Ah you know its coming, both the snow and the blame game. Here’s a NWS/NOAA graphic you don’t see very often:
The forecasts say snow possibly down to sea level, or very close. I’m betting we’ll see at least snow flurries in downtown SFO at least briefly.
Here’s the latest forecast discussion:
FXUS66 KMTR 241819 AFDMTR AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 1019 AM PST THU FEB 24 2011 ...COLD WINTER STORM TO IMPACT OUR AREA LATER TODAY... ...VERY COLD TEMPERATURES EXPECTED BOTH EARLY SATURDAY MORNING AND SUNDAY MORNING... .DISCUSSION...AS OF 10:14 AM PST THURSDAY...LIGHT RAIN SHOWERS HAVE BEEN REPORTED ACROSS THE FORECAST AREA THIS MORNING. LOOKING AT THE LATEST SATELLITE WATER VAPOUR IMAGE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE AREA IS UNDER MOIST NORTHWEST FLOW AHEAD OF AN APPROACHING STORM SYSTEM. THE MOIST FLOW WILL PRODUCE SHOWERS THROUGHOUT THE DAY TODAY WITH THE BEST CHANCE OF PRECIPITATION FROM THE GOLDEN GATE NORTH AS WELL AS THE WINDWARD SIDE OF THE COASTAL MOUNTAINS. THE VISIBLE SATELLITE IMAGE IS SHOWING MAINLY CUMULUS TYPE CLOUDS FROM THE GOLDEN GATE SOUTH SO ALTHOUGH SHOWERS ARE LIKELY IN THE MONTEREY AREA THERE WILL BE PERIODS OF SUN TODAY. CURRENTLY IT APPEARS THAT THE FORECAST MODELS ARE IN GOOD AGREEMENT WITH THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM WHICH IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN TO IMPACT THE AREA TODAY. COLD AIR WILL BEGIN TO FILTER INTO THE FORECAST AREA TODAY DROPPING FREEZING LEVELS AS IT SLIDES SOUTHWARD. THE CURRENT FORECAST IS ADVERTISING SNOW LEVELS OF 1500 FEET TONIGHT IN THE NORTH BAY WHICH SEEMS REASONABLE. SNOW LEVELS ARE FORECAST TO DROP TO 300 TO 400 FEET FOR THE NORTH BAY TOMORROW NIGHT INTO SATURDAY MORNING FOR THE NORTH BAY. THESE LOW FREEZING LEVELS WILL CONTINUE TO SPREAD SOUTH TO MONTEREY COUNTY BY SATURDAY MORNING. WITH THE LOW FREEZING LEVELS SNOW WILL BECOME AN ISSUE FOR ELEVATED AREAS AND WINTER WEATHER ADVISORIES HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR ALL OF THE MOUNTAIN ZONES TONIGHT AND TOMORROW. THE FORECAST ISSUE TODAY WILL BE WHETHER OR NOT TO INCLUDE THE NORTH BAY VALLEYS IN THE WINTER WEATHER ADVISORIES. ACCORDING TO THE HYDROLOGICAL PREDICTION CENTER 24 HOUR SNOW FALL PROBABILITY DOES INDICATE A 10 TO 20 PERCENT CHANCE OF RECEIVING 1 INCH OR LESS OF SNOW IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY BETWEEN 1200Z THE 25TH AND 1200Z THE 26TH. THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA HAS NOT RECEIVED MEASURABLE SNOW IN QUITE SOME TIME HOWEVER THIS IS A VERY COLD AIRMASS AND A FEW SNOW FLURRIES MAY BE EXPERIENCED IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA. TO SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT A CROSS SECTION WAS PERFORMED FROM SONOMA TO SOUTHERN MONTEREY COUNTY FOR THE 0600Z SATURDAY THROUGH 1200Z SATURDAY TIME FRAME AND SOME CONDITIONAL INSTABILITY AND MAYBE EVEN AN ARGUMENT FOR CONDITIONAL SYMMETRIC INSTABILITY CAN BE MADE FOR THIS TIME FRAME. ALL THIS MEANS IS THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR BANDED PRECIPITATION AND SOME IF IT MAY BE IN THE FORM OF SNOW. I DO FEEL THAT THE SOIL AND GROUND TEMPERATURE WILL BE TOO WARM IN THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO SUPPORT SNOW ACCUMULATION BUT WE WILL SEE A FEW FLURRIES. HOWEVER, A FEW HUNDRED FEET IN ELEVATION AND PRECIPITATION WILL BECOME PREDOMINATELY SNOW.
CONTEST
The NWS is so interested in this rare event, they want people to TWEET with geolocation info. This is at the top of the NWS San Fran web page:
See Snow in the Bay Area – Tweet It! 
So in that spirit, I’d like people to be on the lookout not for the first snowfall, but for the first ridiculous claim that this SFO snowfall is related to any of these:
global warming, climate change, or climate disruption,
For example:
“…global warming increases increases severe events, why is why we have this snow in SFO”
…would qualify.
The first credible and verifiable report posted here in comments will earn the tipster a single item of their choice from the WUWT Stuff store, see here.
POLL
In the meantime, here is a poll:
It’s at least 24 hours from any snow in SFO, so we may even find statements in advance. Good hunting.
citizenschallenge says @February 25, 2011 at 4:42 pm:
“Hmmm, forgot that one, care to share the link, I’d love to read it again.”
It wasn’t one comment, it was multiple comments beginning in April of last year. A couple more in July. Maybe more. Are you being deliberately devious, claiming that you’ve never posted here before? You can look up the archives like I did. At this point I look at anything you say with a jaundiced eye.
Regarding your comment above, like all alarmists you forget that scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on you to show convincingly that catastrophic AGW is a fact. Every alarmist has failed to show CAGW. Thus, CAGW is reduced from a hypothesis to a conjecture; an opinion. Continue arm-waving all you want, but the fact is that the climate null hypothesis has never been falsified. Nothing unprecedented is happening.
Over the course of the Holocene there have been more serious droughts, floods, both higher and lower temperatures, and more rapid changes. You look at normal weather and scare yourself. But it’s just the weather.
CO2 causes no measurable global harm. On balance, the rise in CO2 is beneficial. More is better. The whole “carbon” house of cards is based on fraud, and you’re doing your part to perpetuate it. You need to stick with verifiable facts and quit being a CAGW shill.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2011109942_friedman18.html
“Weird weather supports claims of climate change
The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington, D.C., while it has rained at the Vancouver Olympics, writes Thomas L. Friedman, is in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become drier than ever.
By Thomas L. Friedman
Syndicated columnist
Of the festivals of nonsense that periodically overtake American politics surely the silliest is the argument that because Washington, D.C., is having a particularly snowy winter it proves that climate change is a hoax and, therefore, we need not bother with all this girly-man stuff like renewable energy, solar panels and carbon taxes. Just drill, baby, drill.
When you see lawmakers like Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina tweeting that “it is going to keep snowing until Al Gore cries ‘uncle,’ ” or news that the grandchildren of Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma are building an igloo next to the Capitol with a big sign that says “Al Gore’s New Home,” you really wonder if we can have a serious discussion about the climate-energy issue anymore.
The climate-science community is not blameless. It knew it was up against formidable forces — from the oil and coal companies that finance the studies skeptical of climate change to conservatives who hate anything that will lead to more government regulations to the Chamber of Commerce that will resist any energy taxes. Therefore, climate experts can’t leave themselves vulnerable by citing non-peer-reviewed research or failing to respond to legitimate questions, some of which happened with both the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Although there remains a mountain of research from multiple institutions about the reality of climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What’s real? In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth-grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.
At the same time, they should add a summary of all the errors and wild exaggerations made by the climate skeptics — and where they get their funding. It is time the climate scientists stopped just playing defense. The physicist Joseph Romm, a leading climate writer, is posting on his Web site, climateprogress.org, his own listing of the best scientific papers on every aspect of climate change for anyone who wants a quick summary now.
Here are the points I like to stress:
• Avoid the term “global warming.” I prefer the term “global weirding,” because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous.
The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington — while it has rained at the Winter Olympics in Canada, while Australia is having a record 13-year drought — is right in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become drier than ever.”
Tom Rowan,
Joe Romm is as much a fool as Friedman. He knows he’s peddling dreck because he censors contrary information. For example, if I sent a post similar to yours to climate progress it would never get out of moderation. I’ve tried.
Romm is on the payroll of a guy who stands to benefit financially if Cap & Tax ever passes; his organization is funded by million$ from George Soros – while WUWT is run by unpaid volunteers. Who would you trust? Romm is bought and paid for, and he’s as scientific as a Scientologist.
And Friedman?? Pf-f-f-f-t. A scientific know-nothing. Why would you even listen to him? It’s like listening to Brad Pitt pontificating on climate science.
Finally, what you are describing used to be called “the weather.” Now it’s “climate change,” a term used by conniving charlatans who won’t come out and debate, who censor the public’s input, and who have gamed the system for their own financial advantage.
Your “as global temperatures rise” refers to a natural cycle that has happened countless times over the Holocene. A 0.7° rise over a century and a half is laughably minor. And that is presuming there has even been that much of a rise, since GISS and others manipulate the temperature record.
You’re making wrong assumptions based on bad data. I recommend geting up to speed by reading the WUWT archives. You can do a search starting with “CO2”, “Romm”, “realclimate”, “steig” and “giss”. That should get you started on the right track.
Does this count?
http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979100065
Smokey says:
February 25, 2011 at 12:14 pm
citizenschallenge says:
“I’ve been looking at this website for years, I’ve just never posted before.”
You started posting here in April 2010.
—–
Hey Smokey, how did you check that? I can’t even remember exactly when I made my first post here (after quietly reading since the ‘latex’ days) and would be curious to remind myself, so… can I look that up?
Al Gored,
I remembered having a debate with him/her in April. So I looked it up.
Smokey,
I did not remember, and barely recall it now, but I don’t doubt your word. Be nice enough to share the link, I don’t know my way around this website that well yet.
{Other than that I’m a 55 year old man, who’s really disappointed with the hash our right wing corporate powers that be have created these past decades.}
My actual point was that I’d been checking in on this site on and off for years – but have only now decided to spend a little more time haunting your discussion group. I shall try to remain civil and hope not to get banished.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
citizenschallenge:
Arctic Sea Ice Reports, 4-24-2010; Abraham Climbs Down, 7-29-2010 [2 posts].
There may be more. I had to go back and find these again, since I didn’t save them. That’s enough favors.
Smokey says: “Regarding your comment above, like all alarmists you forget that scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on you to show convincingly that catastrophic AGW is a fact. Every alarmist has failed to show CAGW. Thus, CAGW is reduced from a hypothesis to a conjecture; an opinion. Continue arm-waving all you want, but the fact is that the climate null hypothesis has never been falsified. Nothing unprecedented is happening.”
~ ~ ~
You know, about that Null Hypothesis. ~ Seems like a pretty cavalier way to approach the legacy we are leaving our children.
{Excuse me a moment here, but how disgusting… the whole right wing was ready for Cheney’s 1% suspicion to their start war of choice with horrific consequences ~ But, now the right wing is demanding 100% of the type of proof that will only be available after the deeds are done and gone… and it’s way too late to influence consequences.}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Rowan says:
February 26, 2011 at 7:57 am
“Although there remains a mountain of research from multiple institutions about the reality of climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What’s real? In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth-grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.
At the same time, they should add a summary of all the errors and wild exaggerations made by the climate skeptics — and where they get their funding. It is time the climate scientists stopped just playing defense.”
~ ~ ~
Words of wisdom.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Smokey says: “Joe Romm is as much a fool as Friedman.”
~ ~ ~
What do you base that on? Is it because his message disagrees with what you believe? Take a look at the guy’s bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm#cite_note-1.
Considering all the man has accomplished ~ to come up with such flippant derision says more about your qualities than his!
Why not focus on presenting evidence to support your emotional charge that the man is a fool? Got some evidence to back up the cheap talk?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Smokey says: “Every alarmist has failed to show CAGW.”
~ ~ ~
To me it seems that signs of CAGW are imprinted upon all the Earth Observation data coming in.
I’m wonder if you can better define what you mean by CAGW?
And what kind of hurdles-of-voracity you would suggest to help us come to a mutual understanding?
Smokey says:
February 26, 2011
citizenschallenge:
Arctic Sea Ice Reports, 4-24-2010; Abraham Climbs Down, 7-29-2010 [2 posts].
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Well alrighty then, the first one is pretty weak, but the record stands for itself, see:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
~ ~ ~
Regarding the political performer known as Lord Monckton ~ I’ll even repeat those words:
citizenschallenge says:
July 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm
I would love seeing this thing go to some official court – then when the evidence is presented the whole world will be able to clearly see what a liar the good “Lord” is!
citizenschallenge says:
July 29, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Has anyone here taken the time to look at the newly released NOAA 2009 State of the Climate report? http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
cheers
citizenchallenge,
I am not going to waste a lot of time trying to educate someone who is clearly not up to speed on these subjects. I recommend reading the WUWT archived articles and comments.
But I’ll try to help you out here because you’re so far off track. Conflating “Cheney” – a politician – with the scientific method is disingenuous. And you can leave the “children” out of any science discussion. An extremely strong case can be made that children and everyone else will be substantially harmed by reducing CO2 to 1990 levels. So leave the misplaced emotion out, OK?
First, there is nothing “cavalier” about the concept of the null hypothesis, except to someone who doesn’t understand its great value. The climate null hypothesis is a function of the scientific method. Its value is in comparing any alternative hypothesis to it. If the alternative hypothesis shows there is no difference from the null, it means that the alternative was a placebo; what is claimed for the alternative probably doesn’t exist. The definition of a null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data.
The expected data is catastrophic global warming due to the rise in CO2. But there is no difference between the ten millennia of the Holocene and current temperatures. In fact, today’s climate is especially benign, well within the parameters of the Holocene. Nothing extraordinary is occurring. There is no difference whatever between the very mild, natural 0.7° temperature rise over the past century and a half, and numerous similar or larger temperature rises – and declines – over the past ten thousand years.
Therefore, the null hypothesis shows that the alternate hypothesis, asserting that a rise in anthropogenic CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming [the CO2=CAGW hypothesis], fails. Natural variability explains the rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age. Further, the MWP, the Roman optimum and the Minoan optimum were each warmer than today – at a time when CO2 was lower. As climatologist Roy Spencer puts it, “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
The null hypothesis is critical to the scientific method, which is why Kevin Trenberth is so desperate to replace it with his own personal, cherry-picked, pseudo-null hypothesis. If it were not so important Trenberth would not have made it an issue. The null hypothesis destroys Trenberth’s claim that there is “missing heat,” and it goes a long way toward falsifying CO2=CAGW.
One of the tests of a hypothesis is its ability to make accurate predictions. There is no catastrophic global warming as has been repeatedly predicted. There may be a small fraction of the natural warming since the LIA attributable to human activities, but it is so minuscule that it cannot be measured. If it exists it is inconsequential.
The alarmist crowd has no choice but to predict climate catastrophe; otherwise the funding will begin to dry up. That, in fact, has already started. The reality is that nothing occurring now is any different from what occurred during the Holocene prior to the first SUV coming off the assembly line. It is becoming increasingly clear that CO2 does not have the warming effect claimed by climate alarmists.
If the planet’s temperature exceeds any of the parameters of the Holocene, the null hypothesis will have been falsified. But that is not even close to happening. As Prof Richard Lindzen puts it:
I prefer to accept the words of people like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen over self-serving and disingenuous scaremongers like Al Gore and Michael Mann. But your mileage may vary.
Smokey says: The null hypothesis is critical to the scientific method, which is why Kevin Trenberth is so desperate to replace it with his own personal, cherry-picked, pseudo-null hypothesis. If it were not so important Trenberth would not have made it an issue. The null hypothesis destroys Trenberth’s claim that there is “missing heat,” and it goes a long way toward falsifying CO2=CAGW.
~ ~ ~
Interesting write up S, thanks for taking the time. I am reading it with interest.
But, I’m wondering if you could give a few more details about this?
citizenschallenge says:
“…I’m wondering if you could give a few more details about this?”
No. This is getting tedious. Do a search of the archives for “Trenberth.” Do the same at Bishop Hill and Climate Audit. You will learn and retain more if you do it yourself.
To citizenchallenge:
“Odd. You disparage sarcastically the early deaths of millions and the continued squalid lives of billions .. but offer nothing to improve their lives. These people can be saved by clean water, transportation, and power. But you want to pay corrupt thrid world dictators and intrenation green-energy NGO’s and banks and restrict low cost energy to democrat-controlled Congressional Districts – or didn’t you decide not read that democrat-written cap-and-trade bill passed by Pelosi that only taxed refineries and power plants in republican districts? Did you chose not to participate in the on-going recession – the one caused by high=energy prices deliberately raised as part of a CAGW initiative to restrict energy production and drilling?
What? Do you actually “believe” that NASA-GISS, HadCRU, NOAA, and the team are “not influenced” by the 89 billion spent on their salaries and their so-called “scientific” research? Do you “believe” the IPCC and UN and politically-funded democrats are pristine and not guilty of exaggerations and propaganda when 1.4 trillion dollars in new taxes are solely based on their catastrophic global warming schemes? Enron, you will refuse to recall, started the cap-and-trade schemes as they financed Clinton and Gore. Do you consider Enron, Soros, and Gore honest when their lives and global incomes are at stake, but who will make billions when a global carbon scheme is enacted?
You claim – again! – but based on no evidence of any kind that “big oil” is funding skeptics. If so, then you must have evidence that scientists WILL change evidence, write papers, and conduct research based on who funds them to get the “proper” results. OK. That’s your opinion, and you may have any opinion – no matter wrong it is – that you desire. But what exactly is your EVIDENCE that “scientists” have changed data or hidden inconvenient facts to make the skeptical side case?
Just where is all this “funding” of the skeptical community? The Koch brothers have funded ONE gathering – of an unelected political party at one event in one state that did NOT fund any skeptical research before or after that one gathering – and you claim that is “proof” of collusion?
See: There is NO SUCH EVIDENCE. only accusations of “big oil funding skeptics” – by people who will make 1.3 trillion by pushing a carbon scheme by falsifying evidence and biasing res4earch towards CAGW. And there IS evidence and 89 billion in real money trails to “climate science” showing that has actually happened to manage the CAGW propaganda: the latest being a change in jobs by Obama’s EPA officials to Soros’ carbon trading company. And hundreds of others cases: including Penn State getting a 89 million grant to re-re-re-study the (falsified) link between malaria and CAGW. Just days after clearing Mann from HIS fraudulent schemes.
Yes – YOU (personally) are threatening the lives of millioins by your belief in CAGW – when there are over 800 peer-reviewed papers showing today’s temperatures are within natural limits, have happened globally before at CO2 levels much lower, and much higher, than now. When you can show NO evidence that any man-released CO2 – approximately 3.5% of all CO2 in the atmosphere – has affected temperatures now. Or that today’s temperatures are changing just as they have in the past.
You cannot show any evidence for CAGW. At best, you can show that temperatures have risen since the mid-1650’s by about 1.2 degrees. And, you can show that (just maybe above statistical uncertainty and the known 5 degree urban heat islands) that temperatures since 1970 have risen less than 1/2 of one degree.
You claim NOAA and Wkipedia aand Joe Romm and Hansen as a reference. Fine. Got a reference that is NOT being paid to make a living promoting CAGW?
By the way: Measured Arctic summertime temperatures at 80 degrees north latitudes have declined since 1958. Antarctic temperatures – both summer and winter – have declined as well. Just where have temp’s risen the past 15 years as CO2 has risen? Oh. In doing that, cite a source for that that isn’t being paid to exaggerate CAGW. A source that doesn’t hide its data. A source that doesn’t “correct” old temperatures falsely downward, nor recent temperatures falsely upwards. A source that actually uses data instead of extrapolating temperatures for 1200 kilometers to sea – to places where no real data exists.
Just what is the harm from higher CO2 levels and a less-than-3-degree rise in temperatures over the next 150 years? Because in less than 150 years, we will begin the 450 year-long continuous slide back towards the real threat of the Modern Ice Age. And YOU can’t do anything about that either. Except kill people through catastrophic energy policies based on falsified CAGW theories.
Seems to me Enron was one of Bush’s biggest contributors and booster – I love how they have now been morphed into an eco-plot.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
racookpe1978 says: If so, then you must have evidence that scientists WILL change evidence, write papers, and conduct research based on who funds them to get the “proper” results.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CC: Where’s your proof, where’s the inconsistencies that such a global plot would produce?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CC: Regarding right wing think tanks.
The thing is all these groups are committed public advocates, with a focus toward muddling the AGW conversation rather than helping refine conclusions.
Unbridled Free Market and not scientific understanding being their goal, as evident by their formation, supporters, funding and the working they pump out:
The Frontiers of Freedom Foundation, Inc ~ operating “simply as” Frontiers of Freedom (FF) was founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming”.
“we have both provided and received briefings from Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his Deputy Paul Dundes Wolfowitz.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
SPPI ~ Executive Director is Robert “Bob” Ferguson, who was listed as executive director of the Center for Science and Public Policy in the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation 2006. He is also a former Chief of Staff to Republican Congressmen Jack Fields (1981–1997), John E. Peterson (1997–2002), and Rick Renzi (2002).
The political performer known as Lord Monckton is their brain trust, that ought to tell you something about their seriousness about science.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Marshall Institute ~ conservative think tank established in 1984 in Washington, D.C. primarily to lobby in support of the Strategic Defense Initiative. Before moving on to environmental “skepticism.” They argue tobacco and second-hand smoke don’t do nothing, they don’t believe acid rain exists, and they’re convinced their are not ties between CFCs and Ozone. One of its founders being Frederick Seitz a true pioneer in the art of obfuscation and denial fabrication.
Here’s a nice tidbit:
Matthew B. Crawford, was appointed executive director of GMI in September 2001. He left the GMI after 5 months,
“…the trappings of scholarship were used to put a scientific cover on positions arrived at otherwise. These positions served various interests, ideological or material. For example, part of my job consisted of making arguments about global warming that just happened to coincide with the positions taken by the oil companies that funded the think tank. ”
—Matthew B. Crawford
Also:
In 1998 Jeffrey Salmon, then executive director of GMI, helped develop the American Petroleum Institute’s strategy of stressing the uncertainty of climate science. William O’Keefe, the Institute’s current CEO, was previously Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Petroleum Institute, and has also been on the Board of Directors of the U.S. Energy Association and Chairman of the Global Climate Coalition,[19] a business-led anti-climate change action group active between 1989 and 2002.
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Heartland Institute is a libertarian[2][3][4] American public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies. The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming, information technology and free-market environmentalism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I image you believe all of this makes them no worse than those fancy colleges and focused scientists, rather than politicians. But, it ain’t so, there is a big difference.
posted 2/28/11 9:19am
Smokey says: “First, there is nothing “cavalier” about the concept of the null hypothesis,”
~ ~ ~
You’re right Smokey and I deserve to be spanked for that sentence.
What I meant to say was the ‘misusing’ of the null hypothesis, etc., etc..
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And Smokey says: “But I’ll try to help you out here because you’re so far off track. Conflating “Cheney” – a politician – with the scientific method is disingenuous.”
~ ~ ~
But, Colemans spiel was political. And I see a real irony for the right-wing to trumpet 1% suspicion… Attack on the one hand ~ and we Need 100% proof before we pay attention to our climatologists on the other.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Comrade Theo Goodwin says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:58 pm
“He did not say he (Coleman) was here to present the science.”
~ ~ ~
And Smokey scolds me on that point: “But I’ll try to help you out here because you’re so far off track. Conflating “Cheney” – a politician – with the scientific method is disingenuous.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
By the way whatever happened with Coleman’s law suit against Al Gore for Fraud” ?
Smokey is there a real discussion forum you visit on the web?
I would like to give your above thoughtful long post a thoughtful reply. But, this is a pretty confining venue, no offense intended, but it isn’t an open forum either.
Would you have any interest in visiting Skepticforum.com to take up a conversation?
racookpe, as for the CAGW thing, it seems to me skeptics use that word a least a thousand times more than I’ve ever noticed in the scientific literature… or even sites like SkepticalScience and RealClimate or on science lectures like UCTV’s Perspectives on Ocean Science series.
What’s going on?
Besides, are you saying small problems left ignored won’t cascade into bigger problems, if left ignored won’t cascade into catastrophes? What about those century floods, those aren’t catastrophes? What are you railing against with the CAGW thing?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
racookpe1978 says: “You cannot show any evidence for CAGW.”
~ ~ ~
{The C in AGW is nothing more than cascading events and results.
And you’re right I can’t show you any evidence at all ~ if you refuse to look at it.}
Seems to me our planet’s cryosphere makes a mighty good thermometer:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Looking through that there’s some serious indicators. Also keep in mind “sea ice extent” is not “sea ice mass.” {and that an inch of fresh snow or slush ice is not equal to an inch of glacial ice.} ~ ~ ~
Warming oceans:
American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting – December 13-17, 2010 |
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/12/14/deep-ocean-heat-is-melting-antarctic-ice/
Global glaciers:
http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum09.html
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
~ ~ ~
Then of course there is that excellent summary, with links to real papers:
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Posted on 30 July 2010 by John Cook
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html ~ ~ ~
. . . and 10 signs of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
The 2009 State of the Climate
citizenschallenge says:
“Smokey is there a real discussion forum you visit on the web?”
Yes: WUWT. Take it or leave it, I don’t waste my time on thinly trafficked sites. I’m not even going to spend any more time on this aging thread after this comment.
And:
“The C in AGW is nothing more than cascading events and results.”
The “C” in CAGW specifically means “Catastrophic.” Which has not happened, and there is zero indication that it will ever happen. It is simply a debunked scare tactic intended to lubricate Cap & Tax and other restrictions on activities that emit harmless and beneficial CO2.
Finally, I have nothing but contempt for those flogging the blog run by a cartoonist. Its name is a lie; there is nothing skeptical about it. It is an alarmist blog run by a mendacious prevaricator.