The Island of Doubt

So last month its was the Forecast Earth gang at the Weather Channel. This week it’s the science and technology team at CNN that gets the axe.

I know that times are tough all over. I know it’s hard to sell ads for science sections and programs. But it sure would be nice to see the corporate robber barons that run the most popular media in the country do what’s right for a change. I mean, come on: does anyone really believe that scientific issues are going to diminish in importance in the months and years ahead?

Comments

  1. #1 Mynahbird
    December 4, 2008

    The Global Warming Hoax is coming full circle. LMAO skwawk skwawk

  2. #2 YoMomma
    December 4, 2008

    James, I hope you don’t mind. I invited all your “fans” from the Forecast Earth site to come over here since that joke of a blog was FIRED for failing to convince anyone about the MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX. Enjoy!

  3. #3 Brian D
    December 4, 2008

    For what it’s worth, James, I think this downright anti-science rhetoric is troubling as hell.

    I’d say that no matter the circumstances involved, by the way — a major news network cuts its science team and commenters cheer, choosing to deride those who study and promote science? Mooney was right.

    I’ve asked this question before, but it may be pertinent here:
    Take the following hypothetical situation: You’re a libertarian/conservative, and the left is calling for increased government action as a result of scientific studies. What drives you to choose to attack the *science* (which is damn hard if you don’t have the requisite background, and chances are that you don’t know any more about the details than the liberals you attack as ignorant conformists), as opposed to following the science but coming up with a small-government solution to the problem? Why leave your stated small-government philosophy for one actively anti-science?

  4. #4 Hang Ten
    December 4, 2008

    Brian D – I’m old enough to remember the “science” behind the big global cooling scare also. You?

  5. #5 Brian D
    December 4, 2008

    Hang Ten: No, I’m not, but unlike you I evidently know the difference between the popular press and the scientific literature. Even then, warming was an emerging consensus in the literature; blame Newsweek (prestigious scientific journal, that one) for the ‘ice age scare’.

  6. #6 Roger Daltry
    December 4, 2008

    I’ll jump in here as an observer…..James is a sarcastic bully with pretense of being a journalist or some kind of pseudo scientist. Drinking the Kool-aid, same as all the other hysterical science hoax pushers of the moment over history. Science has nothing to do with it. Journalism sure a he77 has nothing to do with it. Study history Brian D. We won’t be fooled again…… PROVE your science with observation instead of a BS computer model. Oh, wait, you CAN’T. Oh well…..then just run around yelling the sky is falling if it makes you feel better.

  7. #7 Brian D
    December 4, 2008

    Roger, which of the following observations (not based on computer models) do you dispute?

    CO2 levels rising
    CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas
    Falling atmospheric C13/C12 ratios (demonstrates increased CO2 is anthropogenic)
    An assortment of positive feedbacks, most notably water vapor but also including melting permafrost
    Increasing long-term temperature trends on surface stations
    Increasing long-term temperature trends by satellite measurements
    Stratospheric cooling
    Sea level rise
    Ice mass loss in Greenland and in the Arctic

    There’s others, but we’ll start there. I reiterate, all of this stems from empirical observation and there are no proxies.

    I also ask what evidence you’re using to “not be fooled” and support your hypothesis.

  8. #8 Roger Daultry
    December 5, 2008

    I’m a big fan of observation. I’m looking at the same ‘evidence’ as you – only I’m not quite as selective because I don’t have a need to push an agenda. Why do you selectively observe only the past few years. I choose not to do that. Everything you cite has occurred in back and forth in much larger cycles across eons of time before you or any other man graced this earth. However, selectively extrapolating a doomsday scenario based on a completely unproven “computer model” that is based on a few ppm of CO2 attributed to man’s current activities is asinine to anyone with an ounce of common sense, and irresponsible in a multitude of ways. That is where we differ – on the interpretation of the observations and the need or want to be a radical. You obviously want or need your hair to be on fire and for the sky to be falling for some reason. I don’t feel the need for unnecessary alarmism based on “OMG, what if” “it might” “it could” “it may” “we just don’t know” “a computer model says maybe this or that”. Think for a moment about a world where all decisions were made on “what if”. The pseudo-alarmist “what if” crowd inevitably ends up irrelevant, but are always good for a temporary laugh. Now YOU go sit in a dark closet with your eyes closed, knees pulled up, and rock back and forth and worry about all our stupid what if’s and figure out how to control other people’s behavior to meet your moral standards. YOU knock yourself out and have fun worrying about everything! Because WE don’t feel the need. And remember to check back with me in 2050, let me know how those observations are going as compared to the 5000th version of some computer model still trying to retroactively fit the data. Last note – I’ve worked 25+ years cleaning up environmental pollution. Carbon dioxide ain’t pollution. That’s your fundamental first mistake.

  9. #9 Skwawkerro the Parrot
    December 5, 2008

    skwawk skwawk. what will we parrot today. skwawk skwawk

  10. #10 Don't Read my Comment
    December 5, 2008

    Don’t read this. It might not fit your agenda. “By the mid-21st century the planet will face another little ice age similar to the Maunder Minimum [the previous little ice age], “Khabibullo Abduusamatov, head of the Russian space research laboratory told RIA Novosti in an interview January 22. He said this will occur, “…because the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth has been constantly decreasing since the 1990s and will reach its minimum approximately in 2041.” Other scientists in the U.S. and other countries have made similar observations, Some predict a full blown ice age rather than the “little” variety is coming soon though most are not as specific about the date. These scientists have speculated that the next ice age may have already begun but we won’t be able to verify that until some years down the road. They note that before the era of recurring ice ages, the earth had 13 times as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as it has today and the climate was much more desirable, warmer and more stable.

  11. #11 TTT
    December 5, 2008

    No, Hang Ten, you are not “old enough to remember” when the scientific community warned of society becoming threatened by global cooling, because that never happened. Not in the 1970s or at any other time.

    If I had a nickel for every time a GW inactivist had said they personally “remembered” such events that never happened, I’d have enough money to just buy coal plants and turn them off. Really, the memory / history-rewriting power of the right-wing echo chamber is astounding. It’s like Orwell’s “memory hole” treatment, but without conscious direction.

  12. #12 Read My Comment
    December 5, 2008

    TTT – maybe you should just go be quiet now and stop embarrassing yourself. I can provide 100′s more like this if you want. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf This is a Newsweek Science article from 1975 hyping the then well-known threat of global cooling. It has all the features that we have come to know and love about the modern version – deductions from a recent random fluctuation in the temperature trend, accounts of increases in tornadoes, economic and social disasters including crop failures and much more. Such apocalyptic warnings continued until 1983, when the scaremongers did an about turn. The fantastic social engineering solutions being promoted at the time were just as remarkable and stupid as those proposed today. But alas eventually they were to be superseded by the economic suicide pact that was Kyoto.

  13. #13 paulm
    December 5, 2008
  14. #14 TTT
    December 5, 2008

    ReadMyComment: LOL! “Newsweek”, LOL and LOL some more! Do you have any idea how pathetic it is to see inactivists and denialists cling to trivia like that? Hey, if it’s in a celebrity tabloid it MUST be true! I guess scientists really were trying to clone dinosaurs out of mosquitoes in amber, because Newsweek and Time sure wrote about that too! Time made a front-cover story out of “Summer of the Shark” in 2001, even though the number of shark attacks that year was perfectly average. Your tabloids mean nothing.

    My comment stands: the scientific community never warned that society was under threat from global cooling. I am quite certain you can cite more tabloids and pop-culture crap claiming otherwise, but in terms of actually meaning anything, no matter how much you multiply zero it remains zero.

    I dare and defy you to cite so much as THREE (3) peer-reviewed papers in mainstream science journals in which the scientific community warns that society is under threat from “global cooling.” If it wasn’t peer-reviewed, it doesn’t exist.

  15. #15 Roger Daultry
    December 5, 2008

    Your premise about peer reviewed papers has nothing to do with whether there was a science-community derived/ media-driven climate scare in the 70s just like is happening today. It’s documented and it happened. I do see where in New York in the 60′s, a meeting was sponsored by the American Metereological Association (any cred?) and The New York Academy of Sciences (any cred?). That should be enough to consider it an important conference of “real scientists” -eh. And it was co-chaired by Rhodes W. Fairbridge (any cred?), not a minor figure in the last 40/50 years of climatology. Furthermore, it was followed by another meeting in Rome, organized by UNESCO and again with major climatologists in attendance (J. Murray Mitchell, Jr. C. C. Wallén , E. Kraus – any cred?). The full proceedings are available and center around GLOBAL COOLING. Once again in Rome, the same set of experts all agreed that THE WORLD WAS COOLING. Somehow, they must have buit up some steam on that issue, and eventually someone told the science editor at Newsweek – you think? Unfortunately, the whole internet thingy wasn’t working so great for easy archival and retrieval of papers from the the 60s and 70s. I’ll get back to you on that. Regardless, NOAA and the meteorological society were clearly complicit during Climate Scaremongering Phase I – as cited in most of the residual press article(s). Same thing that is happening now. Gee.

    Now, back to Climate Scaremongering Phase II (the phase your are actively participating in)…… Continuing on with the subject of GLOBAL COOLING and your fetish for PEER reviewed info – there seems to be plenty of papers for you to go read about cooling available RIGHT NOW. The 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may(?lol so more) not happen, so THEY say hahahaha, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature. This significant new study adds to a growing body of PEER-reviewed literature and other scientific analyses challenging former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – it’s all out there TTT, ya just gotta actually want to look for it. MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.” hahahahaha. Australian paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter also noted in 2007 that “the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.” Carter explained that the “temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.”<< An August 7, 2007, PEER-reviewed study by the UK Met Office, Britain’s version of our National Weather Service, conceded that global warming had stopped as well – OMG – GLOBAL COOLING MAYBE? Though, both the journal Nature and UK Met Office analysis which appeared in the journal Science cite a possible continuation of global warming in at some point (at some point??? hahahaha) in future years. Hyping yet more unproven computer models of the future in response to inconvenient evidence-based data is a primary tool of the promoters of man-made climate doom. But it now appears that even these computer model scenarios are failing to predict a man-made climate “crisis.” Even the activists over at RealClimate.org admitted on April 10 that climate models were not “forecasts” or “predictions” but rather non-peer-reviewed possible what-if “scenarios”. The May 1st study in Nature essentially finds that global warming will have stopped for nearly 20 years (1998 until 2015). Scientists now say: ‘Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected man-made warming.’”<<

    see I can do a lot of cutting/pasting just like James.

    Now, I dare and defy you to pause and question your own perverted desires to ignore the history of your planet, to ignore all the peer-reviewed papers that conflict with your religion, to ignore a vast and growing scientific community that casts serious doubt on the AGW religion, to shed yourself of any common sense whatsoever, and to promote climate fearmongering. And I really wish someone could explain the whole “historic CO2 levels inconveniently TRAIL warming” thingy to me someday in a way that doesn’t make mme laugh out loud. p.p.s. yer stupid (tongue sticking out and fingers wagging in ear).

  16. #16 Tippy the Tipping Point
    December 5, 2008

    James, I came up with a name for that frog you keep in your pocket so you can say “WE” all the time. You can name him “Wii” and teach him to play video games. Get it? You pal Tippy Tipperoo the Tipping Point.

  17. #17 Reverend Obvious
    December 5, 2008

    “2008 will be coolest year of the decade. Global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C. But cooler temperature is not evidence that global warming is slowing”, say climate scientists. ROFLMAO. Of course not, that makes perfect sense that this years significant global cooling is clearly evidence of continued global warming doe to man’s activities. Next church service is at 8pm. Don’t be late.

  18. #18 paulm
    December 5, 2008

    What frog in his pocket?

  19. #19 paulm
    December 5, 2008

    Just because this is a cool subject doesn’t mean its hot.

  20. #20 Brian D
    December 5, 2008

    TTT: Search the thread for Newsweek. I called it as soon as someone brough up the cooling myth, and countered with a peer-reviewed survey of the peer-reviewed literature of the time (the survey was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society). It’s surprisingly readable for academic papers, but I can’t be surprised that our resident denialists haven’t bothered to read it.

  21. #21 Some old guy
    December 5, 2008

    The Global Cooling Scare happened. It was in the news constantly in the 70′s. Who’s to blame for it – I dunno. The network and print media sure were hyping it up pretty good. They had to get their info from somewhere. Dunno where. Al Gore maybe.

  22. #22 The Skawkster
    December 5, 2008

    squawk squawk. cut and paste some more parroted climate religion notes. squawk squawk.

  23. #23 paulm
    December 5, 2008

    James, what were the names you said we were supposed to call people we disagree with again? btw – I named my pocket frog Toad The Wet Sprocket.

  24. #24 Lanben
    December 5, 2008

    Silly Scientists! When will they learn that all that training they received, all that rigor that was bred into them, all that nuanced understanding of statistics and the limitations of what can be said with certainty, all those specialized and highly sensitive tools at their disposal, all that testing and cross-testing of models and hypotheses – all of that can actually be replaced with browsing the internet during your spare time (and it seems like a lot of deniers have some serious spare time) and selectively pulling out simply what fits your agenda!!! If only they had known they wouldn’t have wasted all those years and years of school and specialized training. Alas!

  25. #25 Nanday Conure
    December 5, 2008

    my scientists are smart, but your scientists are dumb. SQUAWWWWWWWK! lol

  26. #26 JimG
    December 5, 2008

    My simple question is – Why does it seem like the “denier” type scientists keep pushing for open, formal debate, but the “believer” type scientists refuse to step up and clearly address all of the issues being raised that fly against the grain. That just smells really bad to me. A fine example of that is where Steve MacIntyre is simply trying to recreate Mann’s work (basically peer review it as you say here), and Mann has done/is doing everything possible to deny him information and derail him. Why? What is there to hide? Again, that just smells bad.

  27. #27 Pair a Keet
    December 5, 2008

    SSSSSSQQQQQQQQQWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWKKKK!!!!! squawk.

  28. #28 Easy Money
    December 5, 2008

    I need one more so I can meet my quota and get paid for doing this. squawk. there. done.

  29. #29 TTT
    December 5, 2008

    Roger Daultry: re “global cooling” in the 1970s, your paragraph boils down to “the scientific community MUST have said it because other people talked about them saying it but I can’t actually prove it because the Internet isn’t that old.”

    And that witch over there turned me into a newt!

    …..got better.

    Look, the “global cooling of the 1970s” myth is like the Obama birth certificate issue. It is logical poison to anyone who doesn’t already believe in it, because as soon as ANYONE asks for ANY official documentation, it evaporates.

    The bulk of your post has nothing to do with the cooling myth, which is how you should have written it in the first place. Unfortunately, it also has nothing to do with the citations I asked for. I’m not about to go trawling through Google trying to find “Doctor Meeghan said blah-de-blah at an Imperial Academy cocktail party in autumn 2006.” Science doesn’t go by anecdotes; tabloids do. Hence, again, “SUMMER OF THE SHARK OMG.”

  30. #30 Hume's Ghost
    December 5, 2008

    “For what it’s worth, James, I think this downright anti-science rhetoric is troubling as hell.”

    What I find disturbing is that there are people who followed him from the Weather Channel blog back here just so they could repeatedly post the same lame insults and sophmoric comments. It’s as if they somehow feel more secure in their beliefs by engaging in juvenile and petty attacks that have nothing to do with the actual substance of the issue.

  31. #31 The Ghost of Hume
    December 5, 2008

    Religion is a beautiful thing. I believe, therefore, we will die from CO2. The End. p.s. I’m in the minority just like Jim Jones’ followers – but whatever. I find comfort in alarmist rhetoric and it gives me purpose. The heck with all those facts that disprove what I have faith in. I choose to ignore. I believe therefore I exist. – the ghost of hume.

  32. #32 Sqwawk The Magic Dragon
    December 5, 2008

    sqwauk. I got paid $700 for trolling this site. squawk. it’s a big conspiracy. squawk. Nothing to do with simply laughing at the armageddon idiots living in their mom’s basements cringing about “what-if”. everything to do with payment for rwingnut trolling purposes. sqwawk sqwawk. be afraid of the paid conspiracy. i’m getting rich off of the alarmist idiots. squawk.

  33. #33 Bob
    December 6, 2008

    Hey – how can I join this religion of climate alarmism? Is there an application or can you just declare your faith, or do you just have to parrot your faith on a climate alarmism blog? Someone help me out here.

  34. #34 Canuck Yuk
    December 6, 2008

    I found this great web site. It’s called “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic”. What we should do is read that and then mindlessly repeat all the talking points whenever we feel our religion is being threatened. Because everyone knows you shouldn’t be skeptical of climate hysteria at all. (What is a climate skeptic anyway? Is that the same as a climate denier – i.e. there is no climate? Who comes up with these stupid words anyway?) – C.Y.

  35. #35 Reverend Doo Darr
    December 7, 2008

    Anybody catch Al Gore’s sermon today? It was a great alarmist religious experience.

  36. #36 Brian D
    December 7, 2008

    Some Old Guy: If you’d actually read the Newsweek article that the denialists were pimping, you’d have noticed it was based mostly off of Rasool & Schneider’s work, which assumed two things: First, sensitivity to CO2 was half of what it’s understood to be today, and second, atmospheric aerosols quadruple in concentration. Neither of these critical assumptions are true — aerosol emissions were regulated amongst much gnashing of teeth by industry (who aren’t bankrupted, I might add) and decreased, while numerous lines of evidence point to a climate sensitivity to CO2 of double what R&S used.

    “Don’t Read My Comment” — Setting aside the rest of your disinformation, modern CO2 concentrations are around 385ppm. 13 times this is over 5000ppm. CO2 is toxic to humans above 1000ppm. Please explain how this is a more desirable climate.

  37. #37 Steve Bloom
    December 7, 2008

    Cover of Newsweek, eh? But not the cover of Time, U.S. News and World Report, or any other national-scale magazine. “Summer of the Shark” seems about right. It’s funny that even though this “global cooling panic” meme has been floating around since the time of the first IPPC report, no “cooler” has gotten it together to do a search of the major print media of the time and publish the results.

    Brian D., I am old enough to remember whether there was any sort of global cooling panic in the early ’70s (in high school, paying close attention to science and environmental issues, living in a cold climate locale with an agricultural economy whose participants have to be greatly concerned about weather trends). What’s frightening is that some of these wingnuts seem sincere in recounting their “memories.” OTOH a substantial chunk of Americans still think Iraq was behind 9/11, so there you go.

    In an idle moment several months ago I checked out a few of those “global cooling” references (more and more available on the internet thanks to Google’s scanning of old newspapers) and discovered that many of them had to do with discussions of the imminence (or not) of the next glaciation. For the most part no connection was made between the then-slight cooling trend (which BTW was mostly limited to 1945-50) and the coming glaciation.

  38. #38 Weenie Head
    December 7, 2008

    Yes! We need to be sure to go to church now though, because tomorrow it will surely too late to go to church. You know, tipping point and all that disaster stuff will have already happened. Either that – or someone will notice (observe – not “model”) that this is the coolest year in a decade (due, of course to increasing CO2 levels which has nothing to do with CO2 concentrations trailing warming historically). See you at the service. Should be quite a flamer. CO2 Akbar!!

  39. #39 George Bush
    December 7, 2008

    Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a slightly toxical, odorless, colorless gas with a slightly pungent, acid tastification quality. Carbon dioxide is a small but important constituentical of air as it is a necessary raw materialistic for most plants, which remove carbon dioxide from air using the processification of “photosynthesis”. A typical concentration of CO2 in air is about 0.038% or 380 ppm, certainly nothing to stressitate about. The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide rises and falls in a seasoned patternal over a range of about 6 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in air has also been steadily increasing from year to year for over 60 years and has been repeatedly observified to trail natural warming variations. The current ratio of increase is about 2 ppm per year. Carbon dioxide is formified by combustionation and by biological processes. These include decompositionication of organic material, fermentating and digestionating. As an example, exhaled air contains as much as 4% carbon dioxide, or about 100 times the amount of carbon dioxide which was breathed in. So don’t breathify on anyone or you will toxify them. btw – Dihydrogen monoxide is much more dangerousiful as it kills more people annually. I heard Nitrogen and Helium are worth being all panickified about also.

  40. #40 Steve Bloom
    December 7, 2008

    “Roger Daltry”: ‘I really wish someone could explain the whole “historic CO2 levels inconveniently TRAIL warming” thingy to me(.)’

    Hmm, this is a sure sign of someone who is a) lying or b) has made no effort whatsoever to understand the relevant science. Oddly no climate scientist has ever been confused on this point, in part because finding that CO2 did not trail T increase (absent anthropogenic or tectonic contributions) would involve a rewrite of some of the laws of physics. On the remote chance that it’s b), though, here’s an article for you.

  41. #41 Brian D
    December 7, 2008

    I’d like to add to Steve Bloom’s link one of my own — a paper from 1990 (before we had empirical evidence of the lag) that predicted there would be a lag.

    It’s safe to say that if the science predicted a lag, then the lag doesn’t invalidate the science.

  42. #42 S2
    December 7, 2008

    To return to the subject (however briefly) – I agree that it’s not good news when the media start cutting back on science reporting. We could do with more quality reporting, not less.

    It strikes me that one of the big differences between the “developed” and the “developing” worlds is that the populations of countries like China and India are rather proud of their scientists and the work that they do.

  43. #43 S3
    December 7, 2008

    Man it was COLD today. and this year. hmmmmmmmm

  44. #44 S2
    December 7, 2008

    Man it was COLD today. and this year. hmmmmmmmm

    Yes, I thought it wouldn’t take long.

    I hadn’t mentioned climate, and neither had James. But of course both of us mentioned “science”, so I guess that’s enough for you.

    A cold day (or year) in isolation means nothing in statistical terms. But maybe you think statistics (and maybe even all of mathematics) is as unreliable and untrustworthy as you seem to think science is.

    If America turns it’s back on science, which countries do you think will be politically and economically dominant in the next decade or two?

  45. #45 S2
    December 7, 2008

    Man it was COLD today. and this year. hmmmmmmmm

    Yes, I thought it wouldn’t take long.

    I hadn’t mentioned climate, and neither had James. But of course both of us mentioned “science”, so I guess that’s enough for you.

    A cold day (or year) in isolation means nothing in statistical terms. But maybe you think statistics (and maybe even all of mathematics) is as unreliable and untrustworthy as you seem to think science is.

    If America turns it’s back on science, which countries do you think will be politically and economically dominant in the next decade or two?

  46. #46 Alarmist Whacko # 342
    December 7, 2008

    Guys – we’re in a win win situation here. Just keep citing stuff from that how-to-talk-to-a-skeptic website that we like to parrot. The models clearly predict that CO2 plant food causes warming and cooling (perfect!) and also CO2 plant food both trails and precedes climate change (perfect!). That’s why we now call our model ‘climate change’ instead of MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING. Now, why do we want to stop the climate from changing again – I’m still confused on that one, although I remember something about 385 ppm of climate perfection.

  47. #47 Polly the Alarmist
    December 8, 2008

    SQUAWK SQUAWK. The sky is falling because of 2 ppm of plant food. I read it on an alarmist web site. SQUAWK SQUAWK. -Polly the Unecessarily Panicked Alarmist Parrot.

  48. #48 John J. Dinglemeier
    December 8, 2008

    For all you global warmer whiners … the US military just issued a report included with their long range planning calling the science of global warming “contradictory.” “In many respects, scientific conclusions about the causes and potential effects of global warming are contradictory.” Now it’s time for the blinded warming faithful congregation to cry that even the government doesn’t believe in this man-made global warming hoax. At least the elected stooges are coming around to what the vas majority of the public already knows – joke farce hoax. It’s so much fun when hand-wringing liberals are totally wrong (again).

  49. #49 Manfred Mann
    December 8, 2008

    I remember the global cooling scare also. I remember it was another one of Dan Rather’s hoaxes. He was pushing it because Al Gore Senior told him he would give him chocolate offset credits if he helped farce it up some more. It actually all originated when Michael Mann, Sr. gave them both one of his custom curved hockey sticks for Xmas in 1969.

  50. #50 Crisis Boy
    December 9, 2008

    Hey everybody. What’s the new crisis for today that we stupid liberals need to be unecessarily alarmed about and back it up with fake hoax scam bad science unproven and unprovable computer models. any good ideas?

  51. #51 paulm
    December 9, 2008

    Run away AGW global warming!

  52. #52 Slappy
    December 9, 2008

    In my persuit of this new religion, ‘Climate Change’ I have come here, a pilgrim of many posts, to ask you, strange one James- to please define ‘Climate Change.”

  53. #53 Slappy
    December 9, 2008

    In my persuit of this new religion, ‘Climate Change’ I have come here, a pilgrim of many posts, to ask you, strange one James- to please define ‘Climate Change.”

  54. #54 Vern in WI
    December 9, 2008

    OMG!!! You are a real person? I thought you were a fictional representative stereotype like Wizzo the Clown!
    Are you really real? You can’t be real. Nobody could be that wrong about everything, and still be able to feed themselves. Are you institutionalized? This blog is really a drug-induced experiment, isn’t it?

  55. #55 Jay W.
    December 9, 2008

    I just look at the computer models, and shake my head. How is this possible? How can 2008 possibly be the coolest year in decades? Where did it all go wrong? Children in Jamaica should be bursting spontaneously into flames, not reaching for their coats to stay warm. I can’t keep preaching global warming to people who are standing knee-deep in snow. It just doesn’t work. I feel like such a moron.

  56. #56 Blizzard Girl
    December 9, 2008

    Rare 50 Year Cold Event hitting California. Meteorologist Kevin Martin predicts a 50 year event. While Martin is usually conservative on these events, the pattern highly favors it. “We are in a pre-1950 type pattern, “said Martin. “We know we are due for a winter storm sometime this year. The type we may be dealing with will be ranked up there with the known years before 1950, which set record low daytime temperatures into the forecast region. With this, may come low elevation snow.” It’s a good thing that the new party line is that this cooling is caused by man-made global warming derrrrrr climate change or we would have to lose the faith.

  57. #57 Bobby
    December 9, 2008

    James, if they are shutting down a unit of the Clinton News Network, probably it is because they are taking better jobs in the Obama administration. I don’t know. I don’t watch CNN. I didn’t even know CNN was still in business. Does anybody still watch CNN? I don’t know anybody who does.

  58. #58 Wicked Alarmist Witch of the South
    December 9, 2008

    It wasn’t supposed to end this way! I was building a house with my carbon credit money! Help! I’m freeeeezzzzzinnnnnggggggggggg………

  59. #59 Twinny Fitty Cent
    December 9, 2008

    Stop it you guys. Leave Britney AlonE! It IS true. 3 parts per million of man activity derived inert carbon dioxide plant food causes runaway tipping point Global Warming which causes cold weather all over! The model scenarios are a fact we must act upon – not unproven hypthetical theory. We will incinerate in 2050 after the tipping point. The computer models have spoken. We paid the piper and now the piper is coming home to roost. We buttered our bread, now we must lay in it. 2050 2050 2050 2050. eco. green.

  60. #60 Brrrrrrrurito Boy
    December 9, 2008

    One word – brrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!! Maybe the theoretical computer model predictions will kick in next decade, or by “2050″ LOL. We can only hope. brrrrrrrrr!!!! All this climate hype – Just like I remember in the 70s only the opposite!!!!!! brrrrrr!!!!!

  61. #61 Chilly Willy
    December 9, 2008

    “Mason Inman for National Geographic News November 12, 2008

    Deep ice sheets would cover much of the Northern Hemisphere thousands of years from now—if it weren’t for us pesky humans, a new study says.

    “Climate skeptics could look at this and say, CO2 is good for us,” said study leader Thomas Crowley of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.

    In about 10,000 to 100,000 years, the study suggests, Antarctic-like “permanent” ice sheets would shroud much of Canada, Europe, and Asia. ”

  62. #62 Doo Darr
    December 9, 2008

    The AGW drooling believers sing their song, Doo Darr, Doo Darr.

  63. #63 Dr. H
    December 9, 2008

    Ever since I was a little boy growing up on the hard scrabble streets of Detroit Michigan, I have believed in Science. Science, is about everything that is good and pure and objective in this life. It really hurts my heart, to hear my religion ridiculed so rudely, by people who probably cannot even tie their own shoes without assistance. This just points up our crying need in this country for more and better education I think.

  64. #64 Trent1492
    December 9, 2008

    I am smelling Global Warming Denier sock puppet.

  65. #65 Trent1492
    December 9, 2008

    How can anyone take the deniers seriously when they can not even tell the difference between weather and climate? It is some serious ignorance we are seeing here. What is even more telling is their inability to grasp the basic fact that we are talking about the whole Earth, not anyone provincial spot on it.

  66. #66 Your Grandma
    December 10, 2008

    HOw can anyone take the AGW religious zealots serious about anything? That is the real question. Stupid liberal alarmist cause of the day. Seen it before a hundred times. Been there done dat. Get a life.

  67. #67 Trent1492
    December 10, 2008

    @ the sock puppet,

    The I-am-paper-you-are-glue tactic stops working at around the eighth ground. Perhaps at some point you will realize that no one falls for the distraction of the insults and can see you clearly can not address even the most basic of subjects: such as the difference between climate and weather.

    Run along now the grown ups are talking. I am sure their is under guarded merchandise you can shop lift instead. Just remember that when you get caught ( and your too dumb to not get caught) that insulting the police and the judge will only dig you deeper in the hole.

  68. #68 lil Johnny
    December 10, 2008

    Liberals are not arrogant ignorant jaded buffoons
    Liberals are not arrogant ignorant jaded buffoons
    Liberals are not arrogant ignorant jaded buffoons
    Liberals are not arrogant ignorant jaded buffoons
    Liberals are not arrogant ignorant jaded buffoons

  69. #69 Trent1492
    December 10, 2008

    @ Sock Puppeteer,

    Did my last missive just hit a little too close for comfort? I ask because you seem to be degenerating further(if that is possible) into the schoolyard whiner who knows not how to be sociable and makes up for that incompetence by pulling on the girls hairs so as to assure himself of some attention.

    I say this because you seem incapable of doing the most rudimentary research and can not distinguish between climate and weather. So is it basic incompetence or intellectual fear?

  70. #70 Pretentious Pete
    December 10, 2008

    UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? – Warming Fears in ‘Dustbin of History’
    POZNAN, Poland – The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. Sthe supid liberal alarmist PRETENSE is totally UNFOUNDED. but don’t tell them. It’s too much fun watching them wring their hands and pace around worried about nothing.

  71. #71 Roy S. Dufus
    December 10, 2008

    Climate vs weather? How about real scientific discourse versus computer modelled theory fueled stupidity. Quoting b.s. ‘science’ while acting stupid is no different than just acting stupid. hahahahaahhahahahahaha

  72. #72 Trent1492
    December 10, 2008

    @ Sock Puppet,

    Climate vs weather?

    No. I said the difference. Please pay attention.

    How about real scientific discourse versus computer modelled theory fueled stupidity.

    That is a rather clumsy attempt at distraction but I have every expectation that you will continue such incompetent attempts. Now tell me again, why is it you refuse to learn the difference between weather and climate? *How is it that when your fellow Deniers engage in such stupidity, you unfailingly fail to point it out?

    Now what I am going to point out to you is that we have a large number number of empirical observations that all point to a warming Earth.

    You know like:

    Flora and fauna moving further up slope.

    Flora and fauna moving further north and south relavent to the the equator.

    The world wide retreat of glaciers.

    The warming of the troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere. You know why that is right?

    The trend of decreasing volume and area of sea ice.

    The trend of global average temperatures increasing over the past 30 years. You do know why is important to look for trends and why 30 years is statistically signifant?

    But all of this ignores the basic question that I began with and have yet to receive an answer to: What is the difference between weather and climate? Oh, tell my youthful puppeteer!

    Quoting b.s. ‘science’ while acting stupid is no different than just acting stupid.

    I am sorry but some anonymous sock puppet baldly asserting otherwise is not evidence for anything but your willingness to suck down Exxon-Mobile propaganda. Now let us see what happens when you limit yourself to peer reviewed articles.

    *Oh, I am sorry I forgot I was talking to a multitude of 1

  73. #73 S. Glorioso
    December 10, 2008

    Those who deny man-made global warming must be excoriated and removed from society. Global warming is an accepted fact. We accept it. Everybody we say counts for anything, accepts it. Only people who don’t like us, don’t accept it. When they deny global warming, they deny us. But, we are far above feeling the emotional sting of this rejection. We are concerned only about the greater good of mankind, and the best we can do for society. In order to save mankind from the ravages of global warming, we need to progress together as a cohesive community to make the changes necessary to avert this deadly catastrophe. Just as we cannot tolerate a person irresponsibly yelling fire in a crowded theatre, we can no longer tolerate the irresponsible and counter-productive actions of those who do not accept global warming. By denying and opposing our community faith, and welfare, those who deny us are an intolerable drag on our communal efforts to progress and ascend. By denying global warming, they deny us, they deny us progress, they deny us success, they deny us life and salvation. How long, brothers, can we stand idly by and allow the insolent naysayer to block our progress and deny us milk and successful lives to our children? Brethren, in every crisis victory goes to the bold, to those willing to act. That is why we should be building solar ovens now, right now, to finally solve this disease that has us constantly diverted, feverish, and exerting our best efforts only to be always turned into non-productive circles. For our community body, to be healthy, we must be strong and finally rid ourselves of these insolent impediments to our ascension and victory. Brothers, there will come a time, when it will be too late to act, and surely our anguish in that day would be unbearable. We cannot allow ourselves to be pushed into that dark place of fear and death. We must defend ourselves, and our families, and do this thing now, before it is too late.

  74. #74 Trent1492
    December 10, 2008

    When will the Puppeteer learn the difference between weather and climate? I am also curious when he will learn the value of the paragraph. I ask this because he seem not to be cognizant of the fact that most people will not bother to read an illiterate screed.

    The true irony is that he makes these anti-science diatribes on products of science and engineering. Then again, maybe he is accessing the Internet through the Jesus Zombie. So which is it? Are you defecating on this blog through a product of reason or faith?

  75. #75 Ivar is Da Man
    December 10, 2008

    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion. Or Whatever other ‘name’ that James Hrynyshyn and his loony AGW zealots want to call me.” – - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

  76. #76 Sock Puppy
    December 10, 2008

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    i personally just want them to tell me why the planet has been cooling since 1998. plot out the temp chart yourself by year and look at it. it’s a downward curve. it’s doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

  77. #77 Propeller Head
    December 10, 2008

    I remember back when the big Global cooling scare was all the rage. I guess the stupid libs found another hoax to prop up.

  78. #78 True Dat
    December 10, 2008

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    Kiminori is wrong!!! people are already feeling deceived by science and scientists. Because they have been.

  79. #79 Trent1492
    December 10, 2008

    @ Puppeteer,

    i personally just want them to tell me why the planet has been cooling since 1998. plot out the temp chart yourself by year and look at it. it’s a downward curve.

    Now you see why I regard you as a idiot. Remember when I keep on asking you to go find out the difference between climate and weather? Well your above sentence reveals exactly why I keep on asking. You see one of the definitions of climate involves the number 30. If you knew the definition of climate then you would not be making such a fool of yourself, because you would realize that ten years is not enough time for a climate trend to make itself statistically significant.

    Now let me also point out to the lurkers that that you Deniers do not randomly pick 1998. Oh, no! What you guys have done is pick one of the hottest single years and pretend that the previous twenty years do not matter. Then using 1998 as a start, you proclaim that a single data point abrogates the last 130 years of temperature records.

    Yet anyone can download the data put it in into Excel and and even using 1998 as a starting point still find a upward trend. Do not believe me? Go ahead and do a statistical test on it. When I do a linear regression I still get a positive trend. Yet all of this is just pud yanking because climate trends are not less than 30 years something you would be aware of if you knew the difference between climate and weather.

    Still do not believe try looking at the top 10 warmest years for the past 130 years:

    Anomaly C Anomaly F
    2005 0.60 1.08
    1998 0.58 1.04
    2002 0.56 1.01
    2003 0.56 1.01
    2007 0.55 0.99
    2006 0.54 0.97
    2004 0.53 0.96
    2001 0.49 0.89
    1997 0.46 0.83
    1995 0.40 0.72

    Noticing a pattern here? Ok, I realize your a moron so let me spell it out: the 10 hottest years in the past 130 have all been since 1995. Get it now?

  80. #80 Lance is my Hero
    December 10, 2008

    Glorioso: you make me feel so much better, knowing that if you are going to toss all non-believers into Auschwitz-like ovens, at least they will be solar ovens, and not rely on petroleum based products to do their work. There is a certain comfort and a sense of purity to that.

    I think using a renewable energy source is probably a good idea, because there may be those who lose faith in man-made global warming, later, after you start up the ovens.

    You haven’t mentioned a battery back-up to store the solar power, but if you run the ovens 24/7, like I imagine you would have to, you will probably need them for cloudy days and at night, etc. Otherwise, it sounds like a very practical final solution to the global warming debate.

  81. #81 Trent1492
    December 10, 2008

    Look at the sock puppets fight. It is like watching a schizo bum fight himself, with fists flailing and shouts all directed at a phantom opponent. Go at puppet master!

  82. #82 Trent1492
    December 11, 2008

    @ Sock Puppeteer,

    I remember back when the big Global cooling scare was all the rage. I guess the stupid libs found another hoax to prop up.

    Perhaps you should stop swallowing the Exxon-Mobile lies for a moment wipe your chin off and contemplate the following. In September, 2008, the American Meteorological Society Journal, published a peer reviewed paper, on this myth, and put a coup de grace on this miserable lie. In it, the authors surveyed the scientific literature of the 70′s and found the following:

    7 papers predicted Global Cooling

    20 were neutral on the question

    44 predicted warming

    Do you got that Puppet Boy? Only a small fraction of climate papers ever predicted it. While the vast majority predicted *drum roll* warming. The authors go on to say:

    The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those
    seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the
    citations.

    Now if you disagree put up the data or concede. By the way, Newsweek and Time magazines are not peer reviewed journals. I just thought I give you that tip before you embarrass yourself any further.

  83. #83 Trent1492
    December 11, 2008

    So here we are several score posts later and Puppet Boy still can not grasp the difference between weather and climate. So what is it? Intellectual incompetence or cowardice? Inquiring minds want to know.

  84. #84 Kevin718
    December 11, 2008

    lol.the idea of destroying the deniers with the power of the sun, is an irony just too rich for words. lol

  85. #85 Myan2012
    December 11, 2008

    The records go back to 1895. and it has happened only one other time, in recorded history. That was 1944. Sixty four years have come and gone since it has snowed this early in Houston Texas.

    18-year-old Ingrid Morton beamed in the brisk night air as her 10-year-old brother shivered in cargo shorts. “I’m excited,” Ingrid said. “I just hope it stays overnight, so it’s on the ground when we wake up. This proves the truth of global warming, doesn’t it? People should recycle and use less energy to save our planet”

    Basking in the unusual snowfall, clutches of children all over Houston gathered and pondered the event. “Global warming is real. It’s real! It’s just like we studied in school.” Said Mike Hillcroft, while joyfully trying to catch falling snowflakes on his tongue. “I’ve never seen snow before. Global warming is cool!”

    “Only man-made global warming could make it snow in Houston Texas like this. These freezing temperatures are proof that our climate is heating up. The colder it gets, the more you know we are really in trouble.” Said city spokesman Brent Derginski.

    43-year-old Dan Harcourt, wearing jeans and a leather jacket, said “If we get any more global warming, I’m going to have to shovel it off my drive, and I don’t own a snow shovel.”

  86. #86 Your Grandma
    December 11, 2008

    TODAY’s crisis. Eat Camels Or The Planet Will Die!

    Australians were urged on Tuesday to eat camels to stop them wreaking environmental havoc, just months after being told to save the world from climate change by consuming kangaroos.

    A three-year study has found that Australia’s population of more than a million feral camels – the largest wild herd on earth – is out of control and damaging fragile desert ecosystems and water sources.

    The Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, which produced the report, plans to serve camel meat at a barbecue for senior public servants in Canberra on Wednesday to press its point.

  87. #87 Sox the cat
    December 11, 2008

    Why has it been cooling the past 10 years. All these conflicting observations are so inconvenient. Also, what name are we calling the non-drooling non-zealot non-believers today?

  88. #88 Trent1492
    December 11, 2008

    Why has it been cooling the past 10 years.

    It has not, but you have chosen to ignore those corrections. You seem to be one of those who think that if they repeat a lie long enough then it becomes reality.

    Also, what name are we calling the non-drooling non-zealot non-believers today?

    How about *masturbatory morons? I mean what else do you call someone who makes up his own cheering section from footwear?

    * I want to give Brian D, the full credit for that turn of phrase.

  89. #89 Trent1492
    December 11, 2008

    I count this a day four, and still, no sign that the Sock Puppet Denialist has a clue as to the difference between weather and climate.

    Yep, I am positive now that this is a symptom of intellectual cowardice.

  90. #90 Trent1492
    December 12, 2008

    Day five and still no response from the sock community on the difference between weather and climate.

  91. #91 Trent 911
    December 12, 2008

    I am a believer, thus, I am happy. Stay happy and slappy all.

  92. #92 Trent1492
    December 13, 2008

    Day six and still no response from the sock community on the difference between weather and climate. Looks like someone can not handle data contradicting their beliefs.

  93. #93 Trent 911
    December 13, 2008

    Day 7 and I’m still in my mom’s basis playing with her underwear and hiding from killer CO2.

  94. #94 Pepe the puppet
    December 13, 2008

    Trent – dude – ask your mom for some gas money – derrrrrrr – I mean permission to plug in your segway in her garage so you can “go out” for a couple hours. hola!!!

  95. #95 Trent1492
    December 13, 2008

    @Sock Puppet,

    Please take your meds.

  96. #96 Trent1492
    December 14, 2008

    Day Seven and still no response from the Sock Puppet on the difference between weather and climate. Looks like He-who-is-confused-about-what-parts-of-the-wardrobe-belong-where, does not like his faith in Global Warming Denialism questioned.

  97. #97 A Parrot Am I
    December 14, 2008

    I spent 7 seconds and a brain cell on this, but I think I’ve got it right. Weather = what I personally observed outside today. Climate = what Trent1942 professes to be able to manipulate and control socailly and economically on a global scale to save me ( and “us”). No thanks. Why don’t you go beat the next level on your game-of-the-moment instead. Thanks anyway Ms. Trent but “we” really don’t need you. It’s safe to come out of the basement dudette. try it. bye bye.

  98. #98 Julie
    December 15, 2008

    Please Trent, don’t stop posting. We are all in awe of your awesome intellect. We admire the tenacity with which you defend the faith. Al Gore would be very proud of you.

  99. #99 Trent1492
    December 15, 2008

    I spent 7 seconds and a brain cell on this,…

    Considering that the your wrong, maybe you should go get back on the short bus and spend considerably longer time with your special ed on this subject.

    …but I think I’ve got it right

    No you do not, but when has that ever stoped you?

    Weather = what I personally observed outside today.

    No it does not. What is stopping you from looking up the definition from a competent organization? Is it your inner retard?

    Climate = what Trent1942 professes to be able to manipulate and control socailly and economically on a global scale to save me ( and “us”). No thanks.

    No. That is what morons think. Please go get back on the short bus and try again.

    Why don’t you go beat the next level on your game-of-the-moment instead. Thanks anyway Ms. Trent but “we” really don’t need you. It’s safe to come out of the basement dudette. try it. bye bye.

    Your too stupid to know when your beat and will not quite. Myself, on the other hand, am having too much fun taunting the developmentally disabled or the mentally unstable. What ever the case maybe, I will be here as long as I have the time and continue to have fun.

  100. #100 Trent1492
    December 15, 2008

    Day eight and still no response from the Sock Puppet on the difference between weather and climate.

  101. #101 Tretdrinkshisownpeee
    December 19, 2008

    day 9 and I still can’t find my way out of the basement. i will worship big Al with my own private church service tomorrow a.m. it makes me feel good to be afraid. very afraid. And.. I like wearing women’s underwear. -Trent the missionary