Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
They are advancing on Skip ("Tiny") Wick. Run, Tiny, Run.
Where's Algore?www.wheresalgore.com isn't up any more.
The important thing is that the glaciers aren't staying exactly the same year after year. Which proves that global climate change is real, and a threat to human survival.At the current rate of expansion, humanity will have to completely evacuate China and India by 52,000 AD.
The wheels are coming off the global warming choo-choo.
Nepalese nipples harden.
But that's not possible. The errors humans cause by technology and free will must in tern cause a horrific end for humans.The global warming believers are, of course, the first people to ever realize this. They're so modern. They're so scientific.
Those that were retreating - and they exist - will take 5000 years to melt.We should all know how to swim by then.PS Anybody remember the words to "Day after day"?
That may be, but look at some upcoming temperatures for my hometown:3033414550At this rate, it'll be Death Valley in no time. Global warming. Fuck you. La la la, can't hear you.
Scientists held a conference in the 70s and stopped Global Cooling.Now the they held another conference and Global Cooling came back. Woe is us.WV: noreproHold no more conference or world will norepro
Hey Rev, you left out the crucial part about it being caused by CO2.
One more Global Warming proof...the colder it gets the more CO2 "heat trapping" is the clear causation. The computer models say so... or they will be quickly re-programmed to say so. Repeat after me: Green is clean and Carbon is dirty. Just ignore the fact that CO2 is no more Carbon than H2O is hydrogen, and the fact that ubiquitous trace amounts of CO2 trap no heat at all. Now, when I snap my finger, go out and kill those warming deniers.
Carbon is coal, diamond or graphite. CO2 is plant food.
Wait ... surely the vaunted NY Times will print this fit news.Then you can link us to the NY Times again, Ann!
What? Are you trying to tell me that some glaciers are growing while others are shrinking? Well, that would be due to increased carbon dioxide the result of industrialization that is measurably greater then before when it was measurably less. And that requires a global initiative overarching mere nations to redistribute wealth from offending developed nations to innocent but still vulnerable developing nations. For this convenience I have positioned myself at the transfer points of these required money streams in order to facilitate the healing of the Earth. At the personal level, you can atone for your sins and for your Flat Earther attitudes by contributing sums to my PayPal account whereupon I will trade with the sincere promise not to do those horrible destructive things you're doing that are killing the Earth! Or carry on as I have but locate somebody who will make that promise. Now stop being such deadbeats you Neanderthals and hasten over to PayPal. NOW! Every thing I personally profit from this effort will be turned back into strengthening this urgent drive.
More climate change deniers. Please report to your nearest re-education camp.
Interesting news.By the way, I have some carbon credits for sale. Real cheap.
The sacred cow factory will have to add a 2nd shift.
Whoooaaaa - sheeeeit! Here come the Himalayan Glaciers!
The glaciers are advancing because they are "skidding" on that new melt water. It works this way: more global warming means the more the glaciers skid, until they just slip completely off their mountain, kerplunk. Then after killing everyone in the village below (innocent third worlders, all) they finish melting.It's all part of the unified global warming field theory: all events on earth fit the theory, if you just believe.
The sky is still falling, however.NYT sub-heading.
Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating...Women and minorities hardest hit
A Gaiaist is sitting at the base of one of these glaciers reading this report. He can't believe that the glaciers aren't receding like he has been told that they have. He throws down the article/study down in disbelief, he turns around and starts to scream at the top of his lungs, this heart wrenching, death cry of agony and pain. Nothing occurs.
The politicians showed the way for attention starved, total-geeks scientists to come out of their caves and fully enjoy their 15 minutes of fame and glory.It was all set up for them, and some of them fell for it.But now the facts have closed that opportunity window, and they'll have to retreat back into their labs and wait for another chance in 15 to 20 years.
Considering all the time and money, fear and lies, why is no one going to prison for this scam?It's been 30 years that they've been telling us we have 10 years to live - is that worth anything?O.K., how much money has been blown on this? Retooling businesses - all that. Please include the cost of all public service messages. What would it be? Trillions? Kids have been having nightmares over this - and treating their own parents as criminals - anybody going to at least apologize for upsetting all those formally-happy families? People's lives have been threatened, some have been attacked, because they were "deniers" - anything going to happen for that?And then there's the flat-out fraud. Carbon credits? All those other "save the planet" scams? Anything?The fact that everyone's content to let the perps walk on something this big is the real crime, if you ask me.And hey, Ann:What's the point of having all you big-shot, top-of-your-class lawyers around, if none of you are going to step up and take these real criminals down?I was thinking about this the other day:There's you, Reynolds, Bainbridge, and all the rest - supposedly aware of the issues you bring us daily - but I don't see or hear any of you launching a much-needed law suit against any of the criminals. Now, before you say "We're law professors", where are your students? Where's anybody standing up for the rest of us and saying "I'm putting Al Gore behind bars for fraud"?This whole damn set up sounds fraudulent if you ask me,...
It's almost like no one read the linked article!It's unusual for the popular press to include a cogent explanation for the observations being reported -- that glaciers with debris on them, and in narrow valleys, are protected from melting. One could also have heavier snows over the mountains -- because it's warmer -- that speed the advance of glaciers. What a glacier does is not controlled only by temperature.
OK, I want predictions of what the next big intellectual fad will be. I've seen the ice age, nuclear winter, overpopulation, and global warming. What's next?
What a glacier does is not controlled only by temperature.A ha! My God, man! This is it. Right here. The admission we've all been waiting for that there is nothing -- nothing -- any Denier can do that will actually meet the burden of proof. It's exactly like Tom Wolfe in The Painted Word.
It wasn't too long ago the warmist inquisitors were calling for tribunals and concentration camps for climate change deniers and other such pernicious heretics. And it was just last year that this plan to deal with counter-revolutionaries surfaced.Ladies and gentlemen, do we need any more evidence that the Left is the common enemy of mankind? That its adherents and institutions must be purged from the body politic by any means necessary? For too long we've extended the hand of sympathy and forgiveness only to have it demonstrated again and again that, despite the clear record of disaster and genocide visited upon suffering humanity by the Left and its minions, they have no remorse, on contrition, and they only bide their time until yet another opportunity for evil arises. Friends, countrymen, the tide is running in our favor. Very soon it will be at flood. We should prepare ourselves to strike, to excise the cancer and cauterize the contagion. Lucretia has been outraged. Death to the Tarquinii!
The problem with getting all specific about glaciers and debris is that the global warming experts refuse to get specific when the data doesn't fit their theory.For instance, it is claimed that if Greenland is getting warmer then it follows the planet is getting warmer. What if it's just because Greenland is getting warmer? If you want to show a global trend, you need global data. What global data we have is not very definitive. It's actually shockingly inconsistent.We've been bombarded with information about how specific weather events show that the world is getting warmer. That's not very accurate but it's done all the time.When all the generalizations are one way, you can prove anything. Turnabout is fair play. If global warming skeptics want to be selective with their data they are in good company. To claim this isn't good science is fine, but to ignore all the other abuse of science in the name of a political agenda is just as dishonest.
I love this part of what madman said: "One could also have heavier snows over the mountains -- because it's warmer". Yes, now the logic is that global WARMING is causing to to snow MORE and make the glaciers GROW. You literally cannot make this shit up.
The Marxists used to have a sophisticated explanation of how alienation and anomie were by products of a capitalist society. Loneliness: what happens when you pursue money. The environmentalists have gone them one better and have pinned the blame for bad weather on western development. Humidity: the end result of BP's pursuit of fourth quarter earnings growth. However, now that China produces more CO2 than we do, the bottom is set to fall out of the whole global warming scam.... I think that we will soon learn that internet porn is responsible for sexism in sub-Saharan Africa. If not that, they will find some other evil that has been engendered by the bourgeoise of western societies......Perhaps the greatest evils that have been hoisted upon the third world by western societies are Marxism and environmenntalism. I exclude feminism only because, as we have seen, western feminists are willing to defer to the third world habits of aborting, stoning, and otherwise oppressing third world women.
Did anyone hear President Jesus declare "this was the moment when the glaciers stopped receding?"Cuz that would explain it.
You're safe as long as you remember that whenever anything bad happens, it's caused by global warming. Too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, glaciers retreating, glaciers advancing, it's all because atmospheric CO2 is 390 parts per million instead of 350 parts per million. Makes perfect sense in bizarro world.
Yes, now the logic is that global WARMING is causing to to snow MORE and make the glaciers GROW. It's well known that a warmer Earth has snowier poles. Two facts cause this.(1) It's always cold enough to snow at the Poles. Even a very very warm Earth will have temperatures cold enough for snow at the Poles.(2) Warmer air will contain more moisture, allowing heavier snows to fall. What is the driest Continent? Antarctica, because it's so cold that there simply is no moisture in the atmosphere. Of course, any snow that does fall sticks around.
In fact, if you look at Milankovitch cycles, you will find that glaciers advance in the northern Hemisphere when the Poles are relatively warm. That is -- when aphelion occurs in Summer (that is, summers are relatively cool, and winters are relatively warm), when the ellipticity of the orbit is very large, and when the Axis tilt is big.
The article to which you link mis-characterizes the conclusions of the research on which it reports. It simply explains why certain glaciers in a certain Himalayan range are not acting as expected (the answer is rubble insulating the ice), but points out the majority, both in that range, in the Himalayas and worldwide, are still in retreat. You would be wise to consult the original research (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1068.html), or at least read the CORRECTION FROM THE VERY SOURCE YOU CITED (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284883/Himalayan-glaciers-spell-trouble-for-climate-scientists.html)! Ann, I hope your academic research is a bit more rigorous.
jim, of course. The albedo of the glaciers in question has increased (which, I believe, increases heat retention from solar sources) and therefore supports the idea that they should be melting faster...Wait...Oh, I get it. Black is the new White. Silly me.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot... "The Cooling World"Newsweek, April 28, 1975
To be a little less snarkish, all their study showed was the glaciers they surveyed were not, on the whole, retreating.Which in itself is a brave report in the current climate, if you'll pardon a subtle pun.The walk-back about global glacier retreat assumes similar honesty among their peers.Which I think is not a good assumption. Peer review has its drawbacks.But that's why the walkback. You want to get a premier journal to publish your work again, you don't be DISSIN' AGW. Understand?
@EDH, there was never a scientific consensus of global cooling in the '70s. This is another of those denier tools that has been resoundingly debunked and just refuses to die. The coming ice age story was one put forth by popular media, specifically alarmist articles in Newsweek that you reference and another in Time magazine, not the scientific community. According to a survey of peer-reviewed papers on the subject (Peterson 2008: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf) there were a total of 68 papers published in scientific journals from 1965 through 1979 dealing directly with the subject of climate change. Of those, 7 predicted cooling, 42 warming and 19 were neutral. I'm pretty sure I spot the consensus. I strongly encourage you to follow the link; it's an easy read and the stats are grade-school level.
Jim -- 1. Scientific consensus is bullshit.2. Air is good, not bad. 3. There is no global warming.4. You will never, ever reach anything approaching your political goals.5. For someone who claims to know so much, you are sure are a complete fucking idiot when it comes to basic html.
"1. Scientific consensus is bullshit."You are dumb."2. Air is good, not bad."You are dumb."3. There is no global warming."You are dumb."4. You will never, ever reach anything approaching your political goals."You are dumb."5. For someone who claims to know so much, you are sure are a complete fucking idiot when it comes to basic html."You are dumb and a potty mouth.Gee 7M, your brand of argument really IS effective.
Libtard: there was never a scientific consensus of global cooling in the '70s. This is another of those denier tools that - The only reason there wasn't a "scientific consensus" in the 70s is because the Marxists hadn't yet taken over the Environmentalist movement. You can be sure that if the likes of CRU had been in power back then, you would have your "scientific consensus" re global cooling.And fuck you and your "denier" slur.
Mark, the albedo of the surface of the glacier changes. But does the sun reach that surface if it's in a narrow valley? And does the added warmth -- if the sun does illuminate the surface -- actually get down to the snow to melt it? Does the dark surface also have insulating properties? (I don't know)From the article in question: More than 65% of the monsoon-influenced glaciers that we observed are retreating, but heavily debris-covered glaciers with stagnant low-gradient terminus regions typically have stable fronts. Debris-covered glaciers are common in the rugged central Himalaya, but they are almost absent in subdued landscapes on the Tibetan Plateau, where retreat rates are higher. In contrast, more than 50% of observed glaciers in the westerlies-influenced Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable.
Jim -- Which assertion do you disagree with? Is it the one where you contend that carbon dioxide -- air! -- is evil? Is it the fairy tale that you political movement will amount to anything?It most definitely cannot be that you have any html skill whatsoever. But, go ahead. Preach to us in a big woolly paragraph filled with copied-and-pasted links and quote marks. That'll show us.
@7M, if CO2 is air and harmless, you would have no problem filling a big bubble with it and hanging out in it for a while? I heard Michele Bachmann make that claim also, so you're in good company. Maybe she'd be willing to hang out in there with you.And the reason I paste the entire link is that when arguing with the paranoid, I find it gives them a bit more comfort that the URL they are visiting is legit if they can see it before hand. Not that I'd ever expect you to ever actually read a scientific article.
MadisonMan,... and when the Axis tilt is big.You don't capitalize that unless you're a Nazi strategist in a bad movie.wv: vannoutu. I could swear that was a volcano in the South Pacific.
Not that I'd ever expect you to ever actually read a scientific article."Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research..."You know what you can do with your "scientific" arcticles. Climate Science has ZERO credibility. Nothing coming from them is to be trusted until they reform.
/via Newsweek"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century"
@Fen, the unchecked claim (that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035) was not from a scientific, peer-reviewed article and that's what was wrong with it. The panel admitted the error and moved on. That's how science works.I trust that with your obvious distrust of science you will soon be choosing to boycott the fruits of science's labor? Perhaps convert? Amish, Quaker? You'd have to clean up the vocabulary a bit though.
@Madison Man-In fact, if you look at Milankovitch cycles, you will find that glaciers advance in the northern Hemisphere when the Poles are relatively warm. That is -- when aphelion occurs in Summer (that is, summers are relatively cool, and winters are relatively warm), when the ellipticity of the orbit is very large, and when the Axis tilt is big.All this proves is that global warming (whether real or not) is NOT, nor ever has been, man-made. We are punishing the wrong species.And "More than 65% of the monsoon-influenced glaciers that we observed are retreating, but heavily debris-covered glaciers with stagnant low-gradient terminus regions typically have stable fronts. Debris-covered glaciers are common in the rugged central Himalaya, but they are almost absent in subdued landscapes on the Tibetan Plateau, where retreat rates are higher. In contrast, more than 50% of observed glaciers in the westerlies-influenced Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable."So who put the debris there? Or is this a naturally occurring phenomena? Thereby, once again, pointing the finger of blame at the planet earth itself, and not to the inconsequential humans who seem to inhabit it.All the deniers are saying is simply, "global warming, whether real or not, cannot be man-made" there are way too many variable that cannot be attributed to the human population. Wake up, stop drinking the Kool-aid.
Well if Newsweek says it, it must be true. Yes, Fen-ginia, there is a Santa Claus.
arguing with Jim about global warming :: arguing with Mick about Obama's citizenshipOn the plus side, both Jim and Mick have an equal chance of seeing their political programs realized.
What if the University of East Anglia says it? What if Newsweek says it about global warming?
All this proves is that global warming (whether real or not) is NOT, nor ever has been, man-made. We are punishing the wrong species.No.It proves -- I wouldn't use that word, but you did; a better word would be suggests -- that, in the past, some climate changes have occurred because of changes in the Earth Orbit. You might be able to say, truthfully, that past climate changes are not man-made. But that's rather like saying Movies in the 14th Century had no plot.
Libtard: Well if Newsweek says it, it must be true.Your standards, not mine. And Newsweek debunks your claim that there wasn't "consensus" re global cooling: Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the unchecked claim (that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035) was not from a scientific, peer-reviewed article and that's what was wrong with it.Then you're admitting that the IPCC reports are not grounded in science and can be ignored.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.htmlI can likewise assume it follows that all of the work by CRU and all papers using such "fruit from the poisoned tree" can likewise be disregarded.Thank you for making my point for me. Now go sell your snake oil to someone stupid enough to swallow it.
"Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds. "Isn't this good news? C'mon you AGW people. You said it was terrible when they were receding, so now this is great isn't it? C'mon, smile at least. We may not all die after all, we may not have to sacrifice, to lose jobs, to suffer.You can't really get happy about that can you? Maybe you have a problem the government can't solve, maybe your agenda is sick.
Libtard: I trust that with your obvious distrust of science you will soon be choosing to boycott the fruits of science's labor?Don't flatter yourself. Climate Change Hoaxing is not Science. And the charlatans behind it are not scientists.
"Your standards, not mine."I was being sarcastic. I'll try to dumb it down for you."And Newsweek debunks your claim..."Show me the evidence they use to back their claim of unanimity and I'd be happy to look at it. Until then, come on, IT'S NEWSWEEK!"Then you're admitting that the IPCC reports are not grounded in science and can be ignored."No, I admitted that one small part was included which should not have been, and its exclusion does not impact the general finding whatsoever."http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html"Come on, it's THE DAILY MAIL!"I can likewise assume..."You know what they say about assuming: you're an ass, or something like that.You need to retake your college logic course. Your grasp of how statements logically flow from one another is a bit askew. Oh, I'm sorry. Those pointy headed college profs are probably in on the conspiracy. You could always head to Bob Jones I suppose.
Libtard: I'll try to dumb it down for you. "And Newsweek debunks your claim..." Show me the evidence they use to back their claim of unanimity and I'd be happy to look at it. Until then, come on, IT'S NEWSWEEK!"Show me the evidence that you EVER questioned today's claims of unanimity presented by news orgs like Newsweek, NYTs, etc.You can't have it both ways - conveniently relying on false appeals to authority when they agree with you, denouncing the SAME sources when they disagree with you. Dumb that down, bitch. No, I admitted that one small part was included which should not have been, and its exclusion does not impact the general finding whatsoever.You admitted that the "scientific" reports you appeal to are fradulent. Oh, I'm sorry. Those pointy headed college profs are probably in on the conspiracy.Yes, we already have proof that the "pointy heads" at CRU conspired. And, most damning, their superiors whitewashed the conspiracy. Therefore, anything coming out of the Climate Change "scientific" community is suspect. They have ZERO credibility. The fact that any of them still have a job speaks volumes re how corrupt your "science" has become.
"Show me the evidence that you EVER questioned today's claims of unanimity presented by news orgs like Newsweek, NYTs, etc."I never have. If I'm providing backup to my claims, I'm not going to cite Newsweek."Dumb that down, bitch."Such hostility! Perhaps psychiatric help is in order. D'oh! There's that science thing again. Well, perhaps your priest probe your issues."You admitted that the 'scientific' reports you appeal to are fradulent (sic)."No I didn't."[Bla, bla, bla...]"Bla. I've become bored.
Real science is like a box of chocolates.
Hey Jim, the Himalayas are, on the whole, south of Rome. Put your "How much sun do the glaciers see" where the sun doesn't shine.The most effective insulator of materials is low-density (ideally, zero, but we are not living in Al Gore's Man Cave) low-conductivity gasses. Something like a high altitude arid earth atmosphere which, SURPRISE, is what you get in the Himalayas. The most effective heat transfer elements in that environment are high specific-heat radiators, aided by the convection of the high winds endemic in the region. Hot rocks in a windy environment are going to rule, baby. I'm not saying AGW doesn't exist, I'm saying you're a simplistic moron, as are most of you evangelicals.
"In general, the warmer the air above a glacier becomes the faster exposed ice will melt. A thin veneer of dust or grit will darken glaciers, increasing the amount of heat they absorb and exaggerating their warming, much as a dark roof becomes hotter in sunlight than a light gray one. But once the depth of any rock cover exceeds several centimeters, it will insulate ice from the sun’s warming rays. In some lower reaches of Himalayan glaciers, especially in the Karakoram, rock debris can include house-size boulders, Scherler observes.In this range, it seems, rocky rubble eroded from uphill peaks serves to decouple the effects of regional warming from glacial retreats. The new analysis found retreat rates varied in the Himalaya 'from high for debris-free glaciers to zero for glaciers with debris cover greater than 20 percent.'"http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/69058/title/Glaciers_largely_stable_in_one_range_of_Himalayas
MadisonMan said...What a glacier does is not controlled only by temperature.lolwut?
jimspice said...I trust that with your obvious distrust of science you will soon be choosing to boycott the fruits of science's labor?Leftard canard. Next please.
Jim, you do know that the glacier claim it was not by any means the only "one small part" of the IPCC report that was discredited, right? As just one example among many, for instance, you do know about the claim of drought in the Amazon that turned out to be scientifically grounded in . . an article in a backpacking magazine? As for "consensus," you do know that the 2500 scientists who were supposedly so unanimous about the whole report turned out to be, in truth, the various scientists who had individually peer-reviewed the hundreds of separate claims in the report and, far from "consensus," had often vigorously disputed them? And, since you know so much more about science than any of the rest of us, I'm certain you also realize that science is not practiced by consensus? Your style of "scientific reasoning" seems to assume that truth is the same thing as a majority vote, and when the vote's been taken, then the discussion is over -- over, do you hear me? -- and the minority should shut up. That approach worked nicely at the time of the Inquisition, but some of us have learned a little about how to practice science since Galileo was imprisoned for life for insisting that the consensus of his time -- that the earth was at the center of the universe --was wrong.
Pogo said... By the way, I have some carbon credits for sale.Would you be willing to trade for some of my vast Obama Plate Collection centerpieces?
Thereby, once again, pointing the finger of blame at the planet earth itself, and not to the inconsequential humans who seem to inhabit it.To be fair...we do actually inhabit it.
Get from free carbon credits here:http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com/home.do;jsessionid=815C223A2C229B4CC82257381EB1B330Profit from the Global Warming Alarmist scam. FAQ says you must think about reducing your CO2 output. CO2 is plantfood
Don't know about the Himalayas, but the glaciers seem to be advancing here in the NY area.
Advancing or retrating, it does not matter. Climate change is climate change. Al Gore is a Yeti.
Yesterday, the science said that global warming was causing the glaciers to retreat. Today, the science says that global warming also causes glaciers to advance. But don't question the science. The science is always right.
Eisenhower said "Beware the Global Warmist Alarmist-Climatologist Alliance". Climatologists are poor scientists whose models do not make accurate predictions, due to not have good data and having a poor grasp of statistics. They try to produce data to fit their theories from selective use of tree rings and the like. They reject data that does not fit their theories. Follow the money, how else can they get government grants.
""One could also have heavier snows over the mountains -- because it's warmer". Yes, now the logic is that global WARMING is causing to to snow MORE and make the glaciers GROW."Actually, that sounds like a perfectly respectable hypothesis.
What a glacier does is not controlled only by temperature.Unless they are retreating, of course, in which case they are definitely a wake-up call about the perils of warmer temperatures caused by carbon dioxide. Isn't that how it works?
Actually, that sounds like a perfectly respectable hypothesis.Yes, but "global warming will result in less snow" also sounds like a perfectly respectable hypothesis, and in fact is also one that has been advanced. So a perfectly respectable scientist will have a perfectly respectable hypothesis as to how global warming causes any possible amount of future snowfall.All of which is perfectly respectable, so long as that scientist admits he's doesn't know.
A couple of links for you, Jim, regarding multiple errors in the IPCC report - not just one fluke:Link 1Link 2
Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.And that will of course require greater government control over agriculture.We can't let this crisis go to waste.
That may be, but look at some upcoming temperatures for my hometown:It’s going to be 60 and gorgeous today in Arkansas. I love global warming so much!!! (of course, it snowed like crazy a couple weeks ago.)
I agree with you, Sofa King.I've urged this before. If anyone wants to get a flavor for how one side of the debate has been stuffed down our throats, read A.W. Montford's "The Hockey Stick Illusion". If you are a scientist, I guarantee it will piss you off.
Pogo said: "By the way, I have some carbon credits for sale. Real cheap."I'll take them off your hands for $0.01/credit, Pogo.(Just to be clear. You pay me.)
"But that's rather like saying Movies in the 14th Century had no plot."This got me to thinking, MM. Since the incidence of cancers has dramatically increased in recent decades vs. the 14th century (What's that? How do we know what the incidence was in the 14th century? Good question), and so has the viewing of movies in theaters, I suspect there is a link. What do projectors emit? Light, which is electromagnetic radiation. Know what electromagnetic radiation can cause? Cancers, that's what. Sound like a ridiculous theory? A real stretch? Would you be more inclined to believe it if there was a consensus (that's for jimspice's benefit; I'm pretty sure you know better)? Or would you prefer hard evidence? You'd probably also expect me to not move the goalposts, "massage" the data, nor (as the most prominent scientist in the world backing this theory) call for trials of those who disagree. You would probably think I was an absolute crackpot, right up to and past the point where I produced computer models to predict cancer rates 100 years hence (and YOU most certainly know that such models could be produced, and would correctly believe that I had allowed my own preconceived notions of cause and effect to fatally wound the model).I would like to go back through all of this and point out certain flaws in jimspice's arguments (thinking consensus=evidence is one of the most obvious), but I know he wouldn't listen to someone as antiscience and uneducated (scientifically, at least) as I. But I will note that my Google Account profile does not contain my astrological sign, whereas his does. And if that's hurtful to any of you who agree with me on AGW, well we'll just have to call that collateral damage.
Blasphemy!!!The global warming believers urgently need the Taliban and a pile of stones.
"But I will note that my Google Account profile does not contain my astrological sign, whereas his does."Don't tell him about Ophiuchus.
"Don't tell him about Ophiuchus"A colleague suggested it be named "Gullibus."
I think I'll be borrowing that, Crimso.
Just as a reality check:Everyone here does realize that the MOST warming anyone has ever claimed is about 0.8 degrees over 130 (or so) years. That is from coldest year to warmest year, not the actual trend line which is somewhat less.What we seldom see is how precise and accurate that measurement is. The best estimates are +/- 1 degree. More likely it is +/- 3-4 degrees.Just saying.For a recent article on the difficulties of measuring temperature, not just in the world but even under laboratory conditions:Refereed Papers: Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface Air Temperature Index: A Representative Lower Limit In the Journal of Energy & Environmenthttp://multi-science.metapress.com/content/c47t1650k0j2n047/?p=fa38d8c588d140ac90f17186ddac9d50&pi=4John R Henry
Professor;Skepticism has no place in science!
Hey Shanna--off to Heber springs this weekend for some great trout fishing on the Little Red river--then to the Heber springs folk life for a fun dance weekend--life is good in Heber Springs and Greers Ferry
life is good in Heber Springs and Greers FerryThose sound like towns in a Stephen King novel.
Hi Scott--those are the more usual names--Greers Ferry is actually a lake--get hold of an atlas and read the town names--great stuff--and includes "evening shade." Arkansas is a great destination except for all the dry counties
If you teach "Global Warming, as presented by Al Gore" to your children, you should be cited for negligence. Kids are coming out of school stupid enough as it is, there's no need to further destroy any chance of them ever understanding the world they live in.
If you'd like to put a link in your comment you can go here HTML link code to see how.
"...except for all the dry counties."Unless you're a bootlegger..Oh, btw, are all those dry counties caused by "global warming?" They just GOT to be, right? Just askin'...
VX--bootleggers do prosper in dry counties--dry isnt a function of global warming; probably more a function of southern baptists--liquor stores across the line from dry counties do a land office business--its just one of the quaint sides of rural arkansas--but when you got trout fishing as good as they do, its a minor inconvenience
VX--another tidbit about liquor sales in many places in the south--liquor stores are referred to as package stores, and many have a drive through window--when I asked about that I was told it was so the southern baptist deacons could get their liquor without running into their parishoners in the store.
The problem with consensus is that there is nothing preventing multiple people using the same data, methods, assumptions, and desires from making the same mistakes, deceptions, or grabs for money and power. In fact logic would suggest that such an incorrect consensus is to be expected.
I do note that one of the pet attacks of the Greens (most of who have little science/engineering education) is accusing "ignorant Christianist Yahoos", ""smug old white people with their disgusting SUVs and wasteful lifestyles while noble Haitians suffer" - of not "getting" the science or the Greens pet AGW scientists.Then Shit Happens. Their science turns out to be crap-based. Makes their favorite accusation that their critics are ignorant of the actual science a little weaker.Like feminists that accuse men of "savagely beating a women on average for each minute the Superbowl is played" and not getting the "solid sociological studies that undermine the notion of patriarchy" admitting they made up the Superbowl accusation because it "helps the Cause".One out of 4 college women savagely raped by evil coeds? "OK, made up too, to raise awareness - but it does not undercut the credibility of the Dworkin-Freidan-McKinnon feminist analysis""Rape accusers never lie????" "OK, many don't have a perfectly accurate recollection of events, but only due to the violence and oppression inflicted on the poor false accusers everyday of their lives."Think of the Greens as like Feminists - perhaps right about a few things, but their credibility in tatters by self-inflicted wounds from BS'ing the masses.
What I still don't get is a couple weeks back when NYC got hit with the first big snow my local news had an imported interview with a global warming promoter explaining what this all meant. That was followed by Nightline (also ABC) which also featured global warmists (who are trying a feint with the "climate change" crap) explaining it all to us ignorami.They included an interview in the midst of that with the British AGW denier (forget his name) who traces the climate changes to the activity of the sun (which makes a heck of a lot more sense than a butterfl) but it was one of those inclusions that whiffed of condescension. (Eccentric, some of these Brits still are, you know.) You know the routineA-blah blah A-blah blah b-bla A-blah blah A-blah blahto cover what they want to say, A being the point.I NEVER saw any coverage of ClimateGate, the hockey stick fraud or whatever, except a couple mentions in passing (usually online) that so and so had been cleared of any charges of academic misconduct or whatever the heck they call it, vaguely connected with some climate research. Nada.There really needs to be the flip Pulitzer which is awarded for journalistic malpractice or misconduct. Like the igNobles.Because bottom line, I want someone to explain to me why Greenland is called Greenland.
"In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, 'Because,' said he, 'men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.'" -- Eirik the Red's Saga
"Because bottom line, I want someone to explain to me why Greenland is called Greenland."Danish real estate agents were trying to get the Vikings to buy land there.At least that's what I heard.
I guess I heard it from Paul.
JAL,Not just hype from real estate agents, but Vikings raised cattle there in midieval warm period. Later on during Little Ice Age colony got wiped out. So it was green. Vikings also went to Newfoundland and thought grapes would make good wine but as undocumented workers they were kicked out.
Medieval Warm Period didn't happen. Michael Mann proved it.
@EDH, there was never a scientific consensus of global cooling in the '70s.There is not a scientific consensus that the globe is warming in 2011.
Last week, NPR on All things Considered, reported, without caution or hint of counter arguments that 2010 was the hottest year on record ever. I think they quoted NASA. They are talking in an echo chamber.
Save Gaia: unleash the mongol hordsIt is harsh, but it is for the best.
Hey Shanna--off to Heber springs this weekend for some great trout fishing on the Little Red river--then to the Heber springs folk life for a fun dance weekend--life is good in Heber Springs and Greers Ferry I used to to Greers Ferry all the time! It's only about an hour away. It’s going to be a gorgeous weekend. Those sound like towns in a Stephen King novel.Maybe if I ever get around to writing my novel I should set it there. I never thought about it. It’s just a big lake.
Hi Scott--those are the more usual names--Greers Ferry is actually a lake--get hold of an atlas and read the town names--great stuff--and includes "evening shade." Toad Suck!
The reality is that the state of glaciers is dependant on the amount of precipitation, not the temperature.People who actually study glaciers know this. And AGW proponents deliberately misrepresent it.However, Pachuri is a con man plain and simple. He knowingly lied.
For the latest news visit us on cnn.comhttp://whois.domaintasks.com/cnn.com
I love mountainous place and i invite you to get cheap flights to pakistan from all over the world you can find hundredths of hilly areas in Pakistan specially for passing summer vacation.
If some one love to attempt mountain peaks iwould like to invite them towards Pakistan.
Post a Comment