Patterico's Pontifications

7/30/2007

Notes From A Proud Global Warming Skeptic (part 10)

Filed under: Environment — Justin Levine @ 10:17 am

[posted by Justin Levine] 

More “consensus” regarding the “science” supposedly showing that global warming is connected to an increase in hurricane activity –

Global warming’s effect on wind patterns and sea temperatures has more than doubled the annual number of hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean over the past century, says a new study by US scientists.

Excerpts from the study by Greg Holland of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research and Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology were released in the United States late on Sunday.

But wait. In the name of scientific “consensus”, let’s just get a confirmation from fellow scientists at Colorado State University

The global warming arguments have been given much attention by many media references to recent papers claiming to show such a linkage.   Despite the global warming of the sea surface that has taken place over the last 3 decades, the global numbers of hurricanes and their intensity have not shown increases in recent years except for the Atlantic (Klotzbach 2006), where recent hurricane increases are likely a result of naturally occurring multi-decadal Atlantic Ocean circulation variations.

YEARS Named Storms Hurricanes Intense Hurricanes (Cat 3-4-5) Global Temperature Increase

1900-1949                                  189                                     101                                    39

1956-2005                                  165                                      83                                     34                        +0.4 degrees C 

Scientific “consensus” at work. Gotta love it.

[posted by Justin Levine]

71 Responses to “Notes From A Proud Global Warming Skeptic (part 10)”

  1. BLASPHEMER!!!!!11!!!11!1

    I'm Geekier (8364b5)

  2. You will knit ten recycling bins, plant 15 Tulip Poplars and garage your car for a week as penance for your heresy.

    Thus spake The Goracle and his legions of Gorons.

    BJTexs (a48204)

  3. So is it me or did the years 1950-1955 just get subjected to a Stalinesque airbrushing out of the picture?

    Actual (27b131)

  4. STOP GLOBAL WHINNING

    krazy kagu (8d6a8f)

  5. Actual –

    The skipping over 1950-55 is admittedly curious. I assume that this the scientists wanted to contrast two 50 year periods, which necessitated them tossing those years if they wanted to start at 1900 and end at 2005 (though I admit that I don’t see why they just didn’t compare two 53 year periods).

    Two points though.

    1. One section of the written study does mention the era of the early 50’s:

    “For instance, when we compare Atlantic basin hurricane numbers over the 15-year period (1990-2004) with an earlier 15-year period (1950-1964), we see no difference in hurricane frequency or intensity even though the global surface temperatures were cooler and there was a general global cooling during 1950-1964 as compared with global warming during 1990-2004.”

    2. Even if the early 50’s had very HIGH hurricane activity that was left out of the chart, that would be even further circumstantial evidence AGAINST the theory that recent global warming has caused an increase in hurrcane activity.

    Justin Levine (20f2b5)

  6. Not to mention the conspicuous fact that the number of storms recorded before 1970 was done without the help of satellites…

    One can only wonder how many more storms would have been recorded back in the early 1900s with the use of satellites.

    It’s hilarious because I have a commenter at Think Progress on the ropes, vehemently trying to maintain that satellites have not made any difference in our ability to observe storms. These people are every bit as demented as Truthers. How can anyone possibly claim that we’re not more able to pick up hurricanes with satellites than without? Geeeez. These people are nuts.

    Seixon (baa852)

  7. Good point about the satellites. Of course with better and finer measuring tools you’ll see more detail. IIRC, some of the hurricanes that hit the New England coast were essentially surprises. Same with blizzards and other weather events – without access to the data supplied by satellites, anything not “seen” by human eyes was either ignored or just guessed at.

    steve miller (be6a74)

  8. Meh. This is a pretty strawman-ish argument. A few people like Al Gore have beaten the hurricane drum, but the latest IPCC report clearly stated that there is no clear trend in the annual number of hurricanes and cyclones. That type of weather event is simply too complicated to use as evidence either way.

    Russell (8d455a)

  9. You left out 5-years in your data. What happened in those 5-years?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  10. 6-years I should say.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  11. Why is this a strawman’s argument? IIRC, the cover of Al Gore’s DVD is a hurricane caused by a smokestack:
    An Inconvenient Truth

    That to me shows the Church of the Holy Gaia’s most important factoid is how hurricanes are a direct result of global warming – so where are the hurricanes?

    steve miller (be6a74)

  12. Nice try,

    The Colorado numbers only show hurricanes that hit the mainland.

    Kinda reminds me of the pro-war reports that the number of troops dying in Baghdad dropped during the first month of the surge…showing that it’s a huge success.

    Funny, no pro-war bloggers mentioned it when the number of troops dying in Baghdad doubled the next month.

    alphie (015011)

  13. The missing years dont enter into it. The argument has never been that Global Warming occured only in the years 1950-1955. According to the theory ANY block of fifty years from the best should be overshadowed by the supposed increased activity.

    But if you just need to know:

    Year, # storms, # cat 3,4,5

    1950: 13, 8
    1951: 10, 5
    1952: 7, 3
    1953: 14, 4
    1954: 11, 2
    1955: 12, 6

    You can have kinds of fun with the data here.

    Rich Horton (8018ee)

  14. That to me shows the Church of the Holy Gaia’s most important factoid is how hurricanes are a direct result of global warming – so where are the hurricanes?

    It might be an attention-grabbing argument for someone like Al Gore, but it has little to do with GW in general, as the actual scientists took pains to point out.

    Russell (a32796)

  15. Uhhh… as a long time sailor… you do know that HURRICANES are pretty dang hard to miss? They cover HUNDREDS of miles, and last for days.

    Add in there was a huge amount of shipping traffic, and you think just because they didn’t have a satelite they couldn’t figure out if there was a HURRICANE???

    Geeezzzzz

    Romeo13 (6dcb29)

  16. alphie,

    Looking at only landfalling hurricanes is the only way to compare apples and apples. We did not have reliable satellite coverage until circa 1970. See here (and my take here.)

    Any study which does not take into account the discrepencies in the Best Track data isn’t worth the paper its printed on.

    Rich Horton (8018ee)

  17. “Uhhh… as a long time sailor… you do know that HURRICANES are pretty dang hard to miss? They cover HUNDREDS of miles, and last for days.”

    Then how did NOAA miss an entire tropical storm until it went back and looked over the data for 2006 after the season was over?

    Rich Horton (8018ee)

  18. Note: My numbers above were for the Atlantic basin as a whole. I didn’t note which made landfall. In any event those as pretty normal years.

    Rich Horton (8018ee)

  19. What if you break out category 3, 4 and 5 separately? IIRC, the standard reply to stats like this is to point to Cat 5 or Cat 4 and 5 only, which have shown an increase. The theory predicts that warming will tend to increase the intensity of hurricanes, but not necessarily their number.

    Crust (399898)

  20. Rich,

    The only way to compare “apples” to “apples” is to compare the intensity of all storms occuring around the world each year.

    Otherwise, you just get laughably bad results like “number of troops killed in Baghdad” this month.

    alphie (015011)

  21. What if you break out category 3, 4 and 5 separately? IIRC, the standard reply to stats like this is to point to Cat 5 or Cat 4 and 5 only, which have shown an increase. The theory predicts that warming will tend to increase the intensity of hurricanes, but not necessarily their number.

    I’ve looked through what I’ve done before (Because breaking things down into those cats is too time cosuming right now) and I can up with this which touches intensity in the satellite era. (Say 1967-2006)

    I looked at the top wind speeds of Atlantic hurricanes from 1967 to 2006. I’ve found a remarkable consistency in measurements over the forty years period that contradicts claims that hurricanes have become more violent because of global warming.

    (All measurements are in knots/hour)

    40 Year Top Wind Speed Average: 72.52
    40 Year Top Wind Speed Median: 72.1

    Breaking up the data into 4 ten year periods, I next counted the number of years in each decade where the average wind speeds were above the 40 year median. Presumably we should find that more years above the median should have occurred recently. This is not the case.

    1967-1976: 4
    1977-1986: 6
    1987-1996: 5
    1997-2006: 5

    Actually, if you look at the average top wind speeds for the first half of the data and compare them with the second half you find they are, for all practical purposes, identical:

    Average Top Wind Speed 1967-1986: 72.59
    Average Top Wind Speed 1987-2006: 72.45

    Actually, the second twenty year period would have been considerably less violent were it not for the outlier that was 1999 (average top wind speed 91.3.) The average for the other 19 years was only 71.46. Taking the top year away from the 67-86 time period led to a 71.99 average top wind speed. Still greater.

    With this in mind, I wanted to see what the numbers would look like if we didn’t use the highest and lowest numbers from each twenty year period. This would ensure that we did not have outliers masking some otherwise detectable change in intensity. However, all we find is a familiar story:

    1967-1986: 80.65
    1987-2006: 80.50

    Seemingly, the more things (supposedly) change, the more they stay the same.

    Rich Horton (8018ee)

  22. “The only way to compare “apples” to “apples” is to compare the intensity of all storms occuring around the world each year.”

    Which would be fine if that data existed, which it does not. Only the North Atlantic (and to a lesser extent the Eastern Pacific) has data you can really work with.

    For example, all of the wind speed data in the Western Pacific datasets is estimated only, as are all of the pressure measurements. For the Indian ocean (north and south) and the South Pacific the data is even more dodgy.

    Now we can say something about worldwide Tropical storm incidence since about 1982. I did so and found the following:

    Average # of Tropical Storms Worldwide
    1982-1994 (13 years): 48.3
    1994-2006 (13 years): 49.5

    That represents a gain of 2.48% since 1994.

    However if you look at:

    1999-2006 (8 years) : 46.9

    That represents a decrease of 2.90% from the 1994 average.

    Rich Horton (8018ee)

  23. “According to the theory ANY block of fifty years from the best should be overshadowed by the supposed increased activity.”

    Rich, while I agree with you regarding your conclusion of man-made “global warming” being nonsense (and it is in fact Sun-made global warming and yes, in a sense, climate is always something to “worry” about, but we can’t do dick all about it except adjust to what happens next: which will most likely be generalized cooling because its cyclical), I can’t agree with your logic of getting there.

    You can’t just cherry pick the best 50-year block of data.

    Note: I am NOT saying Justin did this. I haven’t looked at this bit of data; I’m in the middle of work right now.

    But just in general, no, you cannot any 50-year block at will and still produce reliable results.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  24. How is it cherry picking? The period 1900-1950 is pre-global warming by anyone’s definition. If GW is affecting hurricane development starting sometime in the second half of the 20th century certainly THAT 50 year block should show that. Right?

    Rich Horton (8018ee)

  25. Rich, you’re right in this case.

    However, as a principle of statistics:

    “According to the theory ANY block of fifty years from the best should be overshadowed by the supposed increased activity.”

    … is not so. You can often find small samples that aren’t representative of general trends.

    The problem with that sentence is the word “ANY”.

    It may be true in this case, but it’s not predicted by any statistical theory.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  26. “Note: I am NOT saying Justin did this. I haven’t looked at this bit of data; I’m in the middle of work right now.”

    I did it right now. If you made the number for:

    1906-1955:

    named storms: 192
    hurricanes: 106
    Cat 3,4,5: 49

    So the numbers become MORE pronounced. not less.

    Rich Horton (8018ee)

  27. Christoph: We were talking about two consecutive 50 year blocks out of a 106 year period. That cover 94% of the entire population in question. It was always gonna work. :-)

    Rich Horton (8018ee)

  28. Wow, Rich Horton you’ve spent a lot of time crunching these numbers. BTW, I’ve only ever seen “knot” as a speed (nautical miles per hour) so knots/hour would techncially be an acceleration, I think.

    Crust (399898)

  29. “BTW, I’ve only ever seen “knot” as a speed (nautical miles per hour) so knots/hour would techncially be an acceleration, I think.”

    d’oh

    Rich Horton (8018ee)

  30. Scientific “consensus” at work. Gotta love it.

    Nobody claims there is a scientific consensus about global warming’s effect on hurricanes. In fact there is a big fight about it.

    However, both of the quotes you use do show that oceans have warmed. On that there is a consensus.

    So you’re asking us to believe your skepticism about where there is consensus. You do this by claiming there is a consensus where nobody thinks there is one (global warming’s impact on hurricanes), as well as giving us quotes which do show a consensus about the topic (warming) which you skeptical of.

    Good one.

    amarc (32a721)

  31. The less severe hurricanes are due to the lack of upper level divergence. This is caused by the greenhouse effect warming the upper levels more than the lower levels of the atmosphere. The intensity of the storm is directly related to the divergence of temps aloft and at the surface.

    At least that is what the Warmies COULD say and that would be circumstantial evidence to support the greenhouse theory but the problem is…you can’t scare people with your invisible monster by telling them that it makes storms less intense.

    j curtis (ecc9cc)

  32. Amarc –

    I can only assume that you haven’t read my previous posts on this subject. If you had, you would surely realize that I am not skeptical about the fact that the earth is “warming”. I use the phrase “global warming skeptic” as a shorthand way of describing the unproven theory that the current minor warming relative to previous decades is (a) man-made; (b) likely to continue indefinitely unless mankind changes its behavior; (c) is likely to radically harm the planet. It is those 3 notions that I am skeptical about. The phrase “global warming” is now popularly used to describe those notions, so I feel it is entirely appropriate to use the phrase in the same manner.

    So yes – I agree with the consensus that the earth has been “warming” the past few decades.

    Your statement that nobody thinks there is a consensus on the supposed link between hurricanes and global warming is false.

    One of the lead authors of the IPCC proclaimed a definite link, and we have all heard about how the IPCC supposedly represents a “scientific consensus”.

    Background here:

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

    The fact that many dispute the notion that the IPCC itself represents a consensus doesn’t change the fact that the such false notions have been made.

    That is one of the larger points of my “global warming skeptic” posts. The whole notion of scientific consensus on this issue is ridiculous. It really shows an insecurity about the underlying research. It is the man-made global warming theorists who have politicized this issue. Not those who demand a more rigorous scientific method.

    So I am sorry, but I submit that it is your comments that are the straw-man here, not my posting. But I invite all to read both (as well as the link above in this comment) and judge for themselves.

    Justin Levine (20f2b5)

  33. Christoph –

    I have already responded to your issue in # 5.

    Justin Levine (20f2b5)

  34. Do you believe the theory of evolution is correct, Justin?

    alphie (015011)

  35. Do you believe the theory of evolution is correct, Justin?

    Misdirection or ad hominem?

    Rich Horton (8018ee)

  36. Holy troll, alphie, what the heck does that have to do with the global warming hoax?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  37. Just seeing what we’re talkin’ about here, guys.

    Anti-science or pseudo-science.

    alphie (015011)

  38. The whole notion of scientific consensus on this issue is ridiculous.

    Why? There isn’t a consensus that warming causes hurricanes. That doesn’t make consensus “ridiculous.” That some scientists say there is a link doesn’t mean that people have said there is a consensus.

    One of the lead authors of the IPCC proclaimed a definite link, and we have all heard about how the IPCC supposedly represents a “scientific consensus”.

    If one person says one thing, and others say others, then that does not a consensus make. The IPCC has not said there is a consensus on global warming’s effect on hurricanes. Just one of its authors. That’s not consensus.

    In fact, according to your link, the person who said there was a link asked the person who said there wasn’t a link to write the section of the report on Atlantic Hurricanes.

    amarc (40c99d)

  39. #37 – Alphie admits that (s)he doesn’t know what (s)he’s talking about. Such refreshing honesty is to be commended!

    ManWell (26622e)

  40. amarc, science is not done by “consensus”, it is done by testable hypotheses and repeatable experiments.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  41. Do you believe the theory of evolution is correct, Justin?

    Comment by alphie — 7/30/2007 @ 3:44 pm

    Do you believe the theory of evolution is correct, Justin?

    Misdirection or ad hominem?

    Comment by Rich Horton — 7/30/2007 @ 3:56 pm

    Aw, ain’t that sweet, alpo is still bothering people on the internet witn his inane, passive voice attempts at….drawing attention to himself, I guess.

    Remeber what I said over at PW, alpo, someday the passive voice is going to turn on you, gut you and eat your liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

    N. O'Brain (9056e2)

  42. […] Patterico – Notes from a Proud Global Warming Skeptic (part 10) […]

    All American Blogger » Blog Archive » A Field Guide To American Politics: July 30, 2007 (f7ae5e)

  43. amarc, science is not done by “consensus”, it is done by testable hypotheses and repeatable experiments.

    There is a difference between how science is done, and how we talk about what science knows.

    amarc (1e30c8)

  44. N.O’Brain,

    There’s a difference between debating climate change with someone who thinks our ancestors rode on the backs of dinasaurs and someone who is just sticking up for Texas oil companies.

    Not much, but some.

    alphie (015011)

  45. There’s a difference between debating climate change with someone who thinks our ancestors rode on the backs of dinasaurs and someone who is just sticking up for Texas oil companies.

    You have yet to debate anything. For obvious reasons.

    Gerald A (6b39c1)

  46. “There’s a difference between debating climate change with someone who thinks our ancestors rode on the backs of dinasaurs and someone who is just sticking up for Texas oil companies.”

    Uh, what? You know someone who thinks our ancestors domesticated dinosaurs? And the only other choice of global warming skeptic is someone who is “sticking up for Texas oil companies”?

    Maybe in your next post you can again compare GW and hurricanes to Iraq. Maybe throw in some balloons and berms for old time sake.

    Then tell us again how you are trying to determine how dumb the other guys are you are currently “debating”.

    buzz (e09efa)

  47. “N.O’Brain,

    There’s a difference between debating climate change with someone who thinks our ancestors rode on the backs of dinasaurs and someone who is just sticking up for Texas oil companies.

    Not much, but some.

    Comment by alphie — 7/30/2007 @ 5:30 pm”

    Dude, I hate to break it to you, but the Flintstones ain’t real.

    Don’t cry now.

    N. O'Brain (9056e2)

  48. I would like to thank Gore for talking up the global warming thing. Every time he bloviates, it gets cooler–LA has been positively mild this summer (remember last July? *shudder*).

    Patricia (824fa1)

  49. Someone remarked that it snowed in Buenos Aires this winter (June/July/August in Southern Hemisphere) for the first time in either 50 or 100 years.
    Who knew Al Gore was on a lecture tour down there?

    Another Drew (a28ef4)

  50. Who knew Al Gore was on a lecture tour down there?

    Do you think individual locations having record cold temperatures is inconsistent with what global warming ( a rise in global average temperatures) predicts?

    amarc (34972c)

  51. A few weeks ago NPR had another of their climate reports which caused me to nearly blow my coffee out my nose. This scientist thinks he knows why birds on the Farallon Islands off San Francisco are having problems. Check out the complete voodoo science here:

    Bradley isn’t sure what forced this change. He believes that in recent years, the jet stream has changed its path in ways that may be linked to the gradual warming of the globe. This change in the jet stream may, in turn, have disrupted the winds that normally sustain birds on the Farallons. Link

    A few days later other news outlets reported that the Bald Eagle has made a comeback on Catalina Island in SoCal. Okay, so what do the NPR bird watchers jet stream scientists have to say about this?!

    Wesson (7b180b)

  52. One of the lead authors of the IPCC proclaimed a definite link, and we have all heard about how the IPCC supposedly represents a “scientific consensus”.

    As amarc said, one author does not make a consensus. The latest edition of the IPCC report specifically stated that there is no clear link between GW and hurricanes. The relevant passage:

    There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since
    about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of
    increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater.
    Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations
    in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend
    in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.
    [Note: Tropical cyclones include hurricanes and typhoons.]

    The emphasis is mine there. Clearly it is dishonest for people like Al Gore to exaggerate the dangers of global warming to make a political point. However, it is equally dishonest to claim that there is a consensus on GW-caused hurricanes and use that easily-discredited claim to bash GW science in general. Strawman.

    Question, Justin Levine: are you a scientist? I don’t mean to impinge your credibility, or argue that only scientists can possibly talk about these issues, etc. Just curious.

    Russell (084691)

  53. Well alright then. We are all in agreement that AGW augmentation of hurricanes is complete and utter hokum.
    Now on to sea rise.
    If the oceans have been rising right along with temperature then historical artifacts which are known to have been at sea level in the distant past, must be awash or innundated in the present.

    Gentlemen I give you exhibit “A”
    Plymouth Rock.

    This historic rock is the spot where the pilgrim leader William Bradford disembarked from the Mayflower. It was at sea level in 1620. It is at sea level today.
    Total sea rise over last 387 years – zero.

    papertiger (0b0c9a)

  54. Question, Justin Levine: are you a scientist? I don’t mean to impinge your credibility, or argue that only scientists can possibly talk about these issues, etc. Just curious.

    It certainly doesn’t take being a scientist. It does take knowing about science and how science works.

    amarc (91d343)

  55. “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”
    -Michael Crichton

    N. O'Brain (5deb6d)

  56. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

    When other people verify it, what is formed is consensus. If others can’t verify it, then they disagree. Consensus, peer review, repeatability and verifiability are similar concepts. These are what differentiate scientific advances from cold fusion.

    I do agree that for the purpose of fiction writing, one can say that consensus is irrelevant.

    amarc (7c1326)

  57. amarc sez:

    When other people verify it, what is formed is consensus. If others can’t verify it, then they disagree. Consensus, peer review, repeatability and verifiability are similar concepts. These are what differentiate scientific advances from cold fusion.

    Sorry, no. What is “formed” is a confirmation that the results are reproducible.

    Nothing more.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  58. The Mayan priests used environmental fear ie ‘sacrfice your virgins to purify your sins otherwise the Gods will bring death by flooding’

    Just how many virgins will believers of Global Warming sacrifice in order to placate Al Goracle’s Gods?

    Hundreds?

    Thousands?

    Millions?

    Just how many will it take to satisify the Religion of Perpetual Hysteria?

    And John Lennon said to imagine ‘no religion’. Well, he never imagined Al Gore would rise from the dead and crown himself the high priest of the Religion of Perpetual Hysteria.

    susan (7faf4d)

  59. Sorry, no. What is “formed” is a confirmation that the results are reproducible. Nothing more.

    Thats it. When one person agrees with another, they are in consensus.

    Consensus is also the act of putting together several pieces of knowledge. For example, the IPCC report that #52 quoted puts together the knowledge that people agree on: there is observational evidence of increased North Atlantic activity since 1970 correlated with increasing ocean temperatures, but there is no clear trend.

    Likewise in my first post on this: between the two sources in this post, there is consensus that oceans are getting warmer. Despite what a “global warming skeptic” might say.

    amarc (589c6f)

  60. If consensus determines the final point from which we must all agree, what does the consensus say about the fact that oceans have been warming and cooling since the earth was formed?

    Environmentalism has reached the extreme point at which it is no longer grounded in Nature.

    susan (7faf4d)

  61. Remeber last year was suppost to be one of the worse hurricane years on record becuase of GLOBAL WARMING and it fizzled the few they got wasnt enough to drown flea or ant GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE

    krazy kagu (e70d3d)

  62. Environmentalism has reached the extreme point at which it is no longer grounded in Nature.

    Comment by susan — 7/31/2007 @ 5:42 am

    No, Gorian environmentlism is no longer grounded in reality.

    Thet’ve become one with UFOlogists, 911 “Truthers” and the Flat Earth Society.

    N. O'Brain (5deb6d)

  63. No, Gorian environmentlism is no longer grounded in reality.

    Thet’ve become one with UFOlogists, 911 “Truthers” and the Flat Earth Society.

    Don’t forget christians.

    amarc (b05912)

  64. “Don’t forget christians.

    Comment by amarc — 7/31/2007 @ 8:14 am”

    Well, no, because Christ is a historical figure.

    Oh, you just revealed yourself, btw.

    N. O'Brain (5deb6d)

  65. Well, no, because Christ is a historical figure.

    He may be historical, but thats not the part that people who are christians care about. The part they care about is the part that is not “grounded in reality.”

    amarc (6623fa)

  66. Just how many virgins will believers of Global Warming sacrifice in order to placate Al Goracle’s Gods?

    Hundreds?

    Thousands?

    Millions?

    Just how many will it take to satisify the Religion of Perpetual Hysteria?

    God, I hope it’s not millions. I’ve only sacrificed a dozen virgins today and I’m sick and tired of it already. The Goracle is just so thirsty.

    Russell (a32796)

  67. There is a consensus CO2 emissions cause global warming. California’s AG Jerry Brown is now out suing cities for their land development plans emitting too much CO2. The pathetic insinuation is that the CO2 reduction from these tightwad laws will affect people in San Bernardino more than the CO2 output of China affects people in San Bernardino.

    The global warming caused by CO2 occurs on a global level, not a city level. It’s amazing the Republicans are so lame, especially in California, they cannot get traction on exposing these deceptions.

    This CO2 scare is just another tool to be used in land development feuds, for the well-connected.

    Wesson (7b180b)

  68. Russell, well my friend it appears the well of faith in The Goracle is not as deep as the need for something new.

    susan (7faf4d)

  69. this CO2 scare is just another tool to be used in land development feuds

    That, plus is a convenient tool for taxing the poor while controlling the middle class.

    If one examines the money behind Gore’s Global Warming, it is provided by billionaire socialists who need something in their lives to feel good about; like saving the earth will make them feel as if they have accomplished something meangingful or some such leisure the idle class enjoy.

    I am surprised Gore’s believers above all would even engage in such a ‘classist’ ploy.

    susan (7faf4d)

  70. CO2 levels cause global warming???
    Well, there is a part of the scientific community that states that rising sea temperatures release CO2 into the atmosphere.
    So, which causes which?
    And, if we get back to the temp levels known to exist circa 900-1100AD, will that constitute “global warming”, or just a return to an historical stasis?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  71. The Global Warming Argument…

    As long as we’re on the topic, I’ll join the party and chime in as well.

    There are essentially three assertions that warmenists need to prove to make the case that huge amounts of money need to be spent to prevent global warming (……

    Dean's World (fa8fba)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4486 secs.