Some surprising sanity from one of the most insane places on the web. This could be a Nike ad, all it needs is a swoosh to go with the slogan. Joe Romm and Bill McKibben, this message is for you from your kossack in arms.
From the “weatherdude” at Daily Kos:
Here’s a further excerpt:
I’ve said it a few times (much to the dismay of many), but the tornadoes this year do not indicate a growing trend. If we have numerous tornado oubreaks of this intensity in the decade, THEN it’s a worrying trend. Until then, stop with the talking point positioning. We know climate change is happening, but to say that the tornadoes were a direct result without the trend of tornado outbreaks with this intensity to back it up is a really big freakin’ leap.
If this shit happens again next year, and the year after that, I’ll go into full mea culpa mode. But until then, stop it. It weakens our argument to scream “CLIMATE CHANGE ZOMG!” every time something bad happens. It takes trends over years to make this argument. Trends equal climate, events equal weather.
Earlier today someone posted a diary saying that the heat burst in Wichita, KS this week was “the beginning” of some more nefarious climate stuff happening. No it’s not! As I said in the diary’s comments, heat bursts are a well documented natural phenomenon that’s happened ever since thunderstorms started. The tl;dr explanation is that dry air got into the thunderstorm as it collapsed (all the rain/hail upstairs falls down at once because the storm can’t support it anymore), and the rain evaporated and made the dry air cooler. As it got cooler, it got denser, and fell to the ground. As it fell, it compressed and heated up, hit the ground, made the temperatures rise in a hurry and created 50-60 MPH winds.
That’s it. That’s what happened. It didn’t happen because the oceans are warming or the ice caps are melting or because BP fucking sucks. It happened because the updraft could no longer support a column of precipitation, it fell, heated up and dispersed at ground level. It’s not climate change and it weakens our argument to call it climate change, so stop it. Just because you don’t understand why something is happening doesn’t mean you should run to the nearest public forum and shout the first thing that comes to your mind.
Brave man, his full essay is here. h/t to Keith Kloor
WUWT covered the Wichita heat burst here, and I agree with the analysis he printed above.
For basic science on the issues of the tornado outbreaks this year, may I suggest these two WUWT essays:
The folly of linking tornado outbreaks to “climate change”
NOAA CSI: no attribution of climate change to tornado outbreak
Oh, wow, I forgot that site even existed.
To me the exact obverse seems to be true. Extreme weather events are more likely to be linked to GLOBAL COOLING, which is currently just starting its progress to cold for a generation. See the recent sunspot announcements.
Will alarmists ever wake up to this.
North-western USA temperatures have been low this year with massive snowfalls etc. These lower temperatures and warmer air form the Gulf of Mexico generate increased differentials and thus give rise to the more extreme weather / tornado events that we have seen recently. As Global Cooling proceeds the differential – Poles to the Equator grows and one can expect more weather extremes not less.
A warmer climate is likely to be more BENIGN and a colder climate is TRULY DEADLY.
From http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/#more-3330 Brian H | June 1, 2011 at 6:22 am | At a rough guess, the odds of warming being benign are about 80%, and of cooling being benign about 0.01%. The odds of warming occurring are about 10%, and of cooling occurring about 60%. The ratio of the riskiness is thus [(1-.8)(.1)]/[(.6)(1-.9999)] = .02/.00006 = 333. So it makes 333X more sense to prepare for cooling disaster than for warming.
LOL. I am afraid the infection has spread to the point of contagion. When individuals begin believing in nonsense, make believe, and wishful delusion, it often infects all belief systems. Positive feedback, the desire to control, and an unrealistic appraisal of one’s own intelligence, while ignoring actual education on the subject, contribute.
Try this site for some very main stream opinions that aren’t really supportable.
http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808#comments
I asked where the “proof” for man made CO2 warming was only to be told that asking for proof was “unscientific”.
So I asked why the absence of proof was then justification for us to immediately stop burning stuff . Response . . .
yup . . total silence.
This is the old stockmarket warning. When you start getting tips from the bellboy get out of the market because a crash is coming. It never fails.
Alert to all states and municipalities that I have pleaded with the past 2 years. Please double your snow removal budgets for the foreseeable future. Don’t run out of money for it like you did last year like I told you you would if you didn’t listen to me. The Sun is in an extended solar minimum for the past 3 years for crying out loud. Please listen to me this time.
It’s the Sun Stupid, making the climate Change.
Nice. He did forget one condition though. If during the next ten years storms are worse and global temps are higher than the past 10 years. Only if temps rise could it be meaningful.
Expecting storms to get worse because of GHG warming defies all logic. Being well mixed beyond the short term, slowing heat loss can only be a net stabilizing force.
“Just because you don’t understand why something is happening doesn’t mean you should run to the nearest public forum and shout the first thing that comes to your mind.”
That’s good advice on any topic and it was all courtesy of the weather dude.
But…. IS climate changing? From what to what, per se? The entire concept is ridiculous.
DailyKos obviously tries to get into the Tea Party segment because progressives are going extinct from lack of animal protein. Smart move. /sarc
Anthony,
Much of science believes that climate and science is chaotic to understand.
This is due to the building of perfect science to what the Universe is actually produced.
Formulas and equations that will last forever are incorrect to a changing planet and solar system.
A great deal of bad science has made a terrible mess of understanding the solar system and planet.
Even simple mechanics is blown off as theories rein as supreme in the current science arena.
The fact that any ‘extreme event’ will be blamed on global warming is more predictable than the events themselves are.
The vultures of climate change activitsm: Part III
Another thing that caught my eye: Kloor usually quotes extensively from articles he links to. On occasion, when he takes potshots, say at Joe Romm, or at Watts, he just does brief one-liner posts. Kloor frames weatherdude’s post in the same manner, and a superficial discussion ensues. Whereas weatherdude is actually on much solid footing and has excellent advice for the activists: make as much hay of something that has a clear climate-link, don’t cry ‘precipitation’ or ‘high wind’ every time any dog pees on a tree stump or a horse farts.
I’m still trying to deal with Romm’s constant call about ‘Climate Pollution’, what the heck is “Climate Pollution”?
The longer you measure the weather, the more likely you are to see extreme events. Over time it will appear statistically that the climate is changing, becoming more extreme. However, this is simply poor statistics. What is changing is the length of your sample.
If you toss a coin long enough eventually you will get 10 heads in a row, while a short record almost never will show 10 heads i a row. Climate change is happening because our records are getting longer. The longer we record the weather, the more likely it becomes that we will observe extreme events.
Climate change is in large part is the result of the incorrect application of statistics to achieve a misleading result.
You know occasionally you come across a warmist who actually talks in a measured enough way that it really highlights the absolute clunking bs of the rest.
I give him at most a couple of months before he turns into a sceptic!
While it is nice to hear some of this from that side, I wonder why so many leftist sites and people on it are so prone to obscenities. They can’t write a simple blog posting without cursing.
It is almost as if their minds are so limited that they can’t get a concept across, they can’t get the force of an issue across without resorting using those words. I guess when anything goes, taboos are moot.
I find it so distasteful.
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-06-06/pedal-powered-farms-and-factories-forgotten-future-stationary-bicycle
OK (Can’t use Tips & notes, for some reason) but this is obviously got to be a Climate Craziness of the Week item.
Green jobs a plenty.
Too bad this logic wasn’t applied to the many things that KOS spouted, however I’ll take it as the proverbial wooden stalk in the anaemic GW heart if they’re saying that now. I will always referee to this scam as “global warming” as that’s how it was forced upon and sold to us – bad science and lies and many progressives like KOS sided with the GW without question initially until it was so obvious that this just wasn’t so or their perceived enemy is a won over warmista.
The hundreds of comments there for a small blurb seem kind of odd to me since there is not much logic in most of them yet they are not like rabid skeptic haters either, on average. I think they are bonding, basically, patting each other on the back, and keeping up their activist spirit. How cute!
Today I discovered a creepy doppelganger site, in which AGW enthusiasts snicker about posts here amongst themselves on a WUWT mirror site instead of actually posting here. It would actually be great to have more actual debate on WUWT rather than just a few trolls now and again, but I think technically competent alarmists have figured out that they would risk getting shot down as their followers watched, which would slowly degrade their influence over them.
http://wottsupwiththat.com
That they do this is curious and supports my impression that AGW enthusiast seeming obsession with skeptics, shown on blogs and in the Climategate e-mails, is all about keeping their volunteer regiments in line so instead of reading content here or actually commenting here (and possibly be brought to the perceived “dark side” thus), a frantic series of WUWT reactionary sites feed them their daily bread instead. I don’t think ClimateAudit.org is a big worry since it’s too technical for your average Greenpeace kid to delve into. But WUWT must be actively countered with all manner of soundbites about horrendous lies and links to Tamino’s latest comment-censored chuckle based mostly on cleverly graphing things to favor AGW. Like any competent cult movement they have effectively isolated the bulk of their layperson members. All those PR firms are training them well.
Yesterday I learned that comic book artist John Cook’s partner on SkepticalScience.com works for a nuclear weapons design company that now also gets three hundred million dollar grants for green energy. RealClimate.org is owned by the PR firm that was behind both the silicone breast implant scare that bankrupted Dow Corning and the autism/vaccine scare. DeSmogBlog.com is financed by a $125 million online gambling convicted money launderer who now sells solar cells.
Next stop, the Twilight Zone!
It was not long ago when someone writing those words would have been fired, or his comments deleted or he would have been labeled a holocost denier.
Times have changed.
@ Martin Brumby says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:56 am
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-06-06/pedal-powered-farms-and-factories-forgotten-future-stationary-bicycle
OK (Can’t use Tips & notes, for some reason) but this is obviously got to be a Climate Craziness of the Week item.
Green jobs a plenty.
================================================================
I think the Romans used an early variant of this idea on board ships. Called them galley slaves, IIRC. 😉
DAily Kos disappoints. – gavin.
Re blogs in general a nice bit of quirkiness:
You may have heard the report that a blog purportedly being written by a lesbian Syrian in Damascus is a hoax (written by an American bloke in Edinburgh!!). The UK Guardian was, as you might expect, completely taken in and even published a supposed interview with the lady in question ‘from their own correspondent hidden in Syria’.
But of course the Guardian remains totally reliable about ‘climate change’! Wait! maybe RealClimate is actually a blog written by a one-legged Syrian lesbian living in Damascus. Maybe George Monbiot isn’t all he seems…. 😉
NikFromNYC said: “Today I discovered a creepy doppelganger site, in which AGW enthusiasts snicker about posts here amongst themselves on a WUWT mirror site instead of actually posting here.”
” http://wottsupwiththat.com ”
The thing I noticed most is that often the guy can’t put 1,000 words together that make sense when 100 would do if he added logic. And his blind faith in Joe Romm doesn’t help his case. For example, his claim that Romm’s old posts would reappear after the redesign failed to mention when or whether they have reappeared yet or not. There seems to be no way to find them. A Catholic is more likely to check what a priest says than the CAGW faithful are to check “the wisdom.”.
RICK — They can’t write a simple blog posting without cursing.
This is a style choice — “Keepin’ it real, man. Speak like the street people. You ain’t no better.” — and not a reflection of education and/or ability. They reckon themselves as cunning linguists.
Just out of curiosity, is it possible to find a left wing blog comment that does not include the F-bomb? Anywhere? Anytime? It seems like progressive politics are mimicking the Children’s Crusade.
It is refreshing to see others begin to examine [remember] history and think, alas, if you scan the comments you will note that no good turn goes unpunished.
Oh man. I think he just won P.J. Gladnik’s Golden Kewpie Doll of the Year Award for Persistent Mental Clarity.
(If you don’t know who that is, search on “Dummie Funnies” and see for yourself. He generally focuses his wit on Democratic Underground but will occassionally delve into ridicule of DKos as well.)
Hey, I used to read that site regularly. I believed in AGW but didn’t know much about the details. After reading a couple of scary diaries warning of ocean acidification and the Venus scenario happening on earth, I finally decided to do some research on climate change to see how bad it really was. Long story short, now I read this site regularly instead.
Re: pedal power.
Why not go back to beasts of burden as water motors. Use them to pump water uphill, then release said water to generate electricity. Not only do we get green energy, but we can also collect the brown energy for our gardens!
Yes, but then the commenters go insane! The very first one quotes……. Joe Romm.
Wow even TIME has published the sun story! I’m amazed the solar post has been demoted so quickly while MSM stories keep creeping in the cybershere!
http://techland.time.com/2011/06/15/claim-sunspots-to-disappear-global-cooling-may-ensue/
Trying to use the guest log-in, the “mail” line is now not accepting my email address! Watts Up With That!!!! 🙂
Signed: Want’s to log in as Sonicfrog like I always do but can’t because the log-in now tells me my e-mail address I’ve been using here since this site went on-line is no longer valid!
This is a very good time for everyone to take the perspective of scientific method and reflect on what we know about the Maunder Minimum and about manmade CO2. It seems to me that the scientists who are offering information about this sun cycle and the possibility of a new Maunder Minimum are doing so with cool heads and practicing good science. They tell us what information they need to collect, they have a wait and see attitude, and they are clear that we might know very little by way of new science for at least a decade. They are very clear that it might be decades before the science becomes definitive regarding this matter. Contrast this behavior with that of the Warmista.
Take Al Gore as the extreme example. He used the Hockey Stick and many other dubious items in an attempt to create a fear among the citizenry that would compel the government to take painful actions to reduce energy consumption. Whether or not he said “The science is settled,” he argued that consensus science required that we act now. However, the simple truth is that there is no greater evidence for the claim that manmade CO2 is causing global warming than there is for the claim that a quiet sun will cause another Little Ice Age. The astrophysicists are interested in the science, not in a particular policy goal. The Warmista are exactly the opposite. They are pushing for a policy goal and using their dubious claims about the science in support of their policy effort. Take the case of Schmidt.
News reports yesterday related that Schmidt made the dogmatic claim that the sun’s behavior can affect Earth’s climate only at the margin. So what caused the Little Ice Age, someone might have asked. “Volcanoes,” said Schmidt. Of course, Schmidt has no evidence for any of this. His so-called “evidence” for the effects of the sun on Earth’s climate are simply his climate models. Compare how Schmidt and the astrophysicists address their models. The astrophysicists state the qualifications that are necessary for their science and make clear that they will know something very important in ten to seventy-five years. By contrast, Schmidt is dogmatic and categorical in claiming that no information about the sun could change his conclusions about global warming. Yet all Schmidt has are models and he should be as circumspect in basing claims on models as are the astrophysicists. Schmidt should say that in ten to seventy-five years, approximately, we might have some solid science, not models, that actually explains the causes of global warming.
So, we are blessed with an ongoing experiment in scientific method. We can watch Schmidt with his models and we can watch the astrophysicists with their models and see who is the better scientist, who better follows scientific method. My bet is that Schmidt will be forever stuck in his models while the astrophysicists will move quickly to replace models with physical hypotheses that are reasonably well-confirmed.
Keith Battye at 12.49am points to the open letter from the commanding heights of our unbiased scientific community clamouring that climate change is real. Well you take out the ones belonging to Departments containing climate change, earth science, environment, sustainable, sustainability, ecology, ecological, ecosystem, conservation, public awareness, plant energy, political and you’re largely left with the odd go-getter flogging geothermal or small wind turbines.
Streuth! What a typical cross-section of the Great Global Gruesome Greasum that bunch of small wind turbines represents so poignantly.
Revkin has a piece on it: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/would-solar-lull-snuff-climate-action/ . He’s already contacted “other “scientists, who (surprise, surprise) express considerable skepticism.
“I’ve sent a query to a batch of solar physicists and other experts not involved with the three studies discussed at the meeting. There’s substantial skepticism in some quarters. In an initial reply this morning Douglas Biesecker, a scientist at the Space Weather Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote: “I consider the strength of evidence to be anemic and the reasoning to be highly suspect.” He’s sending a more detailed analysis later. “
Although i am not in the CAGW camp, weatherdude’s experience mirrors my own.
One is unlikely to have a real conversation with the true believers; mention the slightest thing that they don’t understand, or ask the most innocuous question and the name calling begins and discussion stops. I have found this to be true even when the ‘believer’ is generally articulate and rational about other topics. This must be a human failing- challenging a person’s belief structure angers them (not me, of course- oh no)
Regarding climate change – if it stops changing be very afraid.
Lake Osoyoos is already high and the summer melt isn’t even started.
Regarding Daily Kos – don’t shoot the messenger even when the messenger is more foolish than the message. Shoot the message, don’t miss.
Regarding the modern little ice age – it is a blip, not a trend. If it happens at all. When it is finished we will be right back here, climate wise. You can take that to the bank. It will give India some breathing time before the source of all things, water from the north, stops flowing. They need to act now. You cannot last long on glacier melt any more than you can live long drinking from a block of melting ice. A glacier is not a lake – it is more like a pond. A very cold pond, but when its gone, its gone. Could have been written by Jack Handy.
Pay attention to this: You are going to be harshly exposed to the reason the left quit talking about global warming and started beating the drum of climate change. It is still a bogus argument (see above regarding change) but that won’t slow them down. Because it is likely to get colder, now, more than ever, carbon based energy has to be phased out. You don’t want to come out of the MLIA (modern little ice age) with CO2 at >450ppm. That or some form of it is the new message. They won’t stop – you shouldn’t either.
Curiousgeorge quotes Revkin Quoting a Scientist:
June 15, 2011 at 8:58 am
“I consider the strength of evidence to be anemic and the reasoning to be highly suspect.”
Well, yeah, exactly the same as supports the AGW position. But the astrophysicists are careful to qualify their claims. None of them are predicting a Little Ice Age. (Pay attention, Revkin.)
Climate change sense from the Kos? Perhaps they better have a real look at climate change – For more than 55 million years, Ellesmere Island, in Canada’s high Arctic, remained in one place while the world around it changed. Fifty-five million years ago, verdant forests grew at 75° North latitude. These wetland forests, comprised of species now primarily found in China, grew on an alluvial plain where channels meandered back and forth and periodic floods buried stumps, logs, and leaves intact. Today the forests are preserved as coal seams that outcrop on the edges …of modern Ellesmere Island, where there are no forests, and the tallest vegetation grows less than 15 cm high. Large parts of the area are polar desert, subject to intensely cold and dark winters and minimal precipitation.
Now THAT’S climate change. From trees and wetlands in the high arctic to intense cold where vegetation can barely scratch out an existence even in summer. We’re barely 18,000 years from the last ice age and we darn well better show at least some warming. However, with the sun entering a quiet phase we’re all about to enter a scientific period of research and learning none of us alive have ever experienced. Personally speaking, I’m darn happy I’m working here in the oil sands ( also the entire areas has 100s of gas fields) and well have all the heat and lights whatever comes my way.
I’m also with Michael when he says cities and municipalities in North America – prepare to enhance your snow removal budgets. The past number of winters too many cities and municipalities across North America if not the northern hemisphere have badly underestimated winter weather when budgeting. In my opinion the quite sun IS making it’s presence known if intelligent people even bother to read this site they would have at least a heads up. Or is that asking too much?
`Just because you don’t understand why something is happening doesn’t mean you should run to the nearest public forum and shout the first thing that comes to your mind.`
Religion anyone?
BTW, I forgot to mention: Headline in Daily Mail Britain. Earth facing a mini-Ice Age ‘within ten years’ due to rare drop in sunspot activity. A decrease in global warming might result in the years after 2020, the approximate time when sunspots are expected to disappear for years, maybe even decades.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2003824/Earth-facing-mini-Ice-Age-years-rare-drop-sunspot-activity.html
[Snip. Calling other commentators “deniers” violates site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
Religion differs in this way – it is unflinchingly scripted, well documented, and they show their work. The source data can be found in any hotel room. Climate science is unflinchingly scripted, not well documented, and they don’t show their work. Both require a lot of faith.
Does anyone here track Wall Street? In particular investment trends related to “Green”, CO2, etc. How will this play on the Street, once it sinks in? Should I short AGW related stocks? How about commodities?
Props to the Daily Kos guy. That’s using common sense. He’ll get bounced out of that forum, likely.
Bill Marsh,
Climate Pollution
Is it me or do we have more trolls posting now that Romm no longer allows comments?
dp says:
June 15, 2011 at 9:00 am
“Pay attention to this: You are going to be harshly exposed to the reason the left quit talking about global warming and started beating the drum of climate change. It is still a bogus argument (see above regarding change) but that won’t slow them down. Because it is likely to get colder, now, more than ever, carbon based energy has to be phased out. You don’t want to come out of the MLIA (modern little ice age) with CO2 at >450ppm. That or some form of it is the new message. They won’t stop – you shouldn’t either.”
What will happen is that scientists and leftists will do a reverse Schneider and become cooling alarmists; the new LIA will be too long to keep AGW fear alive, and the lefts goal is always mass mobilization; they always need an URGENT problem for that. You can’t mobilize freezing people with the fear of warming. Whether or not we will come out of the LIA with >0.045% of CO2 matters little in this regard.
Imagine how the statists will use the new cooling scare; they can call for tax increases and a fatter state to protect us because capitalism is powerless against this catastrophe etc etc. It’s easy for them, they are flexible.
I used to frequent DailyKos. I am about 90% liberal. Most of the other 10% is because of the AGW fearmongering and AGW bad science and the wagon all liberals are supposed to jump on.
I made the mistake at DailyKos a few times of posting (they call them “diaries”) something contrary to liberal dogma. Two of them were about bird flu, and one was about the “swine flu” that originated in Mexico. Both events were hysteria pushed by those who stood to gain from them.
The reaction to all my posts was swift and vicious – but did not include any science except links to 100%-sold-on-bird-flu sites. I actually posted links to many articles regarding the European governments being pissed off that they got sold a bill of goods re the swine. Not ONE response addressed the very real governmental reactions and actions and comments. All were hammering on me for not signing on to the liberal dogma.
So, I wonder what the reaction is to this guy’s post… After perusing the comments there, 90% or more seem to be in disagreement. The most common is something like, “Whatever the particulars here, global warming is real, and we have to do something about it – even if we don’t have sufficient information.” Your standard Precautionary Principle stuff.
At least they are treating him civilly. I am a bit shocked at that.
You’re right, rare sanity from that cesspool. I bet they trashed him in the comments. Crosspatch, it’s worth heading over there, and similar sites from time to time (after getting your drink on) just to see what the other side is up to. I can’t do it for long, but it’s good for you if you have low blood pressure.
Curiousgeorge says:
June 15, 2011 at 9:50 am
“Does anyone here track Wall Street? In particular investment trends related to “Green”, CO2, etc.”
I track lots of German Green tech, Vestas, GE and others. GE is a mixed bag but all the pure Green stocks are already in a catastrophic state and i don’t think the solar minimum will help them. Biofuel did a small recovery due to the introduction of E10 in Germany and i used that to get out; sentiment is turning against them with rising food prices, politics will be lacklustre about them, and they will definitely be harmed by cooling due to worse harvests.
In other words, get out, get out, get out, the only positive impulse will be when the Chinese buy some of the Greentech companies. They are said to be thinking about that.
Green feed in tariffs in Europe get slashed piecemeal. No positive impulse from that side.
…but then I came across this DailyKos comment, from some user named
They have quite a few Thought Police over there.
As I began reading the post, the ‘recs” (recommends) for the post was up to 289. So evidently there are some reasonable people there, after all. But enough Thought Police complaints and you’re ousted. Kos himself does that quite often, from what I remember – though they don’t make a point of informing people of him doing that.
Martin Brumby says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:56 am
” http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-06-06/pedal-powered-farms-and-factories-forgotten-future-stationary-bicycle
OK (Can’t use Tips & notes, for some reason) but this is obviously got to be a Climate Craziness of the Week item.
Green jobs a plenty.”
Martin, it’s from the Low Tech Magazine; and it’s not about climate or AGW at all. In fact, he does a good job talking about the history of pedal power, its drawbacks and advantages and energy considerations. He does not suggest to produce electricity from Human power, for instance; and he says why this doesn’t make much sense.
If you want to fight the warmist agenda on this story, you need to think more like a politician (wash your brain thoroughly when done) rather than a science geek. Read the book “When Prophecy Fails” by Leon Festinger to get a better understanding of how people react when their predictions don’t come true. Short version: they look for excuses and to blame others, and tend to double-down on their bets and beliefs. For a politician, “do nothing” is not an option if they want to get re-elected, even (or especially) if that truly is the best option. We can’t do anything about the sun, but we can (attempt to) do something about CO2 levels, they will argue. So, they are likely to spin this story as merely a temporary reprieve from the expected warming, and we need to get CO2 levels in line before the sun’s activity level pics up and hits us with the double-whammy of rising solar activity with a higher CO2 concentration (at least, that will be the most obvious line or reasoning warmists will use).
So, then, the strategic & tactical rhetorical/science questions are:
1) How do we best counter this expected spin they’ll be putting out;
2) What are other likely spins and interpretations are the warmists likely to use; and
3) What science questions need data / answers to we need to resolve these conflicts & rhetoric?
@ DirkH says:
June 15, 2011 at 10:54 am
Thanks. Kinda what I figured. 🙂 Haven’t heard or seen anything yet by the business pundits. Probably hasn’t been digested yet.
Noted. I won’t apologize, since this is what I think about people who use non-scientific means to attack the findings in climate science on climate change and global warming, which they don’t like because these findings contradict some economic, political, or ideological agenda or beliefs, but I won’t use it here anymore.
What about “climate science contrarians”? Is this Policy conform?
In case no one else says it…
FP – welcome. Enjoy the sanity.
@NikFromNYC:
Strange, I got the same impression about the climate science contrarians in the comment sections here, patting each others back, mutually confirming each other how right they were, ridiculing the “warmistas”, keeping up the spirit. A little biotop to feel well. They don’t have much to show for regarding conclusive scientific arguments backed with empirical evidence to refute what established climate science has to say about climate change and global warming, that is not liked by the contrarians, though. Instead, they resort a lot to non-scientific “arguments” by personally attacking the scientists, their characters and motives, accusations of fraud, or resorting to conspiracy theory.
@Jan Perlwitz
1) There is no site which promotes CAGW theory which also allows debate. None.
2) The Left employs the tactic of vilification via name- calling, etc., of any who don’t speak the party line. This is used to stifle debate and control the thought processes of others, wouldn’t you agree?
@Jan Perlwitz
I see that you posted again and have added nothing to the debate, but throw stones instead.
These pages are filled with volumes of links to hard science which supports the general thinking here. There is an overwhelming amount of actual data from scientists worldwide making real- world observations and experimentation.
You are free to present evidence supporting your viewpoint or any which you think may refute what you find here.
Ball’s in your court…
There is still a strong residual automatic response in the MSM to any story involving the ‘climate change’ tag, even if a moments’s thought would show the absurdity of the supposed connection.
“Cows are having fewer calves because of climate change” – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8572834/Cows-are-having-fewer-calves-because-of-climate-change.html
“Scottish salmon are getting smaller …. because of climate change” – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8571150/Scottish-salmon-are-getting-smaller.html
Both from Louise Gray of the UK Daily Telegraph.
@ Jan Perlwitz says:
June 15, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Your smug is showing.
@Jan
How dare you? You must be a Harold Camping-loving, true-believing, one-world-government-craving, cognitively-dissonant, lie-peddling, hockeystick-apologising, pseudoscience-pushing troll. For goodness sake, open your eyes, can’t you see you’ve been had? Who are you going to believe: the IPCC, every international science body, the laws of physics, receding glaciers, the shrinking ice cap, … or this blog? Think about the children…
John B.,
Don’t forget the tornadoes and fires that happen because of global warming, several months after the globe cools down to about average.
Nah, that’s just weather. But, OTOH, it was darn cold this morning. Hmmmm.
Dp is living in Plato’s Cave where ignorance holds sway!
Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance, Chum! Our Maunder Minimum a blip??!
Your comment won’t even get blip status! You are on the way to oblivion now.
Keith Battye says @ June 15, 2011 at 12:49 am “I asked where the “proof” for man made CO2 warming was only to be told that asking for proof was “unscientific”.
Asking for proof is in fact unscientific and it takes someone who either doesn’t understand the science or is intentionally being deceptive to ask for it.
The only proof you’ll die jumping off a 10 story tall bridge on to pavement is doing it and dying from it, does that mean you’ll tell your kids “sure, jump off the10 story tall bridge on to pavement because I don’t have scientific proof you’ll die”?
“We know climate change is happening,”
Until he can get past such an empty statement, there can be no discussion. They always seem to boil their arguments down to something so vapid.
Would you care to enlighten us with a précis of the evidence that supports the conjecture that modest increases in CO2 (by paleo-climatic standards) have ever caused, and are likely to cause, catastrophic ‘global warming’? Before doing so, please review the ample evidence and arguments presented here over many months that clearly refutes and falsifies any hypotheses stemming from said conjecture.
That is, unless you are just trolling and hoping to start a flame war. If so, you won’t have much success here: too much rationality goin’ round.
/Mr Lynn
weatherdude is on top of current events…he knows that the public is not buying the many sales pitches that (AGW/Global Warming) Climate Change was responsible for anything and everything. And that it probably turned many into the skeptic camp due to the obvious bullsheet.
Jan Perlwitz says:
June 15, 2011 at 12:49 pm
I won’t apologize, since this is what I think about people who use non-scientific means to attack the findings in climate science on climate change and global warming, which they don’t like because these findings contradict some economic, political, or ideological agenda or beliefs,
Intriguing. What do you call people who support the findings on climate change and global warming by unscientific means because it happens to support their economic, political, or ideological agenda or beliefs?
Like most of us here I have noticed a distinct asymmetry. If you support Carbon AGW then “your hearts in the right place” regardless of what illogic you used to get there. If you oppose it, the opposite applies, with the assumption being that you are bent, corrupt, stupid or perverse.
So Jan, do you accept that there are “accepters”, for whom no amount of science would prevent them from being anti-carbon? And that they are wrong to be that way? And that you will also call them bad names?
So are you saying it is a trend, then? Of course it is not. The first Maunder minimum was also a blip. It came, it went. That doesn’t mean it won’t be a miserable cold experience should it come to pass. But it also won’t last. We know that from history. Please make sure you understand we’re talking about long time frames here. 75 to 100 years is a blip in global climate study. It is barely long enough to not be a discussion of weather.
And take an anger pill, dude.
I nominate WUWT for “plea for sanity from Daily Kos” as next week’s Quote of the Week. . . .
I put a relatively benign post in the doppelganger site. Just wanted to see what happens.
Bill Marsh says: June 15, 2011 at 5:25 am
It could be that “Climate Pollution” is the new, improved “framing” of “global warming”. In case you missed it, it seems that “climate change” has morphed into a “process” that meets “deadlines”. This comes from no less an authority than the chief honcho (honchera?!) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (UNFCCC), Christiana Figueres.
The UNFCCC – according to Pachauri – is the body that gives the IPCC its marching orders. But I digress … In a pre-UNFCCC meeting newsletter video, Figueres declared:
For more Figuerisms, pls see It’s not easy to be green … for UN agencies
Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:32 pm
_______________
What an extraordinary rationalization.
“Climate Change Process” is UN Speak. Think of the “Peace Process” in the Middle East (which has so far produced no peace, but has legitimized the Palestinian terrorists in the eyes of the world.) So the Climate Change Process is all the same: UN committees, ad hoc committees, standing committees, draft resolutions, declarations, international treaties, summits……. But you are asking for science with testable hypotheses and accurate measurements of the real world. Well, how silly of you.
KW
Jan Perlwitz says:
June 15, 2011 at 1:28 pm
“Instead, they resort a lot to non-scientific “arguments” by personally attacking the scientists, their characters and motives, accusations of fraud, or resorting to conspiracy theory.”
Like alleging that IPCC reports are written by Greenpeace Germany activists.
Will this coherent piece bring any sanity to Daily Kos or Progressives? Not a chance.
Did anybody here actually read the article? Daily Kos concludes:
“The ice caps are melting, the oceans are rising, and all sorts of other scary sh!t is happening, but not every single event is due to the climate’s change. If all of this stuff is happening due to climate change, we don’t yet have the trends to back it up. Wait until we do. Until then, warn about the dangers of climate change, don’t say everything happened because of it.”
And that is what all reasonable people do.
Take Al Gore as the extreme example. He used the Hockey Stick and many other dubious items in an attempt to create a fear among the citizenry
—
Would you say then that “He played on our fears …”?
Gotta find a clip of that A.GOre speech.
Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Keith Battye says @ June 15, 2011 at 12:49 am “I asked where the “proof” for man made CO2 warming was only to be told that asking for proof was “unscientific”.
Asking for proof is in fact unscientific and it takes someone who either doesn’t understand the science or is intentionally being deceptive to ask for it.
—
Asking someone to prove their claims is in and of itself unscientific. That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen posted on this site.
I’m trying to remember the name of English Scientific Society (sorry guys, drawing a complete blank today.), the one Isaac Newton founded.
It’s motto in latin says “Take the word of no one”. I guess Isaac Newton wasn’t a scientist after all.
Mark,
You misunderstand the specific use of the word “proof”. In a strict sense, science only provides evidence to support claims, it does not “prove” things. e.g. nothing can “prove” general relativity, we just have evidence that relativity is our best-yet description of gravity. Lay people talk about sience “proving” things. In science, only mathematicians prove things. AGW cannot be “proven”, but it can be shown to be our best-yet description of climate change.
John