Mad rantings about politics, evolution, and microbiology. Comment policy: say what you want, but back it up with an email address. I don't like anonymous trolls.
By way of Steve Benen, we read that, in response to Lou Dobbs' question of "What is dominant in terms of influencing weather?", CNN meterologist Chad Myers responds:
To think we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant. Mother nature is so big. The world is so big. The oceans are so big. I think we're going to die from a lack of fresh water or die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure. But this is like you said, in your career; my career has been 22 years long. That's a good career in TV. But in talking about climate, it is like having a car for three days and saying this is a great car. Yes, it was for three days, but maybe in day five, six and seven it won't be so good. That's what we're doing here.We have a hundred years worth of data, not millions of years that the world has been around.
Got ice cores?
How is this man allowed to be a meterologist for a major news organization. It's like choosing creationist Rick Warren your life sciences correspondent. (Oops, I forgot, CNN eliminated that department...).
Environment
Politics
Comments
Isn't ocean acidification also caused by anthropogenic CO2? Seems a tad inconsistent to claim we humans just can't possibly affect Mother Nature via global warming, and then assert just that with regards to acidification. Anyway, whoever said meterologists are climate experts?
Posted by: Dave S. | December 23, 2008 1:29 PM
Meteorologists like to think they are climatologists. I know many weathermen that weigh in on this issue. They are like doctors who think they are biologists, engineers who think they are scientists.
Salem has many corollaries.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | December 23, 2008 1:40 PM
Can we get some of the "naked weather" women to chime in and give their opinion. Preferably in avi or mp4 format, full screen? :)
Actually, there was more on Dobbs, as recorded by Darksyde: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/23/11302/549/268/676055
Posted by: Badger3k | December 23, 2008 1:56 PM
The logic you glowbull whiners use to arrogantly prop up this aging 23-year-old theory, a five year old could punch holes through. You evil and miserable technicians of blame and guilt use the only play in the liberal playbook, crisis, crisis and more crises.
We don't have the power to affect the climate. We cannot steer a hurricane; we can't stop one; we can't dissipate one; we can't create one. We can't steer a tornado; we can't stop snowstorms; we can't stop ice; we can't stop or start anything like that, nothing of major catastrophic consequence. It's absurd.
Posted by: mememine69 | December 23, 2008 4:44 PM
"Oceans turning to acid from rise in CO2" - "A report issued by the Royal Society in the UK sounds the alarm about the world's oceans. While marine organisms need CO2 to survive, work by Caldeira and colleagues shows that too much CO2 in the ocean could lead to ecological disruption and extinctions in the marine environment." (Carnegie Institution) | Cuts in carbon dioxide emissions vital to stem rising acidity of oceans (Press Release) | Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide [.pdf 1069kb] (Royal Society) | CO2 emissions turn oceans to acid (The Guardian) | Marine crisis looms over acidifying oceans (NewScientist.com news service) | Oceans in trouble as acid levels rise (Nature)
Hmm... The Royal Society sure has a bee in its collective bonnet over anthropogenic greenhouse emissions lately.
Check out the Ordovician Mass Extinction. Note that fauna of the period included large diversity of corals, bryozoans, bivalves and gastropods (we know most about these because shells and skeletal remains fossilise best). In fact, reef builders took something of a hiding in Earth's second-most devastating mass extinction event.
Why is this significant? Well, all these shelled and reef building critters were apparently doing fine when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were an order of magnitude greater than current and anticipated levels. If these creatures, many of whose descendants are current denizens of the seas, managed to fashion calcium carbonate shells and skeletons then it would appear that atmospheric CO2 levels are not a major determinant of the success of these marine creatures. Why would apparently insignificant levels be a problem now?
STOP SCARING OUR CHILDREN. Stop denying our children a future evil envro terrorists.
Posted by: mememine69 | December 23, 2008 4:48 PM
Well, it didn't take the trolls long to show up this time.
"I can't understand how it's possible, therefore it is not possible." doesn't impress science types as an argument. It's made entirely too frequently.
Posted by: JThompson | December 23, 2008 9:00 PM
Actually, Mememine69, in a little-known documentary called Brain Storm, the mouse meglomaniac scientist 'Brain' and his lab sidekick 'Pinky' do indeed briefly take control of a tornado, using Verkimer suit technology. So there!
Posted by: george.w | December 23, 2008 11:22 PM
ı have followed your writing for a long time.really you have given very successful information.
Posted by: oyun | December 24, 2008 1:14 AM
Actually, Mememine69, in a little-known documentary called Brain Storm, the mouse meglomaniac scientist 'Brain' and his lab sidekick 'Pinky' do indeed briefly take control of a tornado, using Verkimer suit technology. So there!
Thanks for that George, too funny.
Posted by: mememine69 | December 24, 2008 6:57 AM
Well, it didn't take the trolls long to show up this time.
"I can't understand how it's possible, therefore it is not possible." doesn't impress science types as an argument. It's made entirely too frequently.
Posted by: JThompson
I agree JT, The IPCC says maybe, possibly, could be, .....are 90 percent sure...... too funny.
Why do these evil gossiping lovers of doom enjoy this so much?
Posted by: mememine69 | December 24, 2008 7:01 AM
Well, it didn't take the trolls long to show up this time.
"I can't understand how it's possible, therefore it is not possible." doesn't impress science types as an argument. It's made entirely too frequently.
Posted by: JThompson
I agree JT, The IPCC says maybe, possibly, could be, .....are 90 percent sure...... too funny.
Why do these evil gossiping lovers of doom enjoy this so much?
I like the IPCC's "scientific" method. They predict everything thus leaving it as a self fulfilling prophecy and then say we should all buy into.......precaution. Now there is exact science: PRECAUTION, Too funny.
History will laugh.
Posted by: mememine69 | December 24, 2008 7:03 AM
The longest ice core record is only 700,000 years. Sediment cores, however, do in many important cases go back millions of years.
(The Crank News Network meteorologist is still wrong, of course.)
Posted by: llewelly | December 27, 2008 12:56 AM
mememine69:
Not true. The IPCC makes testable predictions. In the 4th assessment report, the IPCC reviews what they forecast in the 3rd assessment report, and earlier reports, and assess where they were wrong as well as where they were right. Likewise, in the 3rd AR, they review the 2nd AR and 1st AR. And so on. Something you would know if you did some reading.
As for your sneering attitude toward precaution - I am tempted to wonder if you look both ways before crossing the street. (Given how wide open you left yourself in your comments, I rather doubt it.)
Posted by: llewelly | December 27, 2008 12:58 AM
CNN is a huge, bloated mega-network run by market forces and big politics.
Accordingly, it shows all the news that simultaneously meets two criteria: 1. boosts ratings 2. is acceptable to big political powers.
Condition 2 will override condition 1 if some event is considered too threatening by big political powers.
It would be interesting to know, if at some point during his hiring process at CNN, he was asked to state his beliefs on global warming or climate change. If so, it is immediately suspect that his beliefs, not his qualifications, were used to hire him for the position, giving us an example of Condition 2 in override mode.
The interesting questions here to me are 1) why does CNN feel that it cannot afford to be seen as accepting the idea that humans can affect climate? and 2) who makes those kinds of decisions at CNN?
Posted by: yogi-one | December 27, 2008 6:20 PM
Oh, one other thing:
Myers states; "Mother nature is so big. The world is so big. The oceans are so big. "
I have heard this "the Earth is too big and humans are too small" faux-argument before. Once someone told me that "when viewed from space, you can't see humans or their effects at all, therefore we cannot possibly be affecting the whole planet."
Accepting that he means farther out than most satellites, it's still wrong.
By that logic microbes cannot make your body sick, because when you look at another human being, the microbes are too small to seen.
What amazes me is the denialism is this kind of logic. These arguments are being made by people who are supposed to have higher degrees in science of some sort.
Therefore it is certainly NOT a lack of knowledge causing them to make such claims, but instead an emotional attachment to what they want to believe.
It's kind of like the individual version of the process I described above re condition 2 determining the content of news at CNN.
Which is to say, by both my posts, I am calling:
BULLSHIT!
Posted by: yogi-one | December 27, 2008 6:30 PM
Thanks so much.
Posted by: oyun | December 27, 2008 8:18 PM
Global warming is bullshit!
Posted by: A. Chemist | December 28, 2008 7:38 PM
thanks from turkey
Posted by: savaş oyunu | December 29, 2008 7:32 PM
ı have followed your writing for a long time.really you have given very successful information.
Posted by: oyun | December 29, 2008 7:51 PM
Whatever all say but this global warming is due to human activities is may or may not be the reason for it.. yes Human activities have led to large increases in heat-trapping gases over the past century. The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to this human-induced increase. Global average temperature and sea level have increased, and precipitation patterns have changed but i don't belive..Its because the climate changing factor..
Posted by: Speed dating | November 20, 2009 12:20 AM