Climate Craziness of the Week – Bad weather shuts down climatology vigil

Whatever happened to hurricane parties? From Boston.com, another episode of:

With apologies to “Bat Boy”

Sandy disrupts climate vigil in Boston

A storm many environmentalists see as linked to climate change has forced the end of a climate vigil in Boston.

Some 200 people had participated in a round-the-clock vigil since last Tuesday to protest the lack of discussion of climate change in the presidential debate and call on Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren to discuss the issue during their final scheduled debate Tuesday.

full story here

h/t to Marc Morano

UPDATE: did you know, that according to Wikipedia

In October 2006, Bat Boy was captured on film riding on top of a New York City subway car. Bat Boy was said to be living in the subway system’s tunnels during this time. This story was converted into a “documentary” video on the Weekly World News web site.[3] The next day, he endorsed presidential candidate Al Gore.[4] Then in October 2008, Bat Boy endorsed John McCain but switched to Barack Obama soon after.[5]

In related news:

https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/263022146207498240

About these ads

47 thoughts on “Climate Craziness of the Week – Bad weather shuts down climatology vigil

  1. Isn’t this less about Mother Nature than it is about the fortitude and convictions of the vigil-ers? Seems to me if this is the manifestation of AGW, they’d really demand notice if their vigil was continued in spite of the big blow.

  2. This is the first I’ve heard of the climate vigil. I usually listen to WBZ, Boston’s news radio station during my commute. I like the traffic reports – they remind me how much better off I am with a long commute in New Hampshire.

    Perhaps if they were dressed in Halloween outfits they would have gotten more attention.

  3. Was this a vigl mourning the death of “climatology” as they have known it?

    A Harbinger of the apparently unavoidable fall from grace of the CAGW paradigm as more and more evidence piles up against it?

  4. Hurricane McKibben caused a 2.5 mm storm surge after a staggering 0.03 K change in temperatures. The storm retained its hurricane designation because of clear links to imperceptible climate changes, and several preceding occurrences.

  5. Hurricane Mannia, Gorea and Hansena – oops, isn’t that sexist?

    Apt names for something/someone blindly causing the US economy a huge amount of scary, unnecessary damage.

  6. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead:

    At October 29, 2012 at 3:41 pm you say

    Hurricane McKibben caused a 2.5 mm storm surge after a staggering 0.03 K change in temperatures. The storm retained its hurricane designation because of clear links to imperceptible climate changes, and several preceding occurrences.

    I am curious.

    Please tell me how “links” can be “clear” when they are to something which is “imperceptible”.

    Richard

  7. Patrick:

    re your post at October 29, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Yes. I missed that. Thankyou.

    And I hope Mike Bromley the Canucklehead will forgive my error which misrepresented his joke.

    Richard

  8. HOLD ON YANKEES, BE BRAVE; WE ARE PRAYING FOR YOU.

    Australians know what cyclone can do, Hurricane is same beast, different name. A week from now, you will look back and laugh at it.

    No electricity, no transport for few days; the hurricane is giving you a good example of what the CO2 molesters from BOTH CAMPS intend to force on the western countries; to be regular occurrences. No fossil fuel to be used / no new power stations built – by increasing of the population, will be regular ‘’blackouts’’

    There are as many Carbon Bashers in the ”Skeptic’s” camp, as there are in the Warmist, Carbon has NOTHING to do with the phony GLOBAL warmings – but the nutters believing that climatic changes have something to do with the IMAGINARY global warmings, are just as guilty, mo matter from which side of the sandpit they belong…!!!

  9. Ric Werme says:
    October 29, 2012 at 3:26 pm
    This is the first I’ve heard of the climate vigil. I usually listen to WBZ, Perhaps if they were dressed in Halloween outfits they would have gotten more attention.
    ===========
    Girls all nude vigil to prevent climate change. News at 11.

  10. These people really are infected by some serious brain washing, during the cold war America had people trained in the deprogramming of people. Do these facilities still exist?

  11. So 2012 is looking quite a challenging time for all you US “skeptics”. What with the huge drought and Sandy, plus Arctic sea ice reduction. How long are you going to be able to sell your unscientific nonsense given the changes we are seeing in the climate system? I give it a couple of years and public opinion will have left you all behind. Whether it will be too late by then is another issue.

    [to avoid any semblance of trolling you would need to show how the climate system is changing. Just pointing to three events which have precedents in the record doesn't add much to what we know. . . mod]

  12. Hi mod. What was wrong with my last comment? All I’m saying is that AGW was predicted to increase the variability of ‘extreme’ events. And that’s what’s happening. I know this is all a bit ‘inconvenient’ for ‘skeptics’ but it was all highly predictable.

    [then you should have said that . . mod]

  13. Monty says:
    October 30, 2012 at 6:11 am
    Hi mod. What was wrong with my last comment? All I’m saying is that AGW was predicted to increase the variability of ‘extreme’ events. And that’s what’s happening.
    =============
    Then we should see an increase in the statistical standard deviation. Isn’t happening.

    What we are seeing is faulty statistics. An assumption that climate is a “normal” distribution, when in point of fact few time-series in nature are “normal”.

    climate is most certainly a fractal distribution. The difference is this. In a “normal” distribution, as you increase the scale the data becomes “smoother” and more predictable. In a fractal distribution, no matter what the scale, the data still looks the same.

    This is what we find when looking at climate data. No matter what the scale, you still see the same “saw tooth” pattern. This tells us that over time, we should expect to find increasingly larger and larger extreme events, such as ice ages appearing in the climate records, that have nothing to do with human activity.

  14. The inherent assumption in AGW is that climate is not a fractal. That climate has an average temperature that is unchanged over time. That the number of heads and tails on the climate coin toss never changes.

    However, this assumption is completely false. Just 20 thousand years ago, a drop in the bucket in earth time, the average temperature of the earth was quite a bit different than today. And we see this change repeated many, many times over the past million and hundreds or millions of years.

    So why expect that today is any different? Why expect that the earth has an average temperature that never changes, when we know this to be false? We should expect extreme events to get larger, the longer we keep looking, because this is the nature of climate. The longer we keep looking, the more the climate will change, whether there are humans on the planet of not.

  15. Fractal Distribution
    A probability density function that is statistically self-similar. That is, in different increments of time, the statistical characteristics remain the same.

  16. ferd: of course the climate changes. Especially now given the GHG forcings. Amazing the impacts in response to just 0.8C warming. Wonder what it’s going to be like when we reach 4C?

  17. Monty says:
    October 30, 2012 at 6:11 am
    “Hi mod. What was wrong with my last comment? All I’m saying is that AGW was predicted to increase the variability of ‘extreme’ events.”

    Please give a link / name a source. When did CO2AGW scientists start to predict an increase in the variability of extreme events? I know of non-scientists like Romm and McKibben who spout this AFTER an extreme event happened; but you talk about a prediction, maybe by CO2AGW scientists. Where is it? Where did it appear first? Who made it? I am not aware of such a prediction by CO2AGW scientists.

  18. DirkH says:
    October 30, 2012 at 9:00 am you ask

    I know of non-scientists like Romm and McKibben who spout this AFTER an extreme event happened; but you talk about a prediction, maybe by CO2AGW scientists. Where is it? Where did it appear first? Who made it? I am not aware of such a prediction by CO2AGW scientists.

    James Hansen, Head of NASA GISS, does it here.

    Of course, you may wish to say that Hansen is not a scientist – and I would agree that he is not – but warmunists claim he is and I can cite others if you do.

    Richard

  19. Richard, you say: “Of course, you may wish to say that Hansen is not a scientist – and I would agree that he is not”. That’s pretty rich coming from someone without even a PhD!

  20. Monty:

    The request was to cite “CO2AGW scientists” who have predicted extreme weather events.

    I replied by showing a video of Hansen doing that. But Hansen is an activist who openly puts his politics before his science. Despite that, I used Hansen because there was a video of his making the claim in his own way using his own words. And, having done that, I admitted that Hansen being a “scientist” is – to put it mildly – debatable, so I agreed that it might be debated and said I could also cite others.

    You are an anonymous troll and I see no reason to dispute assertions from trolls flaming to disrupt a thread.

    Richard

  21. Monty, there is a hypothesis that the doubling of C02 in the atmosphere will raise the planet’s temperature by a degree. There is no hypothesis that C02 causes extreme weather events. Hansen should write one and have it accepted if he wants to start saying C02 is causing “extreme weather events”. I wonder why he has not???

  22. Mr Courtney and Eve.

    Why don’t you read the scientific literature on extreme events. I recognize that events like the midwest drought, Arctic sea ice minimum this year and Hurricane Sandy are extremely inconvenient for your world view, but climate change is panning out like scientists have predicted. For someone like Mr Courtney (with no peer-reviewed climate science publications and no PhD) to call into question someone as eminent as James Hansen is ludicrous.

  23. Monty,

    You are wrong. Extreme weather events have been declining for decades. Thus, your assumption that “climate change is panning out” is nonsense. And stop with the ad-homs. Richard Courtney and Eve obviously know more about the subject than you do. Run along now back to your thinly-trafficked alarmist echo chamber blog. The head-nodders there will agree with you.

  24. Hi Boehm. Ah, another person who hasn’t read the literature! By the way, it’s not an ad-hom for me to say that Courtney doesn’t have a PhD or peer-reviewed publications. It’s a fact. Given that I have both, it’s very unlikely that they know more than me about climate change.

  25. Monty,

    You simply make baseless assertions. And of course it is an ad hominem argument to claim that someone does not have an education. You do not know that. And you do not know that Richard Courtney has no peer reviewed publications. What you are doing is attacking the individual instead of posting verifiable scientific facts. Your assertions are not facts.

    And if you actually believe that extreme weather events are increasing, then you are ignorant of the most basic facts.

    I suggest you spend a few months reading the WUWT archives, and get up to speed. Your current ignorance of the subject is showing.

  26. Hi D Boehm
    i didn’t say that Mr Courtney had no education. I said he that he didn’t have a PhD, nor any peer-reviewed scientific papers. These are not ad hominems. They are facts.

  27. Monty,

    Want to make a bet? If you are right in your assertions [I'm not arguing about a PhD], then I will go away and not post again on this thread. If I can prove you wrong, you go away.

    Deal?

    Or, you can chicken out. But remember that you asserted your “facts”.

  28. Monty says:
    October 30, 2012 at 5:17 am
    So 2012 is looking quite a challenging time for all you US “skeptics”. What with the huge drought and Sandy, plus Arctic sea ice reduction. How long are you going to be able to sell your unscientific nonsense given the changes we are seeing in the climate system? I give it a couple of years and public opinion will have left you all behind. Whether it will be too late by then is another issue.
    ==========================================================================
    I have to wonder how old Monty is. I’m only 58 and I’ve lived through lots of different weather events. True, I missed such events as The Dust Bowl of the ’30s and the ’37 flood in the Ohio River Valley. (I did see pictures in my Dad’s scrapbook of a rowboat going over the right field fence of Crosley Field in Cincinnati.) I was a kid when the remnants of, I think it was, Camille hit the Ohio River Valley. I’ve seen droughts, blizzards, thunderstroms etc. Such things were called “weather” before someone figured out they could cash in and/or promote a political agenda if they were called “climate” instead.

  29. Naming hurricanes after corporations – why stop there?

    “Another two million die from mosquito-borne RachelCarsonia in sub-Saharan Africa.”

    “JennyMcCarthy outbreak catches school health officials off-guard.”

    “Millions on brink of starvation due to extreme AlGoreverty caused by West’s attempt to minimize carbon use.”

  30. Monty:

    Others can judge the merits of our posts. Arguments about you and me merely disrupt the thread.

    You claim attributes you cannot here prove. Eric Grimsrud says he has a PhD in chemistry and TBear claims to be a trial lawyer. Their claims are doubted because of the nature of their posts, and neither can prove such claims here. I refuse to claim attributes I cannot here prove: I know from past experience what that does to a blog thread.

    However, if you are really interested then you can search the web for my publications and some include my cv. That is my final word on the matter to you or ant other troll.

    I suggest you discuss the subject of the thread and stop trolling.

    Richard

  31. Monty, on Oct 30, 2012 6:11 AM said,

    All I’m saying is that AGW was predicted to increase the variability of ‘extreme’ events.

    I’m not sure what “variability of extreme events” means. (How about “variability of weather parameters” such as storm size and frequency? I presume that’s what you were trying to say when your language skills failed you.) However, I suggest you have a look at the WUWT posting on Oct. 29, titled “Global precipitation variability from 1940 to 2009 contradicts models”, which refers to a recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters (peer-reviewed and all that).

    As noted in that posting, here we have a genuine analysis (as opposed to your confused cherry-picking) that contradicts the models’ prediction of increased variability.

    And for the record, I, too think that James Hansen is a charlatan.

  32. Mod. I was responding to Mr Courtney who said: “you can search the web for my publications and some include my cv”, by pointing out that he didin’t have any. Why is that too personal?

    [Reply: You said much more than that, and in a much more derogatory manner. — mod.]

Comments are closed.