Warmist Says: It's Never Snow in Washington!

[Charles Stucker]

Yep, all those scientists haven't any idea of what they are talking about. Ol' Fritz can straighten them out with only a third grade education.

Still claiming to know something about science?
You can't even sort the real science from the fake, so asking you to judge is ludicrous.

Wait - did you and Fritz drop out together after third grade? Is that how you know his education matches yours?

Warmists say a lot of things, some make a little sense, many are stuck in Victorian era science (modern physics arises with Einstein's first papers in 1905, just so you know) - you know with "luminiferous ether" and similar quackery.

 

[code1211]

Well, ol' Fritz, does the National Academy of Sciences of the major nations satisfy you?

Climate Change at the National Academies

Science Academies Urge Faster Response to Climate Change
June, 2009--In a joint statement, the science academies of the G8 countries, plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa, called on their leaders to "seize all opportunities" to address global climate change that "is happening even faster than previously estimated." The signers, which include U.S. National Academy of Sciences President Ralph J. Cicerone, urged nations at the upcoming Copenhagen climate talks to adopt goals aimed at reducing global emissions by 50 percent by 2050. The academies also urged the G8+5 governments, meeting in Italy next month, to "lead the transition to an energy efficient and low carbon economy, and foster innovation and research and development for both mitigation and adaptation technologies." View Statement

Faster than expected? Interesting. Global warming stalled for years and they say this is a fast change? Interesting.

Since you appear to be particularly smug about this, here is a one-page FAQ put out by NOAA for your edification.

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

From your link:

2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).


Do you see anything odd about this "science"? There is just under a 300% margin of error. With respect to these posers, I could make a prediction with this accuracy with no sleep, no funding, a bad hangover and no concept whatsoever of even what topic I was talking about.

They don't know what they are talking about. They don't understand the variables, the effects the variables have on the other variables or the outcomes.

To get a 300% margin of error in running surveys, you only need to speak to about 20 people. A 300% margin of error is beyond ridiculous.

This is the caliber of the "science" that Global Warming draws upon.

 

[Big Fitz]

Believe what you want. But sometimes an apple is just an apple.

Thank you Sigmund, but I still don't buy it out of hand because some politically active individual with lots of letters behind their name or has a half dozen says so. Particularly when I understand even their work or research or thoughts do not occur in a vacuum.

As a general rule, scientists can hardly be placed in the same category of politicians--always looking for the what's-in-it-for-me angle. If a scientist has lots of letters behind his/her name, he usually doesn't have to worry a whole lot about personal finances. They don't spend 15-20 years in school with the attitude that they're gonna be billionnaires, but that they might contribute their learned talents and resulting experience to society.

So... Mann, Hansen and Jones weren't looking for what was in it for them? Millions... no as just reported by Sen. James Inhofe on the Jason Lewis Show, over SIX BILLION has been spent on Global Warming hoaxers.

You don't think for one second that these scientists couldn't turn snake oil salesman at the expense of their ethics and morals... assuming they had them to begin with?

Human nature is corruptible by it's very definition. Even Vestal Virgins frequently if not almost always were not pure. Your precious scientists can be corrupted by ambition, greed and power just as easily as any other man. They are not perfect.

You're right on one thing. Many... not even most... do not dream some day of becoming billionaires by their discoveries. What they crave is even more precious and nebulous to achieve: immortality. Almost to a man, they want the immortality of Newton, Einstein, Salk, Pasteur, Curie, Galileo, Pythagoras.

Every one of them wants to discover the next great secret of the universe... and those that are weak in character, will lie, cheat and steal, defraud, promise false hope and besmirch anyone who dares discover a flaw. History is replete with snake oil salesmen. Filled with cures and powders, perpetual motion and deus ex machina of all stripes and sizes. From Rainmakers, to Pirelli's Miracle Elixir, to Phrenology.

This is what you are defending. A culture of fraud and corruption for fleeting personal gain, pride, fame and the sour hope that somehow, their lie will not be uncovered in time, as all lies eventually are, when age fades the illusions and memories no longer hold fondly to former allies.

But you can remain in denial, in a Pollyanna universe that all science and it's occult practitioners are pure and honest and good. I deal in a world where they are, like every other man. Fallible, callous, and shallow. Meaning the best, but often failing even a modest step in that direction.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Mortared and tarred with the blood of those who both stood in the way and the criminals who were finally run down on it's bitter slabs.

 

[code1211]

The entire subject has been made political by commentary such as yours. Believe it or not, there really ARE issues that have the potential to affect the entire earth and its people that have absolutely zero to do with any political agenda.

That said, I believe in the NOAA scientific R&D which confirms in no uncertain terms that the speed with which a natural global warming pattern has emerged is, in fact, due to man's technological advances with no consideration of the after effects of the damage to earth's delicate balance of eco systems.

What you say may be an accurate representation of the PR put forth by NOAA, but that PR is factually incorrect.

The warming over the last century has been pretty consistant and predicting future rate of increase can be easily done by replicating past rates of increase. Adjusting those rates in consideration of increasing CO2 levels makes the predictions less accurate.

The AGW prediction is that increased CO2 will increase the temperature and the rate of increase. The rate is constant and only recently has resumed to increase after years of stagnation.

Yeah, NOAA has an agenda too, just like all them librul university lab scientists.

I'd kinda like to know (a little off topic) why it is that the conservatives rush to defense of the NASA Constellation program and yet are so highly critical of NOAA on the issue of years and years and years of research on global warming as being bogus. You must think that the space travel scientists are smart and the global climate scientists are stupid.

Just to run a quick reality check: If the rocket scientists at NASA had not decided at some point in the recent past to become glorified weather men who choose to use land based stations over the orbiting satelites (is it just me or this by itself rich irony), they would be out of work and completely without funding.

They better watch out or they'll be wearing rubber ducky suits holding signs outside a Revol Store.

How does thrust, drag and fuel lend itself to climate prediction? Why are satelites not the preferred data gathering techique for people expert in space travel?

 

[Old Rocks]

Faster than expected? Interesting. Global warming stalled for years and they say this is a fast change? Interesting.

Since you appear to be particularly smug about this, here is a one-page FAQ put out by NOAA for your edification.

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

From your link:

2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).


Do you see anything odd about this "science"? There is just under a 300% margin of error. With respect to these posers, I could make a prediction with this accuracy with no sleep, no funding, a bad hangover and no concept whatsoever of even what topic I was talking about.

They don't know what they are talking about. They don't understand the variables, the effects the variables have on the other variables or the outcomes.

To get a 300% margin of error in running surveys, you only need to speak to about 20 people. A 300% margin of error is beyond ridiculous.

This is the caliber of the "science" that Global Warming draws upon.

Well, if fools like you get their way, we will be at least at 1260 ppm. And probably 50 or 60 ppm of CH4.

If we start right now, maybe we can hold the CO2 to 490 ppm.

You could make a prediction for what ever you want. The problem that you deny will come back on your children and grandchildren. But you do not give a damn. You're getting yours, and that is all that matters.

Code, you know damned well what is happening, you are one of the few that demonstrate any intellect here. But you are using the intellect to knowingly deny reality. One can only wonder concerning your motives.

 

[Old Rocks]

What you say may be an accurate representation of the PR put forth by NOAA, but that PR is factually incorrect.

The warming over the last century has been pretty consistant and predicting future rate of increase can be easily done by replicating past rates of increase. Adjusting those rates in consideration of increasing CO2 levels makes the predictions less accurate.

The AGW prediction is that increased CO2 will increase the temperature and the rate of increase. The rate is constant and only recently has resumed to increase after years of stagnation.

Yeah, NOAA has an agenda too, just like all them librul university lab scientists.

I'd kinda like to know (a little off topic) why it is that the conservatives rush to defense of the NASA Constellation program and yet are so highly critical of NOAA on the issue of years and years and years of research on global warming as being bogus. You must think that the space travel scientists are smart and the global climate scientists are stupid.

Just to run a quick reality check: If the rocket scientists at NASA had not decided at some point in the recent past to become glorified weather men who choose to use land based stations over the orbiting satelites (is it just me or this by itself rich irony), they would be out of work and completely without funding.

They better watch out or they'll be wearing rubber ducky suits holding signs outside a Revol Store.

How does thrust, drag and fuel lend itself to climate prediction? Why are satelites not the preferred data gathering techique for people expert in space travel?

Data @ NASA GISS: Datasets and Images

Of course, one could actually use what the GISS actually uses before yapping. But then, that would be the honest approach.

 

[Oddball]

NASA and GISS....."honest".....


BWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course that is the marching orders for the present. De-legitimize science, period.

So we can just all trust you ditto heads and your junkie leader. Or follow the spittle flecked Glenn Beck people.

Really, people like your self are so damned contemptable. Willfully ignorant, and willing to do anything to stay that way.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Big Fitz]

De-legitimize science, period.

Oh the climategate emails did that pretty well thank you... for Global warming "science".

And the IPCC admissions that their data was neither peer reviewed OR based on scientific evidence. Only anecdotal evidence.

Or follow the spittle flecked Glenn Beck people.

Only one frothing here is you... and maybe Keith "I'm getting my notice soon" Olberman. Don't worry though, we took precautions and put on hazmat suits.

Really, people like your self are so damned contemptable.

Just of you, Mill Rat. Just of you.

 

[Oddball]

Of course that is the marching orders for the present. De-legitimize science, period.

Nothing de-legitimizes "science" like actual reality.

 

[Big Fitz]

Damn reality for messing up my wonderful theory!

 

[saveliberty]

Of course that is the marching orders for the present. De-legitimize science, period.

So we can just all trust you ditto heads and your junkie leader. Or follow the spittle flecked Glenn Beck people.

Really, people like your self are so damned contemptable. Willfully ignorant, and willing to do anything to stay that way.

Okay, so I just got done speaking with a customer of mine who used to work in remote sensing. For those of you unfamiliar with that term, it means using satellites to gather information. He said the raw data was worked over really hard by the time it left their business. Sometimes the data that they "refined" was sent back by the group they were wroking for, because it was considered not useable for their purposes. Care to guess what company they worked for? Al Gore was a principal, if that helps. My customers conclusion was warming is a fake. Such a fake he lost interest in working there and took a job somewhere else.

 

[Charles Stucker]

But you do not give a damn. You're getting yours, and that is all that matters.

You mean like someone who ran a heavily polluting mill for decades and NOW having "got theirs" (sic) they want everything cleaned up.
Should not such a person be labeled best as a Hypocrite

 

[MaggieMae]

Faster than expected? Interesting. Global warming stalled for years and they say this is a fast change? Interesting.

Since you appear to be particularly smug about this, here is a one-page FAQ put out by NOAA for your edification.

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

From your link:

2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).
So why not be proactive instead of reactive? I for one think it's foolish to err on the side of the scientists being right.

Do you see anything odd about this "science"? There is just under a 300% margin of error. With respect to these posers, I could make a prediction with this accuracy with no sleep, no funding, a bad hangover and no concept whatsoever of even what topic I was talking about.

They don't know what they are talking about. They don't understand the variables, the effects the variables have on the other variables or the outcomes.

To get a 300% margin of error in running surveys, you only need to speak to about 20 people. A 300% margin of error is beyond ridiculous.

This is the caliber of the "science" that Global Warming draws upon.

Yeah, again, NOAA is chuck full of a bunch of idiots. Gotcha.

 

[MaggieMae]

Thank you Sigmund, but I still don't buy it out of hand because some politically active individual with lots of letters behind their name or has a half dozen says so. Particularly when I understand even their work or research or thoughts do not occur in a vacuum.

As a general rule, scientists can hardly be placed in the same category of politicians--always looking for the what's-in-it-for-me angle. If a scientist has lots of letters behind his/her name, he usually doesn't have to worry a whole lot about personal finances. They don't spend 15-20 years in school with the attitude that they're gonna be billionnaires, but that they might contribute their learned talents and resulting experience to society.

So... Mann, Hansen and Jones weren't looking for what was in it for them? Millions... no as just reported by Sen. James Inhofe on the Jason Lewis Show, over SIX BILLION has been spent on Global Warming hoaxers.

You don't think for one second that these scientists couldn't turn snake oil salesman at the expense of their ethics and morals... assuming they had them to begin with?

Human nature is corruptible by it's very definition. Even Vestal Virgins frequently if not almost always were not pure. Your precious scientists can be corrupted by ambition, greed and power just as easily as any other man. They are not perfect.

You're right on one thing. Many... not even most... do not dream some day of becoming billionaires by their discoveries. What they crave is even more precious and nebulous to achieve: immortality. Almost to a man, they want the immortality of Newton, Einstein, Salk, Pasteur, Curie, Galileo, Pythagoras.

Every one of them wants to discover the next great secret of the universe... and those that are weak in character, will lie, cheat and steal, defraud, promise false hope and besmirch anyone who dares discover a flaw. History is replete with snake oil salesmen. Filled with cures and powders, perpetual motion and deus ex machina of all stripes and sizes. From Rainmakers, to Pirelli's Miracle Elixir, to Phrenology.

This is what you are defending. A culture of fraud and corruption for fleeting personal gain, pride, fame and the sour hope that somehow, their lie will not be uncovered in time, as all lies eventually are, when age fades the illusions and memories no longer hold fondly to former allies.

But you can remain in denial, in a Pollyanna universe that all science and it's occult practitioners are pure and honest and good. I deal in a world where they are, like every other man. Fallible, callous, and shallow. Meaning the best, but often failing even a modest step in that direction.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Mortared and tarred with the blood of those who both stood in the way and the criminals who were finally run down on it's bitter slabs.

And who is Jim Inhofe other than one of the biggest perpetrators that global warming IS a hoax? I have a difficult time believing someone whose greatest source of campaign contributions are from Big Oil.

 

[MaggieMae]

Of course that is the marching orders for the present. De-legitimize science, period.

So we can just all trust you ditto heads and your junkie leader. Or follow the spittle flecked Glenn Beck people.

Really, people like your self are so damned contemptable. Willfully ignorant, and willing to do anything to stay that way.

And the ONLY reason the science is being de-legitimized is because the threat of global warming which undeniably has intensified because of man's disregard for the environment, is seen as a "Democratic" thingie--which of course must be diametrically opposed. Add to that the fact that fossil fuels are a major contributor and that energy alternatives is an issue supported mostly by Democrats, and you've got a perfect political storm.

 

[MaggieMae]

I rest my case with regard to politicizing the issue. Al Gore didn't do the science; all he did was gather the information and make it public--in lay terms. But because it was Al Gore, the threat of global warming doesn't really exist at all except in the minds of us tree huggers.

 

[MaggieMae]

Of course that is the marching orders for the present. De-legitimize science, period.

So we can just all trust you ditto heads and your junkie leader. Or follow the spittle flecked Glenn Beck people.

Really, people like your self are so damned contemptable. Willfully ignorant, and willing to do anything to stay that way.

Okay, so I just got done speaking with a customer of mine who used to work in remote sensing. For those of you unfamiliar with that term, it means using satellites to gather information. He said the raw data was worked over really hard by the time it left their business. Sometimes the data that they "refined" was sent back by the group they were wroking for, because it was considered not useable for their purposes. Care to guess what company they worked for? Al Gore was a principal, if that helps. My customers conclusion was warming is a fake. Such a fake he lost interest in working there and took a job somewhere else.

Oh, okay, so one person you know thinks it's a fake and now you do too. Well that does it for me. Count me in!!

 

[Oddball]

I rest my case with regard to politicizing the issue. Al Gore didn't do the science; all he did was gather the information and make it public--in lay terms. But because it was Al Gore, the threat of global warming doesn't really exist at all except in the minds of us tree huggers.

He claims the "science is settled", even though he wouldn't know scientific method if it fell on him. Yet, he's perfectly willing to run around chiding the rest of the world and profiting handsomely off of it.

Ergo, he is the one politicizing the AGW tall tale and deserves to be skewered at every turn.