[LANMaster]

An Easy 2008 Prediction


John Tierney can't go wrong with his prediction for the new year:

In 2008, your television will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming. You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change — and that these images are a mere preview of what's in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet.

Tierney can't tell us whether the disaster "will come by flood or drought, hurricane or blizzard, fire or ice." After all, no one knows what the weather is going to be like more than a few days in advance. But we do know that there will be weather, and whatever the weather is, Al Gore's apostles in the media will seize on it as confirmation of his prophesies.

Thanks to highly selective reporting, the weather can always be characterized as extreme. The shamelessness with which the media lies to us will allow it to affirm our impending doom by global warming even if temperatures cool — as was the case in 2007, which had the lowest temperature average of any year since 2001, despite the propaganda spewed by irresponsible leftist outfits like Time magazine.

[lizard]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Close.
What I believe is that global warming hype is being used by the left politically to effect a Socialist, anti-Capitalist cause.
And it is being ridden like a tired horse.

Yeah, like what I said. Quite a political struggle, eh?
I do hope the hydrosphere and cryosphere are aware that it's just political.

I also believe that global warming is natural and cyclical.
The FACT of the matter is, we're due to start cooling into the next ice age .... naturally.

Then your beliefs are contrary to all the scientists that comprise the IPCC.
There is also not one major scientific body in any country in the world that denies that global warming is fact.
You must be one smart cookie.

LAN believes that global average temperature drop is a fair reason to doubt the hyped up garbage from the lunatic leftist idiots who are clinging to global warming as a cause to put forth a totally political agenda.

Why are you talking in the third-person? What have you done with LAN?
A temperature drop over the span of a year or two doesn't mean anything. Besides, by following your link a few pages back, I reviewed many of the locations where the surface air temp guages were set up by NASA, and guess what...they're all out in the open...none are in a forest or above any water. So you're already starting out with false high readings.
Now you believe that global cooling is occurring? The spin artists must love you LAN.

Do you believe that the increase in temps in the Arctic, the reduction of sea-ice there, the plight of the polar bears, the death of thousands of walrus, the threat of death to natives who only recently began falling through the ice there while on hunting forays, the retreat of glaciers worldwide, the expansion of the earth's tropical zone, the invasion of southern species into the north, the increase in tropical disease seen in northern zones, etc, etc, to all be hyped up garbage?

The farce is the man-made part.
I know I have made myself very clear on this, yet you deliberately mis-state my positions.
You are a liar. Much like the kind of liar that, your hero, Al Gore is.

The farce is your part, and what you've intended to make of this thread. You keep repeating baloney and sooner or later people will believe that that is all there is. I did not mis-state your position, which was yes, but it's not man-made. Al Gore is my hero? Puhleeeeze. I already told you on more than one occasion that I don't follow Al Gore and I haven't seen his movie, but you continue to repeat the allegation because it fits in quite nicely to your political view on the subject and if you can paint me as a card-carrying Gorite, or whatever, then it somehow gives you leverage? Go! Go! USA Politics! Damn the Torpedos, Full Steam Ahead!

Go suck an egg.

Go shovel some snow.

And have a Happy and Healthful New Year.

[lizard]

Hi Blackspike.

Originally Posted by BlackSpike

The only FACT is that people are going to continue arguing over this for a long time yet.
Anyone saying otherwise, or saying "But my opinion is right!" are deluded.
And, yes, they are all only opinions until you are a qualified Climatologist working in the field.

I base my arguments on the findings of the IPCC, not all, but a large portion being qualified Climatologists. That, and credible scientific web sources.

[LANMaster]

The Gore reference was getting back at you for mis-stating my position.

Strengthen clean air regulations if you think the warming is caused by mankind.
I will always support clean air and water legislation, so long as it will produce the clean air as expected.

But to jump on this, "blame America first" platform, and claim that we can Tax the warming away is ludicris.

[valis]

actually, the farce is not the man-made part.....remember, we are dealing with an entire eco-system wherein we cannot accurately predict the weather more than 2-3 days in advance. A very, very small variation in any of the variables (say, an increase in co2 by 5%, or a volcano going Krakatoa on us) would completely change the overall picture and affect the climate globally.

Yes, mankind puts a very small amount of co2 into the atmosphere. But that small amount is more than adequate to throw the system out of balance, and we are teetering on the brink of something; just don't know yet. As I stated, virtually anything could happen; the atlantic convection current could dry up and drop an ice age on us; a volocano could go boom someplace and drop the global temps ~1-3 C globally.

But the bottom line is that we DO need to do something now. There was a study done from 9/11-9/14/01 regarding contrails, as those were days when there were virtually no airplanes in the skies due to the attacks, and the results were actually quite surprising. Have to find that link again.

[valis]

and lan, yes, 'jumping on america first' is silly, just to agree with you.

btw, my dad carded a 75 on his birthday in AZ a couple weeks ago....too bad he's only 69.....

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by lizard

Hi Blackspike.I base my arguments on the findings of the IPCC, not all, but a large portion being qualified Climatologists. That, and credible scientific web sources.

That would be all well and good, except for the IPCC's apparent bogus Scientists and political motivation.

Back at Gristmill, Andrew Dessler stands by his cancer/doctor analogy in the in-whom-do-we-trust war, after some comments on his blog:

For the uninitiated, here is the lowdown: Andrew Dessler is a professor at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University. He is complaining about a US senate report which listed hundreds of individuals who have been reported in the media during 2007 as speaking against the "scientific consensus" on climate change, claiming that they are scientists. The report naturally challenges the very principle of the consensus, which has given climate policies the authority they have needed to be carried forward. The global warming camp have sought to undermine the value of this new list, by claiming that the scientists lack scientific qualifications, expertise, or moral integrity.

But Dessler has made a significant concession here. He is visibly shifting from the idea that the power of the consensus comes from the weight of scientific opinion - numbers. An "overwhelming number" of scientist's opinions might indicate that the "science" had been tested. Now, you have to be qualified to have an opinion on climate change. But Dessler doesn't tell us exactly how we are to measure the qualifications, we just have to take his word for it that the 400 sceptics aren't qualified, but the IPCC scientists are. So it's not simply a consensus, it's a qualified consensus, and he gets to call the qualification. So much for science. So, apparently, the IPCC scientists who represent the consensus are more qualified than their counterparts. They are akin to the experts you would trust your desperately ill child to, not the ragbag of mavericks you would avoid. Worse still, many of the sceptics are in fact mere computer programmers or - gasp - sociologists!

We decided to test Dessler's claim. So we downloaded IPCC WGII's latest report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". There were 380 contributors to the report [PDF of contributors]. A thorough and exhaustive analysis of the backgrounds of these experts (or were they?) was too ambitious (it's Christmas, and we have wine to drink, and mince pies to eat, too). So, we focused on the contributors who operate in the UK. Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists. This gives the lie to Dessler's claim that IPCC contributors are analogous to medical doctors. There are economists working on saving that dying child!!! That's got to be wrong, by Dessler's own standards.

Link

And this ....

Following our breakdown of the expertise comprising the IPCC's WGII, we've now done the same for WGIII, “Mitigation of Climate Change”.

First, the numbers: Of 270 contributors, 66 were from the USA and UK. We haven’t been able to establish the expertise and discipline of 12 of those – yet. 14 contributors had expertise in physics, chemistry or engineering. 4 from other engineering disciplines. 2 were bio/geochemists. 5 were from forestry ecology, or soil science. 2 had expertise in law. There were 7 social scientists, and a whopping 20 economists.

There were no obvious instances of administrative assistants or web designers being included on the list, unlike WGII. However, the 12 contributors we couldn’t locate don’t appear to possess a great deal of the academic credibility Andrew Dessler demands, and work for business or the US EPA – no surprises there. There appear to be fewer PhD candidates, and among the contributors who did not work in the private sector, most had academic positions. The best in the world though? It didn’t seem likely.

The presence of 27 economists/social scientists again gives the lie to the claim that the IPCC is an institution made up entirely of climate scientists. WGIII explains their function as follows:

Winston Churchill once quipped:

Somehow, the IPCC has managed to stuff more than 20 economists in a room, and achieved a “consensus”. Remarkable.

Once upon a time, economics was a matter of politics. Now, it seems, economics is as much a matter of rock-solid objective fact as physics. The problem is, though, that environmental economic orthodoxy cannot be challenged politically - especially in the UK - because all politicians hide behind the "scientific consensus", even though it is formed by a large number of economists and social scientists.

Link

[LANMaster]

I'm sure you could find better evidence of a "consensus" of a coming alien invasion.... from more qualified "experts", even.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by valis

and lan, yes, 'jumping on america first' is silly, just to agree with you.

btw, my dad carded a 75 on his birthday in AZ a couple weeks ago....too bad he's only 69.....

Nice 3 over.

Was it the Scotsdale course?

[lizard]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

An Easy 2008 Prediction


John Tierney can't go wrong with his prediction for the new year:

Originally Posted by Tierney

You’re in for very bad weather. In 2008, your television will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming.

How is he so sure we're in for very bad weather? Why hasn't he linked it to anything else?

Originally Posted by Tierney

But there’s bound to be some weird weather somewhere, and we will react like the sailors in the Book of Jonah. When a storm hit their ship, they didn’t ascribe it to a seasonal weather pattern. They quickly identified the cause (Jonah’s sinfulness) and agreed to an appropriate policy response (throw Jonah overboard).

HUH?? What does that, valium?

Originally Posted by Tierney

When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.

Satellite surveillance of the Antarctic is only recent.

Originally Posted by Tierney

Global warming has an impact on both polar regions, but they’re also strongly influenced by regional weather patterns and ocean currents.

Not quite so easily cut and dry. The polar hemispheres react independently and Antarctica commands it's own weather system (for now). When reading about past global warming and ice ages, the Antarctic lags far behind the Arctic when reacting to global temperatures. Don't expect them both to react the same way to Global Climate change. It just won't happen (for now).

[lizard]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

.......
Strengthen clean air regulations if you think the warming is caused by mankind.
I will always support clean air and water legislation, so long as it will produce the clean air as expected.

What, like The Clean Air Act? Sure! Have you ever heard of it? I think it's about 40 years old by now, and the air is no cleaner anywhere in North America.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

But to jump on this, "blame America first" platform, and claim that we can Tax the warming away is ludicris.

Who's jumping on the "blame America first" platform? I just blame the most prodigious. For years and years America was the front-runner in GHG emissions. Hardly any American news on it. Now China has slipped into the lead and it's all over the place. American media huh, LAN? Maybe more like funding of media outlets by big oil like Exxon. Yup, they've been doing that too.
Tax incentives and rebates on the use of alternative energy sources are the way to go.
More money in your pocket for using 'green' technology can't be all that bad.

[lizard]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

That would be all well and good, except for the IPCC's apparent bogus Scientists and political motivation.
...........

Link

And this ....
...............

Link

Wow! And not one statistician! How did they ever get it all summarized? And no secretaries, either. How boring.

But Exxon-Mobil had their man right in the thick of it. PDF

Maybe I'll just stick to the credible web sources. Oh, wait, there prolly aren't any of those either.
Waiting for the article from the American journalist, aka Climate Expert of the Moment, on that one.

[LANMaster]

Daytona Beach, Florida is getting SNOW!

I wonder how Exxon-Mobil made THAT happen.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Daytona Beach, Florida is getting SNOW!

I wonder how Exxon-Mobil made THAT happen.

Probably by shipping the warmth north:

(click on the smilies)

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Probably by shipping the warmth north:

(click on the smilies)

It does look unseasonably warm for your area this week.

Short of the recorded 70's though.

Nice trick with the link.