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
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?
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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.