solution to AGW makes the leaders of the push to popularize the global warming scare personally wealthy while blocking energy solutions that are "green" and that few if any "deniers" would object to in any fashion whatsoever.

Some how saving the world just isn't that important if it can be done without converting people first.

So why should anyone believe that those who claim to believe in AGW aren't lying to us every day? The proof is in the pudding.

The proof is in George Bush's hyper energy efficient Texas ranch home and Gore's decadent energy-sucking mansion. It's in global conferences to address the "problem" that require parking all the private jets in the next country over. The proof is in large and small hypocrisies without end including the one that Althouse pointed out above where weather is only proof when it supports AGW and repeated by Mikio below with the assertion that Oil companies are only trustworthy when they publicly agree with AGW. The proof is in the reluctance of the "climate scientists" from the very beginning to release their data, or, as it turns out, even bother to retain their data.

If AGW is true or not true the "climate scientists" deserve the spanking they are getting for not doing science.

And if someone wants to keep up the good fight "just in case" then stop enabling Gore and his profiting from selling indulgences that let the wealthy off the hook for lifestyle changes by depending on keeping the world's poor in low CO2 enforced poverty or other "green" industry that isn't "green" once the actual cost is counted and isn't competitive but relies on the subsidies provided by non-green industry... and lets start building nuke plants wholesale.

Put up, or shut up.

Freeman Hunt said...

I worked for BP in the 1990s. The culture and environment was sheer Moonbat from the top down.

That's the case at big corporations far more often than many liberals realize or care to admit.


Good point. Many people reflexively assume corporations are conservative and capitalist. The biggest ones are rarely capitalist. They're happy to use government to protect them from competition and as consumers of their products. Government usually pays slow, but it pays big.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You obviously don’t understand what statistical sampling is. I have no patience for your idiocy.

Umm...actually I don't think you understand it either.

Less than a third of the scientists polled responded.

Figure it out Einstein.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Mikio, by chance are you in favor of mass construction of nuclear power plants in place of coal fired plants to reduce our carbon emmissions while maintaining our current standard of living?

Because if your answer is no then you are dismissed from the conversation as no one with an IQ higher than their shoe size thinks we should cripple our economy so the Maldives won't go underwater in 2275.

Freeman Hunt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EnglishKanighit said...

@Mikio

RE

""The Climategate emails already demonstrated that they achieve their near-unanimous consensus by exclusion."
You’re believing tabloid bullshit. Grow a brain."

and

""Climategate" is a hugely overblown scandal"

The Institute of Physics disagrees with you.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

rocketeer67 said...

Is there actually a definition of a climate scientist?

Well, I don't have a definition, but I have a counter-definition, if you will - to wit: real sciences have real names, like "physics," "biology," "astronomy," etc. If it has "science" in the name, it's not. Sorry political scientists, social scientists, computer scientists, et al, but it's true.

Roger J. said...

Ah Mikio--Hoosier Daddy has it right with sampling. Random sampling is the gold standard for sampling from a population--in the case the population is the number of "climate scientists" (however the definition of a climate scientist is a bit vague). But assuming the the 10K or so "climate scientists" were sampled, what we have is some small percentage of these scientists SELF REPORTED which does not a RANDOM sample make. It is a BIASED sample.

Now ordinarily it doesnt take a large number of respondents to a truly random sample to provide some results you can use (no one is quite sure but it appears to be a fairly small number to obtain statististical validity: 25-35). You can add additional numbers but that only improves your accuracy marginally.

Mikio said...

Synova -
Oil company motivations to do lip service to AGW are entirely understandable and profit based.
You can’t have it both ways. You conservatives can’t be mad at AGW for being a socialist plot to destroy capitalism and Big Oil’s “Drill, baby, drill!” while also saying it actually helps capitalism and Big Oil. Oh wait, yes you can. You’re conservatives. Contradiction is what you do. And if you say it’s because Big Oil is invested in green energy, keep in mind you guys also call green energy unprofitable. So that doesn’t work either.

Statistical sampling on something self-selected to voluntary responses is not statistical sampling.

What method would you suggest? Rounding them all up and forcing them to answer at gunpoint? There’s no better way to do it than the way they did. Face it.

Consensus isn't science and never has been. It is, however, a good way to get more funding.

I'll take consensus; you can have conspiracy. Go ahead, cling to it 'til you're dead for no other reason than your hatred for liberals and environmentalists and to be with your crowd of fellow conservatives united in your hatred.

Penny said...

"The AGW clingers are like those staying in the bunker after the preacher's predicted Armageddon never comes. "We like it in here; all our eggs are in this basket now.""

Too true! But the rest of us chickens, we have not come home to roost. And therein lay the rub.

Hoosier Daddy said...

What method would you suggest? Rounding them all up and forcing them to answer at gunpoint? There’s no better way to do it than the way they did. Face it.

Sure. I'll face it and accept it as a flawed and biased poll.

Roger J. said...

Mikio sayeth:

What method would you suggest? Rounding them all up and forcing them to answer at gunpoint? There’s no better way to do it than the way they did. Face it.


You clearly have never taken a course in research methods or you would know the answer to the question you raise. There are a variety of qualitative techniques available to get at what you are asking.

There are also a host of statistical techniques available to scrub the data before running the analyses. Since you appear to be wholly ignorant of these, you comments dont provide much light.

Penny said...

Perhaps we could make some progress here if we talked more about what we agree on. For example:

True or false, the US should reduce its dependence on foreign oil?

Scott M said...

Mikio

An honest question.

How would you feel if someone said to you, “this summer had the fifteen coolest days on record” only to find out their data was taken from May 1st through September 1st and that the 15 coolest days they reported as the coolest of the whole summer all fell within the month of May? How would that sit with you as being a scientific assessment of global cooling?

Gahrie said...

I'm waiting for Gore, mikio and the rest to answer the most fundamental question of all:


Just what temperature is the Earth supposed to be at?

What is the "correct" temperature?

and why?

Mikio said...

Roger J. -
There are a variety of qualitative techniques available to get at what you are asking.

Instead of vacuously saying better methods exist that they could've used, try describing at least two of them instead of evading my question thinking you've answered it.

Roger J. said...

Mikio: delphi technique, focus groups, and key informant interviews.

You really dont know squat do you.

Roger J. said...

And Mikio--if you had any background at all in research methods, which you clearly dont, you would know how these work.

Still waiting for you to publish your CV dude--got one? You are a bigget fraud than Al Gore.

rocketeer67 said...

And Mikio--if you had any background at all in research methods, which you clearly dont, you would know how these work.

Mikio doesn't know statistics, so he'll stick with the lies and damned lies he knows, thankyewverymuch.

AllenS said...

I think Mikio's throttle is stuck wide open.

Bruce Hayden said...

"Climategate" is a hugely overblown scandal involving a handful of climate scientists. Yes the matter needs to be investigated to the hilt. Let it be. I'm 100% confident it doesn't change the overall near-certainty of AGW. To say it's representative of the climate science research community as a whole is a big, steaming turd of a lie. You idiots trumpet it like it is, though, because lies and cherry-picking are all you've got.

It wasn't a mere handful of "scientists", but rather, the key players. There are, as far as I know, five primary sets of climate data available now. There are three sets of land data, from: CRU, NASA, and NOAA. And two sets of satellite data. But the later, after not showing the expected global warming, were adjusted (or calibrated with( the land data to show such. ClimateGate essentially invalidated the CRU data sets, by the admission that no one knows what is in there, and that it cannot be reproduced. NASA was recently shown to be dependent upon CRU, and is thus also now suspect. That leaves NOAA, which appears right now to also be dependent upon CRU, but has not, as far as I know, been shown definitively to be (those involved have admitted to the dependence on the CRU data by the NASA land set, as well as the two satellite sets).

So, six months ago, the AGW "scientists" had five primary sets of data supporting their position. Today, four of those are essentially useless for that purpose (actually, with the CRU/NASA corrections backed out of the satellite data, they mostly don't show AGW). We shall see what happens with the NOAA data.

Mikio said...

Scott M -
Mikio

An honest question.

How would you feel if someone said to you, “this summer had the fifteen coolest days on record” only to find out their data was taken from May 1st through September 1st and that the 15 coolest days they reported as the coolest of the whole summer all fell within the month of May? How would that sit with you as being a scientific assessment of global cooling?


I'd consider them scientific ignoramuses for thinking such a small sample on its own indicates climate change. Maybe an honest question, but a stupid one. It has no relevance to the scientific consensus behind AGW theory.

MadisonMan said...

Human beings can't change the weather.

This is demonstrably false.

Say, for example, you divert all the water that runs into a large lake. Let's call it Lake Chad. Or the Aral Sea. The sudden loss of evaporated water for a region will change the climate of a region and hence the weather that occurs there.

Alex said...

Bottom line, Mikio pwned all of you with the oil companies links where they admit AGW is "done deal".

Alex said...

It has no relevance to the scientific consensus behind AGW theory.

It matters not, since the oil companies themselves have decided "AGW is a done deal". Most Americans also believe AGW is real and hate deniers.

Michael said...

Because the oil companies are, you know, climate scientists. Plus they are in the wind and solar business.

Alex said...

OTOH the American people are not buying AGW as something serious:

Gallup Poll shows increased public skepticism about AGW

mrs whatsit said...

Mikio, you are apparently the one who doesn't understand sampling. While you are back at college taking those math classes that somebody recommended, drop in on a statistics class so you can get a clue on the difference between sampling and self-selection. And meanwhile, stop using that 97% figure, which does not mean anything like what you seem to think it means.

Scott M said...

I'd consider them scientific ignoramuses for thinking such a small sample on its own indicates climate change. Maybe an honest question, but a stupid one. It has no relevance to the scientific consensus behind AGW theory.

You are correct, sir! Further, you apparently don't know the people you're defending very well if you don't know that's almost an exact duplicate of a point made recently in defense of AGW (substituting winter for summer and November for May).

I suppose historically warmer temperatures with less CO2 and no sea-level rise don't bother you either.

How about carbon credits? Are you okey-dokey with that system? How about the fact the Europeans are starting to realize the green jobs ethos is having a direct, measurable and adverse affect on their economies?

Chip Ahoy said...

Speaking of science -- we are speaking of science, aren't we? -- Cruciverb's 3/09 crossword by Donna Levin is brilliant, exceedingly fun to solve, and bubbling with juicy creamy scientifical goodness. The title is Periodic Table Hopping, too obvious, I know, but right off the bat you're assured it's going to be great. Although I expected more skipping around.

>>> Spoiler Alert <<<
Halt! If you intend to solve this puzzle.

Theme entries take an common phrase that contains the word for an element and add a proton to that element to produce the word for a new nonsensical phrase. Examples:

Proton enhanced cure-all → cadmium bullet

Proton enhanced instrument of torture → coboalt maiden

Proton enhanced form of reproduction → nitrogen copy

Proton enhanced opportunist → mercury digger

The non-thematic fill also has elemental entries but those are clued straight and don't produce nonsense.

Alex said...

is mikio a climate scientist? Has he read through all the data and examined their models? oops!

Mikio said...

Roger J. -
Mikio: delphi technique, focus groups, and key informant interviews. You really dont know squat do you.

Is this c&p from Wikipedia accurate?

"The Delphi method is a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts."

Assuming that's accurate, that says it's a forecasting method, not a polling method. Dumbass.

As for focus groups of climate scientists, you would just call those cherry-picked and too small.

And key informant interviews? Like you're not going to add them to your conspiracy theory. Give me a fucking break. Piss off, moron. I'm through responding to you.

Bruce Hayden said...

My previous post concentrated on the problems with the CRU data. It cannot be reproduced, after years by Ian/Harry to do so. Much of the original work has been destroyed (apparently innocently, in a move, but you never know with this crew).

But there are a lot of other problems with the global temperature data. There is evidence that the urban heat affect has been pretty much eliminated from their calculations - they changed to a methodology that looks for rapid rises in temperature, when the reality is that the urban heat effect is often very slow acting.

At the same time, many rural sets of temperature were eliminated from the global temperature calculations. This is esp. pernicious in Russia, and especially in Canada, where the surrogate sites for eliminated recording sites are urban, and typically far to the south. Indeed, the recordings being used throughout the northern arctic and sub-arctic bands of the Northern Hemisphere are mostly suspect now, esp. through Canada, Russia, and China (which have most of this land). To name a couple other highly suspect countries, add Australia and New Zealand.

As for the U.S., with the best recording system in the world, a large majority of the temperature recording sites are not in conformance with NOAA standards. And, in particular, a large number of the sites being utilized for the global databases are subject to some sort of urban heat effects or other siting problems, such as being at the end of a runway routinely used for jets, by an air conditioning exhaust, etc.

Roger J. said...

Ah Mikio--i figured you would need time to go to wikipedia to look up the techniques I provided--What the wiki doesnt tell you is how you take the data from the techniques and apply it to research-But you are simply regurgitating Wiki shit about which you know nothing.

Typical--the only moron in this discussion is you. And I am still waiting for you to publish your CV--But if you will provide your credentials I would be glad to consider them.

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Alex: "is mikio a climate scientist? Has he read through all the data and examined their models? oops!"
You might have heard about the fact that the models are not available for inspection. Wonder why? Think really hard about it. If you have ever produced a model of any variety you will know why.
And where might one go to get "all the data"?

Synova said...

"Perhaps we could make some progress here if we talked more about what we agree on. For example:

True or false, the US should reduce its dependence on foreign oil?
"

True.

Which is why I don't take the AGW scare people at all seriously. The logical thing to do if there is a danger that people don't accept is to look for areas of agreement that will get the same results.

True or False: Everyone wants clean air and safe water.

There are so many areas of action that would gain support from "deniers" easily. So why not nukes? Why not fully develop domestic oil where we can control the environmental impact of it? Why not focus on keeping the environment clean for people? Why not decide to go with the solution of pushing past and through the industrial revolution in developing countries to the point where their economies can sustain more expensive and cleaner alternatives?

But no... it's all purity of belief and hair shirts.

And the hair shirts are really important.

Big Mike said...

@Mikio, regarding your 11:39 post. You've made it personal, and if you had spent any time on the Althouse blog you'd better than to try that with me.

First of all, I'm a mathematician who builds computer systems and who has actually worked with climate data. I'm glad to say that the climate scientists I've worked with had a good understanding of numerical analysis and applied mathematics so they understand conditioning, numerical stability, and the famous "butterfly effect." (Numerical analysis is particularly challenging -- try taking a course in it sometime and let me know if you last a week. And I mean a real course, not just a class where you exercise MATLAB functions.)

I also learned that the models leave out clouds and water vapor. This is important because H20 is a vastly superior (that is to say, an order of magnitude worse) greenhouse gas than CO2, but clouds have a high albedo (i.e., they reflect a lot of solar energy, as anyone who has flown above a thick cloud layer can attest). More interesting, in higher attitudes water vapor turns to ice, which is an exothermic transition (i.e., releases heat) but ice has an even higher albedo. So, warming temperatures cause more water to evaporate, which absorbs more infrared radiation, which traps heat, but the albedo effect reflects solar energy back into space, which lowers temperatures, but at higher elevations and upper latitudes the water molecules can turn to ice crystals which releases heat, but reflects more solar radiation. Easy to see why it isn't modeled -- it's very hard and the equations are not well-understood.

So the bottom line is that we've got a model that predicts something. The question for a scientist or mathematician is how good that model has been at predicting that which has actually been observed? The answer is, pretty poor. Honest climate scientists have had to admit that the CO2-based models have done a very poor job of predicting the actual observations for at least the past dozen years. (But models based on solar output have been pretty close, or so I understand from talking face to face with real climate scientists.)

Mikio, you said the following: "Scientists want to do science. They don’t wake up every day so they can spend their whole day lying."

Yes, that's right. But in order to do science they need funding. And in order to get funding in the Al Gore era the scientists need to toe a certain line. It's unfortunate, but it's very, very real. To see why, just look at your own posts. It's pretty clear that if you had anything to say about it no one would be given a nickel to investigate the degree to which the urban heat island effect* has anything to do with observed temperature increases since the end of the Little Ice Age. In other words, were the models built from bad data? CRU and the IPCC say that it's a closed question, so to you it's closed question. But the IPCC relied on CRU, and the CRU relied on data from the Chinese, and the Chinese now say that the data can't be used the way it was used because the weather recording stations were moved over time. Have you ever heard of "GIGO"? It ought to be tattooed on the inside eyelids of everyone who uses a computer model.
______________
* Since the invention of macadam the word "city" has been synonymous with large areas of asphalt and dark roofs. These absorb heat. As the cities grow they engulf weather recording stations that were formerly well out into rural areas. Consequently the temperature increases recorded by those stations reflect the fact that they are now surrounded by asphalt and not necessarily that the baseline atmospheric temperature has increased.

Roger J. said...

Mikio: no CV that you care to share? Any research qualifications that you care to share? Anything other than puerile ad hominem attacks when you get backed into corners?

Otherwise you look rather like a petulant fool reliant on Wikipedia for your knowledge--That isnt a real strong position to be in it seems to me. But this is just a blog where ignorant folks like you can sound like you know something however flawed and uninformed.

Do,of couse, prattle on and hope that you can convince the commentariat here that you have the remotest idea about which you speak. Iam guessing probably not, but perhaps you might be successful.

Big Mike said...

@Shanna, yes, that's the key question, isn't it.

If temperatures rise to the point where Montana and the Canadian breadbasket provinces have another growing season, is that bad? If we have a six months of the year ice-free shipping lane from the eastern United States to Asia (the Northwest Passage), is that bad?

Mind you, we don't know that temperatures really are rising, except in relation to the Little Ice Age.

kentuckyliz said...

Duh, weather isn't climate!

Except when it is.

Yeah.....right.

Blue@9 said...

"For instance the eastern United States was once almost entirely covered in forests from the Atlantic ocean to the Mississippi river and today those forests are gone."

Actually, many scientists believe that the eastern US is more forested now than it was when the Pilgrims landed. The natives here weren't just small bands of nomadic hunters--most were farmers and they probably had to support pretty large populations. The European colonists never saw that because a huge majority of native populations were wiped out by the epidemics that swept through the continent after Europeans landed in Mexico and further south. What the colonists found were likely large tracts of overgrown and neglected farmland. When you note that so many places have names like "Springfield" and "Greenfield," it's likely that they were so named because fields are what they found.

Blue@9 said...

The sad thing is that AGW may well be happening, but we just don't know because these goobers have effed up the science so badly.

Mikio said...

Big Mike -
I also learned that the models leave out clouds and water vapor.

No, they don’t. Lies, lies, and more lies are all you idiots have. This took me all of 20 seconds to find. I can bury your lying ass in more like this so easily.

Mikio, you said the following: "Scientists want to do science. They don’t wake up every day so they can spend their whole day lying."
Yes, that's right. But in order to do science they need funding. And in order to get funding in the Al Gore era the scientists need to toe a certain line.


So explain to me why they didn't change their tune during the Bush years while Repubs held the purse strings. Let's see your cockamamie answer you pull out of your ass. And anyway your toeing-the-line accusation is completely backwards:

“Most scientists had heard at least a little about claims that government scientists were not allowed to report research findings that conflicted with the Bush administration’s point of view. And the vast majority (77%) says that these claims are true.”

But that's par for the course for you scumbag conservatives.

As for this latest urban heat island effect you guys are parroting, do you morons actually think climate scientists haven’t taken into account every factor your feeble little tinfoil hat wearing heads can toss at them? They’re WAY ahead of you cretins on everything you’ve tried. You make me sick. You idiots are a pox. You keep progress from happening with your bias and stupidity.

Henry said...

And Mikio is a pretty good example of how the advocates have effed up the advocacy.

mrs whatsit said...

Unfortunately it seems that President Obama took the same math classes that Mikio did. He apparently told a cheering Ohio crowd that Obamacare is going to lower some people's insurance premiums by "3000 percent."

Synova said...

"You keep progress from happening with your bias and stupidity."

Oh dear god.

Stop talking about "progress" in relation to AGW when every single solution is designed to keep the poor in poor nations poor in order to support our lavish lifestyles (got to buy indulgences from someplace), retard our economy and industrial progress, keep us from building nuclear plants, use any of that frightening technology or go to Mars.

The whole stupid movement is made up of Luddites.

Synova said...

It's like a huge red stop sign on progress... constant demands to reduce the scope of our lives, to build less and do less and retreat from the future. Cap and Trade. Can't drill for oil. Can't build nuke plants. Can't explore space and do anything energy-wise up there. Can't build, can't grow, can't have children. Aren't those brown people in the grass huts living such noble lives and shouldn't we keep them that way.

Luddite garbage.

Mikio said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

Hey Mikio--posted your credentials yet? Love to see them. Any peer reviewed pubs? Any advanced degrees?

Didnt think so--the silence answers the question.

Until then you appear to be nothing more than a poo flinging monkey-- but do carry on! You do your ilk quite proud.

Joe said...

do you morons actually think climate scientists haven’t taken into account every factor

Of course not, that would unbelievable hubris. Focusing on one thing: scientists are barely now truly understanding clouds and our knowledge is still quite small. How can you model something you don't understand? (There is really good evidence that cosmic rays influence cloud formation. But, by how much? Experiments are ongoing.)

traditionalguy said...

The AGW science is actually settled: CO2 causes no warming. Cloud cover causes cooling, while a lack of clouds causes warming. The cloud formation is inversely proportional to the Solar storms (a/k/a, Sunspots). The more storms, the less clouds form, while the less storms the more clouds form all because of the charged particles in solar flares during storms shielding the earth from the cosmic rays that normally seed the cloud formations. So AlGore is correct if he can lessen Solar Storms he can lessen warming. I would not put it past him to claim he has a way to do that. But the Hoax's current claims that the odorless and colorless CO2 trace gas is filthy carbon pollution is the BIG LIE. It is an act of organised crime claiming government funds under a known set of fraudulent misrepresentations.

Joe said...

Speaking of hubris. Let us assume that mankind is raising the temperature of the atmosphere. What will be effects be if we stop that effect? Could the earth plunge into another ice age? What would the effect be of just a two degree drop in average temperature?

Fen said...

Mikio, you need to check your information brokers. You are woefully ignorant of the all the recent scandals that undermine every argument you make.

But I'd like to thank CNN, NYTs et al for keeping you in the dark. In light of what we know now, your comments are hysterically funny.

Fen said...

Libtard: But that's par for the course for you scumbag conservatives.

Sidebets that Mikio doens't really give a damn about AGW?

He's on a Righteous Crusade to compensate for molesting his baby sitter or somesuch.


"According to a study, when people feel they have been morally virtuous by saving the planet through their purchases of organic baby food, for example, it leads to the "licensing [of] selfish and morally questionable behaviour", otherwise known as "moral balancing" or "compensatory ethics".

Do Green Products Make Us Better People is published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science. Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, argue that people who wear what they call the "halo of green consumerism" are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. "Virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours," they write.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/15/green-consumers-more-likely-steal

Scott M said...

But that's par for the course for you scumbag conservatives.

Ah, I see. And the withholding of critical information, such as the linked data previously thought to be separate (and therefor irrefutable) by major media outlets is something conservatives were responsible for?

You failed to answer my questions. Are you okay with a carbon trading system? Do you decry ManBearPig's unbelievable energy use compared to average American families (forgetting, for a sec, how it compares to, say, the average Kenyan family)?

The very people crying the loudest are changing their lifestyles the least. ManBearPig only made "green" additions to his home after he was publicly humiliated over his "carbon footprint" back on '06.

Also...spend another 20 seconds and please answer why the advocacy wing of the AWG crowd strove to hide the MWP from their data. Explain how lower CO2 levels in the past coexisted with warmer global temps and no sea level increase.

Unlike you, I'm willing to hear your side of it without labeling you a scumbag.

Shanna said...

He apparently told a cheering Ohio crowd that Obamacare is going to lower some people's insurance premiums by "3000 percent."

I know. Hee!

Methadras said...

Man-bear-pig has a better chance of existing than what this bucket of fuck is promoting. FUCK YOU AL GORE!!! You can't die fast enough you piece of human filth.

Methadras said...

Mikio said...

Big Mike -
I also learned that the models leave out clouds and water vapor.

No, they don’t. Lies, lies, and more lies are all you idiots have. This took me all of 20 seconds to find. I can bury your lying ass in more like this so easily.

Mikio, you said the following: "Scientists want to do science. They don’t wake up every day so they can spend their whole day lying."
Yes, that's right. But in order to do science they need funding. And in order to get funding in the Al Gore era the scientists need to toe a certain line.

So explain to me why they didn't change their tune during the Bush years while Repubs held the purse strings. Let's see your cockamamie answer you pull out of your ass. And anyway your toeing-the-line accusation is completely backwards:

“Most scientists had heard at least a little about claims that government scientists were not allowed to report research findings that conflicted with the Bush administration’s point of view. And the vast majority (77%) says that these claims are true.”

But that's par for the course for you scumbag conservatives.

As for this latest urban heat island effect you guys are parroting, do you morons actually think climate scientists haven’t taken into account every factor your feeble little tinfoil hat wearing heads can toss at them? They’re WAY ahead of you cretins on everything you’ve tried. You make me sick. You idiots are a pox. You keep progress from happening with your bias and stupidity.


Lack of any discernible says what?

Honestly Mikio, the only scumbags that abound in the environmental class are the ones that foisted this apocolyptic gibberish called Global Warming/Climate Change/AGW/Gaia Theory et al. You and people like you have zero credibility at this point. Trying to rehabilitate this image is foolish and pointless. It's clear from all of the evidence presented that government/U.N. funding patronage was the reason for this scam to continue at all. At least you called yourself out as a government supporting stooge and I appreciate that.

Alex said...

Methadras - actually while adults who get polled are skeptical about AGW, if you go to schools it's a different story. Just look at any average elementary geo-science textbook and it will be pro-AGW and every teacher if pro-AGW. They're brainwashing these kids 7 hours/day.

Blue@9 said...

"According to a study, when people feel they have been morally virtuous by saving the planet through their purchases of organic baby food, for example, it leads to the "licensing [of] selfish and morally questionable behaviour", otherwise known as "moral balancing" or "compensatory ethics".

Heh, this comports with my experience at the Berkeley Bowl, an otherwise terrific grocery store. I dare you to find bigger douchebags than the hippies who will not hesitate to cut in front of you in line or steal the parking space you've been waiting for. Apparently their commitment to universal peace and love entitles them to treat their fellow human beings like shit.

John said...

Mikio didn't answer my question about the accuracy of the temperature measurements.

Probably because he has no idea. Not to worry, the "scientists" don't seem to know either. At least they won't tell us and when asked, dance all around the question.

The problem is, they are telling us that there is a temp increase of less than 1/100th of a degree per year. Yet, as near as I can tell, their measurements are not accurate to more then 2-3 degrees.

If that is all the closer they can measure, the data supports severe global cooling as well as it supports climate warming.

Basically, it is useless for what they are proposing to use it for.

If you average a bunch of readings, good or bad, you can get a number with a dozen or so digits to the right of the decimal. It *looks* real precise. In actuality, it is no more precise nor accurate than the individual data from which it is calculated.

So Mikio, how accurate do you think the readings are?

John Henry
www.changeover.com

BTW-I have 2 science degrees, including an MS. Also 3, count 'em 3 peer reviewed publications.

None in climate and my MS is in education, but still....

That should trump AlGore's attendance without graduating at law school and divinity school.

I also have considerable hands on experience with temperature measurement in industrial process control where high precision and accuracy are important.

John said...

BTW, Mikio,

Before you call me a "conservative" let me mention that I have long considered myself to be a liberal.

Of course, my definition of "liberal" is probably different than yours. My is etymologically correct and the same as Hayek's and Friedman's

John Henry
www.changeover.com

Synova said...

"They're brainwashing these kids 7 hours/day."

Luckily, being kids, they have a fairly large chance of rebelling.

Cedarford said...

More "Argument by Anecdote" from Algore.
So now we have the moron regarding a single Nor'Easter as "further proof of global warming"???
Let's all hope Gore borrowed heavily to position himself with the other Fatcats in anticipation of being a big player in carbon indulgences and as a carbon tax middleman - and gets wiped out!

=====================
I have no problem with the idea that man is part of global warming any more than I have a problem with people saying man's activities and overuse of certain lands contributes to drought.
The problem is sorting out HOW MUCH. If temperature rises 2 DEG Celsius in the next 200 years, what sense does it make to destroy human standards of living to combat it if the human contribution is 15%, and the rest is normal cyclic climate?
NO Greenie Climate Warming Expert is willing to state the range of contribution of human activities.

Nor is anyone willing to touch the sensitive issue of human overpopulation making people exceptionally vulnerable in certain areas to minute changes in railfall, sea level rise - while in certain other areas, warming is a net benefit (because no one is planning on moving overbreeding Haitian, Bengali, and Malian populations to Siberia).

======================
There is truth to some on the Left saying some right-wingers are indeed stupid denialists.

"traditionalguy said...
The AGW science is actually settled: CO2 causes no warming. Cloud cover causes cooling, while a lack of clouds causes warming....the Hoax's current claims that the odorless and colorless CO2 trace gas is filthy carbon pollution is the BIG LIE. It is an act of organised crime claiming government funds under a known set of fraudulent misrepresentations."

Now that is stupid. Because we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And we know that other human activities like building a 1000 sq mile megacity for housing Nigerians with an out of control breeding problem does cause a regional heat trapping phenomenon. We don't know how much of an issue CO2 actually is, but we know megacities, while bad..eventually reach an equilibrium where there high heat is radiated off..We know that human-driven methane is a a problem, but don't know how much it drives warming.

And LOST in the AGW debate is the fact that human overpopulation is poised to further cause dramatic other sorts of global ecological deterioration - near complete deforestation of countries, mass species extinction from habitat loss, a looming crisis in loss of adequate potable water in several global regions, further loss of arable land from overfarming, dramatic scarcities of mineral resources past oil - into phosphates, lithium, silver, chromium, rare earths, etc.

MadisonMan said...

Cloud cover causes cooling, while a lack of clouds causes warming.

That sentence is far too simplistic. IIRC, thin high clouds reflect a lot of incoming radiation, but also let escape radiation. And the downwelling radiation from them is meager. Thin high clouds cause cooling -- relative to no cloud at all. (Albedo effect exceeds the warming-by-radiation-from-cloud effect)

Low clouds -- think marine stratus -- cause warming. True, they reflect sunlight (exactly how much is a function of cloud particle size -- and whether the cloud is glaciated or not, although marine stratus usually isn't), but they are warm enough that lots of downwelling radiation warms the Earth.

(downwelling: towards the Earth from the cloud)

Synova said...

Also more warmth and more wet equals more vegetation and faster growth. The medieval warm period seems to have been absolutely lovely.

There are so many interesting interactions. If there is greater growth of vegetation then there is greater carbon sequestering. If tropical storms bring more water deeper into the mainland areas there's less desert, not more. At one time the Sahara was grassland and Greenland was green. There was also a time when vast glaciers pushed their way south.

If I had to chose, I think I'd go with warm. Cold has the potential to do that Ice Planet thing at which point the albedo is so great that it might not melt again.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Mikio,

""Climategate" is a hugely overblown scandal involving a handful of climate scientists. Yes the matter needs to be investigated to the hilt. Let it be. I'm 100% confident it doesn't change the overall near-certainty of AGW. To say it's representative of the climate science research community as a whole is a big, steaming turd of a lie."

Quite right. What ClimateGate proved was that a huge part of the "climate science research community" were not actually being represented because the CRU team were actively blocking publication of vast swathes of research—much of it sceptical.

What research they weren't blocking, they were sabotaging and undermining in a deeply unethical way.

ClimateGate might, at least, bring some balance to the argument.

DK

P.S. Did you know that "gullible" is not listed in the dictionary...?

Bruce Hayden said...

One of the problems all along with CO2 based AGW was the feedback assumption. Yes, CO2 is a (fairly weak) greenhouse gas. But because it has any number of side effects, such as plant growth, the amount of feedback involved has been the subject of debate. In order to get the magnitude of climate change proposed by such luminaries as AlGore (aka ManBearPig), a significant amount of positive feedback has been routinely assumed by AGW scientists and alarmists.

However, recent studies seem to refute that. Here are a couple of recent peer reviewed articles that would suggest a much lower, if not negative, level of feedback:

Cloud and Radiation Budget Changes Associated with Tropical Intraseasonal Oscillations

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data

Anga2010 said...

Hey... It snowed here in Lubbock, Tx just yesterday (3.15.10)!

Charlie Eklund said...

The most interesting thing about Mikio's "97% of climate scientist's agree" article is the date it was published. That date happens to be January 21, 2009, ten months or so before the Climate Research Unit's emails were brought to light and the whole AGW fraud began to collapse.

I'd like to see what that 97%/33% group says about the climate change hoax now.

Nora said...

Mikio @ 3/16/10 9:18 AM
said...
"Conservatives ignore facts like this -- 97% of climate scientists active in research affirm AGW -- and instead ..."

Blah, Blah ... This survey was conducted way before the fact of data manipulation by the scientists in charge of the most referenced climate model (at UEA) came to light. And it will take time to learn the extent of this fraud, because the investigation is still going on. And since this model was in circulation for years, we'll never know what impact it had on the years and years of climate research, because I don't see anybody paying for such an extensive review of all published materials in the area. There are no money to make out of it for Al Gore and such.

The fact of publishing this survey results anyway without explicitly saying the above is intellectually dishonest by itself. And your referencing it shows your absolute ignorance, to say the least. The fact of publishing it denies any appeal to scientific integrity of AGW proponent and goes against the case you are trying to make. Basically, any honest scientists will withold their judgement at the moment until they adjust their research to the uncontaminated data, which obviously would take years, because verification of statistical model of climate takes years.

In addition, as one poet (Yevtushenko, translated by me) said:

Galileo had a neigbor
He was as clever as Galileo
and he also knew that Earth rotates
but he had a family ...

sonicfrog said...

Global warming is supposed to increase precipitation, as warmer temps + warmer, vapor packed storms.

From the EPA, on the US and global increases in precipitation:

Precipitation has generally increased over land north of 30°N from 1900-2005, but has mostly declined over the tropics since the 1970s. Globally there has been no statistically significant overall trend in precipitation over the past century, although trends have varied widely by region and over time.

Big Mike said...

@Mikio, if you're still around, were you trying to say in your 3:08 post that I have not worked directly with climate modelers? Because I assure you that I really did. You might lie to claim expertise you don't really have, but for a mathematician, what would be the point?

As I understood it from the climate scientists I worked with, the primary climate model used in the United States, and the one that they mostly worked with, is called the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF*) model, though others may be used. If you go to here you'll see that even now climate scientists are still learning a great deal about both the strengths and the limitations of these models. For me the money quote is the first bullet on slide #5, which indicates precisely what I said, that handling water vapor is still something to be worked on.

As regards the very short summary you linked to, all it says is that there exists one (unidentified) Global Circulation Model that accounts for water vapor in a way that agrees with satellite observations. It does not say that that particular GCM is incorporated into any climate model, nor does it say whether the particular model predicts temperature rise. Perhaps the whole article does, but you'll have to pay to download it -- I'll go with the climate scientists I worked with.

You seem to take it for granted that Bush politicized the NSF. He didn't. The poll you linked to is an opinion poll, and with only 6% of the scientists polled self-identifying as Republicans and only 9% self-identifying as conservative, I don't find it at all surprising that 77% were willing to repeat rumors and innuendo about the Bush administration. If they had been asked whether it had ever actually happened to them, I expect a much different story.

And I'll stand on what I said about the heat island effect because there's absolutely nothing in the short summary (can you ever get around to linking to the full sources -- would that be too much for you to actually read something that isn't a short summary) that contradicts what I said. Temperature records from weather stations that once were isolated and rural but today are within urban heat islands will produce skewed data. Go here for a simplified discussion of the issue. I'll reiterate what I said, the IPCC says that the data used to build the model properly adjusted for the urban heat island effect. Some of that data came from China, and now the Chinese are saying "not so fast." That's what's real. Sorry if reality is at odds with your beliefs, but if you were properly trained as a scientist or mathematician you'd learn to adjust your reality.

But where I really take umbrage is at your suggestion that I am impeding progress in some way through my apostasy from AGW. I think we do need to get away from dependence on fossil fuels, but let's be intelligent about it, shall we? Let's figure out how to get rid of slash-and-burn agriculture, which is the single largest source of anthropogenic CO2. Should we invest in research into hydrogen-fueled autos? Well, not only is H2O a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2, but it forms into clouds, which reduce the efficiency of solar power. There's some heavy thought that needs to go into this, and you and Al Gore running around with your hair on fire isn't going to help.
_____________
* Pronounced like "wharf"

MadisonMan said...

The WRF model is more mesoscale in nature. (That's my understanding at least) The NAM-WRF, for example, is one of the forecast models used by the National Weather Service for 1-7 day forecasting. It's supposed to go down to 4-km resolution in the near future, which is apparently a big deal, but don't ask how they'll initialize it. Probably just a downscale from the GFS (shudder).

At one point, there was supposed to be just one WRF model. My vague recollection is that it emerged out of the old MM5 from PSU and NCAR. But the 'research' WRF and the operational WRF models have diverged.

Now it could well be that the WRF, or some version of it, has replaced the old CCM (Community Climate Model) of the 90s and I don't know, because I haven't been following climate modeling for quite a while (and it shows!)

10ksnooker said...

March storms, WOW he recognizes March is, well, you know, like a lion. Does Gore only start talking in spring as it warms up, hoping people forget what the last winter was like. Seems so; I note, after Copenhagen's spectacular epic fail, he went silent, he seemed to go dormant for the rest of winter. ManBearPig hibernation time?

I wonder, does Al know, April showers, bring May flowers, which is I assume a sure sign that spring is getting shorter as global warming causes the temperature to get warmer. But what will the May flowers do next year.

I suggest we focus on which of the hoaxers is making the most money.

Mikio said...

Big Mike -

@Mikio, if you're still around, were you trying to say in your 3:08 post that I have not worked directly with climate modelers?

No, I wasn’t trying to say that because it’s irrelevant. Your heavily conservatively biased anecdotal experience is totally weak and worthless compared to the strength of science journal articles I'm linking to even if they're only abstracts for those who lack paid subscriptions which briefly summarize what's in them and which I can do hundredfold over what you AGW deniers/skeptics can even hope to do.

As regards the very short summary you linked to… [i]t does not say that that particular GCM is incorporated into any climate model, nor does it say whether the particular model predicts temperature rise.

Wrong. You can’t even comprehend a science article abstract which is intended for a lay audience to understand. I’ll highlight the parts in bold showing that it does say what you just said it doesn’t:

“General circulation models (GCMs) are highly sophisticated computer tools for modeling climate change, and they incorporate a large number of physical processes and variables. One of the most important challenges is to properly account for water vapor (clouds and humidity) in climate warming. Satellite observations of atmospheric water vapor are found to agree well with moisture predictions generated by one of the key GCMs, showing that these feedback effects are being properly handled in the model, which eliminates a major potential source of uncertainty."

The poll you linked to is an opinion poll, and with only 6% of the scientists polled self-identifying as Republicans and only 9% self-identifying as conservative

Yes, those 6% and 9% percentages for Repubs and conservatives perfectly illustrate conservatives' ill-suitedness for science and why AGW is so politically polarized. The conservative mentality is inclined toward the past, revering traditions, history & religion, whereas the liberal mentality has less reverence for those old things and is more excited by and inclined toward the present and future with more open acceptance of evidence, proof and rational thought that works better than the old ways and is thus perfectly suited for the scientific method.

And lastly, those oil company links alone I provided trump everything you guys have much less everything else I've brought as evidence. You have no explanation for them.

Synova said...

I think you totally don't understand the term "challenges."

Synova said...

Oh wow... you did not just try to claim that liberals (or progressives) are more suited to science.

What a sadness then, that they all go into Journalism and Women's Studies and conservatives are more likely to go into fields that depend on math and having bridges not actually fall down.

A person would think it would be the opposite of that, since liberals are so much more suited to objective measure.

(And continuing to claim that the oil company statements have not been explained adequately by self-interest "green" marketing is transparently willful. If they said what you didn't like you'd insist they were lying. What does that make you?)

Mikio said...

Synova -

Explain the 6% and 9% figures then.

And I already crushed your green technology excuse before you even tried it. Why can't you conservatives get things the first time so we liberals don't have to repeat ourselves? Do you do that because you're truly dumb or do you know better but can't offer a counterpoint so just go for acting dumb to be annoying because that's all you've got?

Bruce Hayden said...

Explain the 6% and 9% figures then.

Why does anyone care? This all is an appeal to authority, said authority having lost much of its credibility over the last six months.

Presumably, the fact that almost all of those who responded favorably were self-identified Democrats says more about their political views than whether or not CO2 caused AGW is real or not. Besides, as noted before, it is totally irrelevant, since the poll was taken well before the "science" started to fall apart last October.

Now, if we eliminated all climate "scientists" who have received any funding for pro-AGW research, and redid the survey today, what do you think their response would be?

Bruce Hayden said...

With my last post pointing out the appeal to authority by Mikio, I wanted to reiterate a previous post of mine.

I think that one reason that this debate is so divisive politically is that conservatives and liberals seem to react quite differently to appeals to authority. Socialism is based on the assumption that if the people in charge are just smart enough, they can make better decisions than the rest of us can for ourselves. And, every time socialism in whatever guise fails, as it invariably does, the response by its adherents is that those in charge were just not smart enough.

Yes, I will admit that this is a biased view of this issue. But I noticed awhile back that my initial skepticism towards CO2 based AGW was based on the claim of "consensus", which is, again, an appeal to authority. I have never done well with such, and apparently didn't this time either. It just smelled to me like someone was trying to cover something up and skip over a review of the "science" by claiming that the debate was over - over before most of us were even aware of it.

Synova said...

Appeal to authority (and I realize that Roger, IIRC, was asking for credentials which is just turning Mikio's appeal to authority back on him, but I disapprove because appeal to authority shouldn't be encouraged or enabled) coupled with a blanket refusal to consider other points of view in any way valid seems to be SOP.

Views that are not valid do not need to be answered with anything more than "wow, you sure are dumb," which is an easy cop-out by a weak mind.

And Mikio is still insisting that if deniers and conservatives weren't so darn *dumb* that they'd suddenly realize that a bit over a 30% voluntary response on a survey is meaningful in any way and is still insisting that oil company public relations and marketing have absolutely no motivation to cow-tow to constant vilification by publicly supporting the possibility of AGW.

Because really... when an argument is based on appeal to authority a person probably can't make the argument themselves or they would have done that instead.

So instead of answering with information of what there is out there that is not based on the vanished data it's just "scientists took that into account you moron" which is nothing but a statement of faith in that authority and in the face of empirical evidence that at least some scientists were operating in full perfidity mode. The faith is misplaced.

But faith in science is misplaced in any case because science isn't about faith at all.

It's about cold hard data.

Anyone appealing to the office of "scientist" is anti-science by definition. Appeal to authority is not scientific.

Roger J. said...

Synova--you do recall correctly--for the record I was just baiting Mikio. As is obvious from his comments he has no understanding of research methods nor more importantly the scientific method. I am presuming his mother put him to bed so he can get up early this morning to finish his high school science project.

Shanna said...

And lastly, those oil company links alone I provided trump everything you guys have much less everything else I've brought as evidence. You have no explanation for them.

Many people have tried to explain to you the concept of PR but you seem unwilling to listen.

Mikio said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sonicfrog said...

But can you go a step further with this honesty and admit he couldn’t even understand the science article abstract that I had to go over with him and highlight in bold print the parts he flatly denied were there? These abstracts are generally intentionally written simply enough for a lay audience to understand before venturing more deeply into the full article's more technical jargon. They’re not even the harder sciencey part and Roger whom I consider a typical AGW denier/skeptic couldn’t even understand the layperson part. This is what I’m talking about and why I stick to the appeal to authority angle, not only because I’m not an expert and am not qualified to discuss the data to any necessary length or depth, but because you guys aren’t qualified either! But unlike me and my fellow AGW-affirming laypeople, you AGW-denying laypeople aren’t honest enough to admit it. Instead you guys try to steer the discussion to the technical area as if you can handle it when the fact of the matter is you can’t.

Translated and simplified: I don't understand the science, so there is NO WAY you inferior deniers could possibly understand the science.

Synova said...

Oh, for the love of Pete.