By Joseph D’Aleo the co-founder of the Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting has released a report using extensive data to show the 10 things wrong with global warming. The two part report can be accessed at the below links:
Of course since global warming is a faith based religion I’m sure such facts won’t matter much to the AGW faithful.
3:37 pm on March 30th, 2011 1
Frankly, I think you also drank the Cool-aid, just that yours is a different flavored one than the one you accuse those who believe global warming is a fact to have drunk.
3:38 pm on March 30th, 2011 2
Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to offend anyone…I meant to write "Kool-Aid".
4:18 pm on March 30th, 2011 3
Uh… Teadrinker…
You realize that if I say the sky is falling, the burden of proof is upon me to show why and not upon the Falling Sky Deniers to show it isn't happening.
Likewise, those who claim the world is going to end through global warming must prove that it IS happening and WHY it is happening.
Instead, they have repeatedly lied, exaggerated, manipulated data, suppressed dissenting opinion, used politics and marketing to further their ideas, etc.
One doesn't need to be a scientist or climate expert to see this fits a pattern of scientific fraud by those with non-scientific motives that has gone on since Galileo got told he was full of shyt.
The only Kool-aid here is that being consumed by the Believers and that being consumed by those who refuse to objectively look at the actions of climate "scientists", and their political enablers, and draw the same conclusions they would if someone in a greasy suit tried to sell them a bridge.
7:25 pm on March 30th, 2011 4
I like the report. Lots of numbers that can be tracked to sources, no smoke or mirrors nor some emotional plea. They also reinforced everything I've stated before, especially how all the "claims" by the AGW folks are actually created from models and "adjusted" data and not from the real data. Present real data and their theory doesn't hold up very well.
But please, don't like silly little things like facts and figured get in the way of a good money grab.
9:12 pm on March 30th, 2011 5
Remember Arthur S. Otis, PhD? A pioneer of intelligence testing, a brilliant man. In 1963 he published Light Velocity and Relativity, which refuted Einstein's absurd theory. But the relativistic faithful still follow Einstein! A physicist who doesn't believe that E equals m c-square has a heck of a hard time getting grants for his research. God bless the brave Joseph D’Aleo; he's upholding Otis's tradition. "D'Aleo has been a contributing meteorologist to the Old Farmer's Almanac in which he predicted in 2008 that the earth had entered a period of global cooling," says Wikipedia.
11:32 pm on March 30th, 2011 6
"The only Kool-aid here is that being consumed by the Believers and that being consumed by those who refuse to objectively look at the actions of climate “scientists”, and their political enablers, and draw the same conclusions they would if someone in a greasy suit tried to sell them a bridge."
Oh, right this supposed "Climategate", the scientific scandal that only exists in the minds of a few "skeptics", the one where independent inquiries (yes, plural) found no evidence of any unethical behavior.
The evidence is there if you are willing to peer out of the cave.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
11:37 pm on March 30th, 2011 7
If only some of you applied your "skepticism" to religion.
11:55 pm on March 30th, 2011 8
Oh, and that paper.
Where are his references? What are his sources?
I mean, come on.
That's got to be the crappiest appeal to authority I've seen in a long time.
12:04 am on March 31st, 2011 9
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/climate-cha…
3:23 am on March 31st, 2011 10
So, after reading the links to the article, it seems (to me anyway), that the author has totally debunked "global warming" as merely a way for scientists to get money for additional research that otherwise could have gone to paying down the debt, etc.
Practically every p age has something to say about the myth of global warming and how the myth is constantly being perpetuated.
9:40 am on March 31st, 2011 11
#10,
You got all that from that article? I don't know how you managed. I've actually studied and taught science and yet all I could see was conjecture. It's as if it was put together by a 13 year-old conspiracy theorist, not a respectable scientist.
11:37 am on March 31st, 2011 12
@11, You doing a very poor job of countering ~any~ of this points. Every one of those charts / data sets had a reference you could easily validate. This isn't anything new, its the same stuff that's been out there for years now. Anyone standing up and pointing to it was labeled a "denier" and ostracized / silenced, just like your trying to do to people now. You'll now proceed to use ad hominem, appeal to popular belief, appeal to emotion, and non sequitur in your reply.
Let me just save you the time, it won't work, you don't know what your talking about, and you can't play semantics.
11:57 am on March 31st, 2011 13
Here is where ~all~ pro-AGW arguments fall on their face.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ignorance
"It is the refusal to admit that at a particular point in time when the momentum of individual or group opinion exists for a particular course of action or, for action without any particular preferred course; that there is in fact no justification to take any action. And what is being sought, is in fact merely a rationalization (based upon fallacy), that temporarily assuages justifiable doubt that proposed action(s) are auto de fe (act of faith) alone, with no justification in the knowledge that is at hand."
As I've mentioned many times before,
Pro-AGW => The earth is going to burn up because we humans are putting CO2 in the atmosphere.
Anti-AGW => We don't know all the facts behind how the atmosphere works, we should find out more information before taking rash and sudden action.
Its very easy to see which argument its following logic and which one is just a rationalization for the desires of a particular group of people. If CO2 production was ~really~ this big evil "destroyer of worlds", then the Pro-AGW camp would be screaming for more nuke plans to replace all the hydrocarbon plants. Even if nuke plants aren't perfect they are several orders of magnitude cleaner then the cleanest hydrocarbon plant ever built. Lesser of two evils would occur.
12:02 pm on March 31st, 2011 14
#7 You sound very RELIGIOUS yourself there. So tell me, what is the name of the GW God that you believe so strongly in.
You would make a good Baptist Preacher Koolaid drinker. The Faith is Strong in you.
12:10 pm on March 31st, 2011 15
#11 You Sir are DEFINITELY a Liberal. Even if you are from Canada.
Glad I never will sit in your so called "science" class.
4:12 pm on March 31st, 2011 16
"You doing a very poor job of countering ~any~ of this points. Every one of those charts / data sets had a reference you could easily validate."
References? Where? True skepticism is asking for evidence and observing it with an open-mind when it's being presented, it doesn't involve fabricate its own based on conjecture.
14,
Had you read between the lines, you would have seen that I was suggesting that this isn't really about global warming. This is only a means to discredit scientific research. All scientific research. Yes, there is a hidden agenda. Of course, some of it has been funded by corporations, as were the ones who denied the link between tobacco and cancer, but a section of the global warming deniers (yes, it isn't skepticism), are also pro-intelligence design and–while I'm on a roll–staunch believers in manifest destiny. Let me put it this way. If you're pro-intelligence design, you're American. If you're a global warming denier, you're either American or on the payroll of an American corporation.
4:21 pm on March 31st, 2011 17
"#11 You Sir are DEFINITELY a Liberal. Even if you are from Canada.
Glad I never will sit in your so called “science” class."
Hey, science is based on facts, not BS. Dumbing it down doesn't make global warming denying any more factual.
You can be skeptical about global warming if you want. Science has been wrong it the past, but that article is neither about skepticism nor is it scientific. Clearly, you've never read an academic paper if you think it's "arguments" are in any way adequate.
Let me put it this way: he'll never be able to have that published in a peer reviewed journal, not because of his argument but because of how he makes it.
4:29 pm on March 31st, 2011 18
16,
Kind of like holocaust deniers. You can present them with all the evidence you want, their response will still be an emotional one, not one that is based on logic.
6:54 pm on March 31st, 2011 19
I'm laughing now. Being unable to rationally argue, instead the AGWer resorts to appeal to emotion. By attempting to link anti-AGW people to holocaust deniers, this person hopes to create an emotional reaction that puts the opposition on the defensive, force them to explain how their not like holocaust deniers. Problem is the logic of,
People A denied the holocaust happened,
People B deny that AGW is real,
Therefor People B are the same as People A.
This isn't logical as there is nothing linking People B to People A. This is also incorrect as it assumes that people B "deny AGW is real" when in fact People B instead desire more information.
Before attempting to engage me in matters of rational I'd suggest you get educated first. After all if your some sort of teacher then you must surly be familiar to rational thought process and critical thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
9:14 am on April 2nd, 2011 20
#22 blah blah blah blah (i am smart) blah blah blah. (if i use enough words and talk enough jiber-jaber, perhaps they will fall for it) blah blah blah.
10:38 am on April 2nd, 2011 21
If a technical argument/debate is over your head and you don't understand it, just admit it or don't participate.
11:24 am on April 2nd, 2011 22
19 Someotherguy. Yeah, that is what the “liberal minded” do. They are all about the emotional and forget or do not understand the Logical. These people are sometimes quite intelligent otherwise.
11:46 am on April 2nd, 2011 23
24 JoeC your greatest fear is that the "average joe" will see you for what you are. You pray each night that you can maintain the image of an intellectual. The reality is that you and Teadrinker are simpletons that fall for the latest popular cause. You hide behind political correctness. Typical Liberals, you and teadrinker. No wonder you would bond with him here. So easy to bait. You didn't even know you were taking the hook. Only someone that sees themselves as an intellectual would be stupid enough to fall for this. Thanks for the entertainment JoeC. Don't break anything now.
At least Teadrinker didn't fall for it. But YOU did.
1:06 pm on April 2nd, 2011 24
#25
If I went to a seminar of brain surgeons (I know nothing of brain surgery) and felt the need to chime in with whatever that was @#23, I'd come off as rather foolish.
Just saying …
1:23 pm on April 2nd, 2011 25
I'm still waiting for all the AGW clergy to explain the Greenland ice core samples.
The biggest problem for alarmists is the Medieval Warm Period. During that time frame it was warmer than it is right now. History shows the changes to civilizations around the globe during this time. The Europeans exited the Dark Ages, the Vikings colonized Greenland because it was actually green enough at the time to support their colonies, and in North America the droughts during this period led to the mass migrations of many people. I just got done reading this month's National Geographic and they have an article in there about how the Inca expanded their civilization during the MWP because they could grow more crops at high elevations which ultimately led to them being able to support a larger Army.
Remember warming is not the issue, the world is warming, not as much as during prior time periods, but never the less warming. What is causing the warming is the issue and Climategate shows the alarmists data is fraudulent and they have been intentionally been stifling debate on the issue for political reasons.
I have said this before but this is why I am so against the global warming eco-faith because it obscures real environmental issues. Take for example the Yellow Dust issue in China. There are few environmental problems that rank up there with Yellow Dust and it continues to get worse and worse every year and this is something that has actually be proven to change the weather and have negative health effects.
Yet how many people even know of this issue and how much money and effort is being allocated to deal with it compared to global warming? The global warming eco-faith and their clergy have totally obscured and even stigmatized legitimate environmental issues.
I used to be a member of the Sierra Club because of the conservation efforts that the group promoted, but I canceled my membership because the majority of the organization’s efforts is going towards the global warming eco-faith instead of conservation. The Sierra Club magazine they put out was just filled with nothing but global warming propaganda and then they put me on a mailing list for every left wing cause you can imagine. Clearly environmental conservation is no longer a priority with the group. I switched over to the Nature Conservancy who's conservation efforts I have been impressed with. In their magazine they actually have people who criticize people who bring up global warming because of the divisive politics involved that setback conservation efforts. So if anyone is looking for a legitimate environmental organization to support, I recommend the Nature Conservancy.
Overall though I think, Glenn Reynolds said it best when he said “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.”
When you read stuff like this and if the alarmists aren’t willing to make sacrifices themselves then why should everyone else?
1:44 pm on April 2nd, 2011 26
#27
I didn't know Yellow Dust was "proven to change the weather." Where can I learn more about that?
1:57 pm on April 2nd, 2011 27
Teadrinker acts more like KoolAidDrinker… lol…
2:01 pm on April 2nd, 2011 28
JoeC, via the ever informative ROK Drop archives.
2:06 pm on April 2nd, 2011 29
Ah, GI Korea beat me to it. With so much added particulate matter in the air, at various levels of the atmosphere, a change in weather would easily be expected. It would have to be sustained for a while for it to lead to a climatic change, but that has happened in the past with particulate pollution.
2:47 pm on April 2nd, 2011 30
#29
Good to know, but that article seems to be more speculative than assertive; not going so far as proving Yellow Dust does or has changed the weather.
The sun blocking and weather changing effects of volcanic dust have been studied for some time, so it's reasonable to assume these dust particles may also have some effect. But the article doesn't imply if or where Yellow Dust should rank as a weather changing environmental problem. However, their work will help determine if it should be a significant factor in climate models or given a minor butterfly-effect status.
4:04 pm on April 2nd, 2011 31
"I’m laughing now. Being unable to rationally argue, instead the AGWer resorts to appeal to emotion. By attempting to link anti-AGW people to holocaust deniers, this person hopes to create an emotional reaction that puts the opposition on the defensive, force them to explain how their not like holocaust deniers."
Nope, they don't have to explain that they aren't because it's a fact. I could have also used said they resemble those who believe in the geocentric system or eschatology.
4:08 pm on April 2nd, 2011 32
While I think the guy brings up points that need to be addressed, I think the two PDFs were sloppily presented. It really did seem as if some of the charts, some of which lack basic standard explanations of what they are supposed to be saying (like if temperatures are in °F or °C) were copiously cut-and-pasted to make it look) meatier.
I did a couple things that seem problematic about the way this counter-evidence is presented. Besides presenting in some cases only the last fifteen years to make upward trends slightly less obvious, it focuses on record temperatures as evidence. While the existence of an increase of record highs might indicate an increase in global warming, they don’t necessarily, and certainly a lack of new record highs doesn’t mean there isn’t an increasing average temperature.
The use of urban record highs as counter-evidence would also seem to undermine another key point made by some critics of anthropogenic global warming. They claim that “urban heat islands” produce distorted data, by making things hotter than they would otherwise be, but data from these same “urban heat islands” is being used to show that things aren’t so hot. So which is it? They are invalid because they make things look too hot? Or they’re valid because they make things seem cooler than AGW proponents say?
The author seemed also to miss the point about why there were colder winters a few decades back, enough that some feared a return of the ice age. It was particulate matter — largely but not exclusively manmade — and we did something about it.
4:18 pm on April 2nd, 2011 33
"Climategate shows the alarmists data is fraudulent"
There you go again. What's the evidence? Several independent inquiries found that the data wasn't fraudulent. Just because you keep repeating otherwise doesn't make it so.
"Remember warming is not the issue, the world is warming, not as much as during prior time periods, but never the less warming."
Which ones? You mean the "Medieval Warm Period"? Not so.
I don't know where you get your history lessons, but some vikings (not all) settled in the southern pastures of Greenland, not the whole island. Grass still grows there and people do live on Greenland.
http://www.archaeology.org/image.php?page=online/…
Have you actually looked at the graph? Well within the average.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Tempe…
Please explain the huge spike in the last 200 years, though.
10:15 pm on April 2nd, 2011 34
Where to begin with Teadrinker who continues to defend the Climategate scientists. Here is the people that Teadrinker defends, they are people that broke the law:
Here are the actual e-mails detailing their deleting and information hiding:
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
Jones had even been warned by his own university against deleting data subjected to an FOI request:
From: Phil Jones
To: santer1@XXXX
Subject: Re: A quick question
Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008
Ben,
Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable!…
Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these – all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!
Yet here’s Jones’ email to Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, asking him to join in the deleting of emails about the IPCC’s controversial ARA report in 2007 on man-made warming which Jones co-authored:
From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil:
This is the type of science that Teadrinker defends. As far as clearing the ClimateGate scientists Teadrinker is referring to the "independent" committee set up by the University of East Anglia that ultimately cleared themselves:
Though this group cleared the CRU this what they had to say as well:
Penn State did the same type of "independent" review of Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann that ultimately cleared him as well.
This would be like BP forming their own "independent" committee after the oil spill and their "independent" committee came back and said BP did no wrong with the oil spill. Of course this independent committee would have no creditability. These "independent" reviews were simply set up so people like Teadrinker can go around and repeat the findings so people will eventually believe it.
All people need to do is read the ClimateGate e-mails that I gave you a sample of above, they speak for themselves.
Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at Berkeley, explains Climategate’s “hide the decline” scandal and the corruption of global warming science:
Once again these are the scientists Teadrinker defends. Tom's land bridge theory from Africa has more creditability than these guys.
Oh by the way no one has explained the Greenland Ice Core samples yet.
10:39 pm on April 2nd, 2011 35
As far as Greenland Teadrinker is grasping for straws again making a false argument that I don't know people live on Greenland. It is in fact a boom time on Greenland because of the melting of the permafrost and longer growing seasons providing more food for the island's residents. The melting was also opening up new areas for mining that were inaccessible before. Just like the Vikings before them warmer temperatures is creating a boom time on the island.
It is well known that the Vikings colonized southern Greenland during the MWP and abandoned the island it is believed due to a combination of environmental degradation in part caused by the cooling temperatures and increasing conflict with the natives over what food resources were available:
1:16 am on April 3rd, 2011 36
Gi Korea, here is what I don't understand. The WHY. Why do otherwise intelligent individuals feel such a NEED to believe in GW and that "man" is the cause. It is like a Religion to them. I don't get it. They seem to NEED to believe it. Like a religion. Like a religious Follower, they get upset emotionally when confronted by non-believers. Perhaps it is foolish of me to attempt to understand their motivation. But I am a bit curious.
It is obvious to me that climate goes thru natural rotational changes. Why is it not obvious to intellectual braggards?
@35 True. The vikings in Greenland is VERY well known. Even I know of it. Thanks Discovery Channel.
1:59 am on April 3rd, 2011 37
Real scientists are open with their data, methods, and conclusions, and they open their work for other scientists to review. They have no need to hide anything or stifle dissenting opinions.
Period. The end.
3:01 am on April 3rd, 2011 38
@#36 – Many people who defend the global warming clergy just don't want to admit they were duped by these people. So they will come up with excuse after excuse to defend them. It is kind of like people who continue to defend the rationale of going into Iraq. The architects of the war were wrong about the WMD's but you still hear people defend them with excuse after excuse. For some people is hard to admit they are wrong.
What is funny about the global warming ummah is that man may be influencing the rise in temperatures. In fact man probably is though I suspect at a small level. Natural forces are likely the main cause of warming just like it has been the cause in the past. However the global warming ummah will not accept any other rationale that challenges their theology.
All skeptics ask is that the research be open and debate be allowed in order to draw firm conclusions before forcing the public to drop their standard of living, give up their vehicles, and hand over billions of dollars to Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, and the rest of people set to profit from the carbon exchange.
Instead we have deceptive science and people who challenge these deceptions called every horrible name in the book while the global warming clergy see the profits continue to roll in as they fly around in private jets and live in huge mansions and then have the nerve to claim that they have some kind of moral superiority over everyone else.
11:38 am on April 3rd, 2011 39
@38,
You hit it pretty much on the head. The left has always had a need for some sort of moral quest, its how they define themselves. Similar to how those on the right tend to stick to their religious beliefs. People like to try to argue how their different, but ultimately they just end up proving their the same. Wake up on the morning and look at themselves in the mirror, and as long as they can think themselves a part of some sort of "right" group, then they can go about their otherwise boring day.
Real science is open, the data and models are peer reviewed and counter-arguments are welcome. Opposing arguments are good, they serve as a sanity check and as a way to validate the original theory. A good theory will stand up to the strictest levels of scrutiny, it should never be permissible to hide your work from someone because your afraid they'll argue with you. What this has become is big time money interfering with scientific research, and doing so in such a way as to create "business" opportunities. Al'Gore stood to make millions if not billions if mandatory carbon "credits" was passed. It was such a lucrative opportunity that they spent tons of money making a propaganda piece about it. Thankfully clearer heads prevailed.
I've said this before, greenies are ~not~ out to save the world, their out to destroy it. They don't desire a cleaner energy supply, they desire less energy produced period. They romanticize third world living conditions and wish to set back everyone in the world by a few centuries. The choosers of the slain, provided its not them of course. Your example of the limo's and private aircraft highlights the message perfectly well. "Give us all your money, go live in third world conditions, and we'll just stay like we are".
1:27 pm on April 3rd, 2011 40
Are any of these propositions true?
1. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared red light.
2. Human activities increase the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
3. The global climate is warming.
4. The polar ice caps and the glaciers are melting.
5. Sea level is rising.
6:04 pm on April 3rd, 2011 41
Are any of these propositions true?
1. Some guys believe in global warming.
2. Some guys like little boys.
3. Some guys who like little boys believe in global warming.
4. Glans believes in global warming.
9:39 pm on April 4th, 2011 42
Longtime skeptic Dr Muller surprised a lot of people with his take on the climate data:
Interesting.