Patterico's Pontifications


Climate Predictions Come Up Short, As Usual–The Glacially Motivated Edition!

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 7:42 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

This has gotten so predictable that I barely have to write the post anymore–just add a bad pun in the title:

Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.

The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world’s highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.

It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.

Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at “a rapid rate”, threatening floods throughout north India.

The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himlaya, are in fact advancing and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts.

Read the whole thing.  And don’t you like how when the glaciers were supposedly melting and were going to flood the subcontinent, that this was proof that the Earth was in the balance, etc., etc., but the moment that they determine that they are advancing, not retreating, they declare that global warming is not relevant in any case?

Other than that, my analysis last time pretty much applies as is.  It is summed up in two points.

1. Their predictions prove wrong time and time again.

2. No one questioned those famous predictions except the people tarred as “deniers.”

The avalanche of these occurrences has thoroughly convinced me that the belief in ManBearPig Climate Change Global Warming is not based on science but on politics and, more or less, faith.

H/t: Althouse.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

111 Responses to “Climate Predictions Come Up Short, As Usual–The Glacially Motivated Edition!”

  1. A related question for the PP braintrust.

    I have read about a device that one can install on your car that takes electricty from the alternator to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, which then dumps the hydrogen into the fuel misture, supposedly increasing the efficiency of the combustion and the catalytic convertor. The things are advertised by various companies, including DIY’s, and are claimed to increase mpg by 25% or more. It sounds too good to be true, but the only things I’ve been able to find to debunk it aren’t very “professional looking”, and those that support it, including from fairly reputable places, look like rehashes of things claimed not proved. [There also appears to be a different device that strips hydrogen from the gasoline itself that seems legit, but much more costly and in the engineering stages at the auto manufacturers].

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  2. LEONARDO DICAPRIO, Actor and Producer
    “To those of us who have been unknowingly made to turn a blind eye to the terrifying and true facts about global warming, there’s no time left for ignorance.

    In the interest of saving time and bandwidth, I will cut to the last gasp of the Warmer argument: “If you are not a scientist, and have not studied the data, then you can’t really speak with authority on this issue. The world is in the balance, and I will trust the word of 31,000 scientists over yours!”

    Me, I be over here in the corner, doubting. And reading 100 reasons why climate change is not man-made.

    TimesDisliker (64d52a)

  3. The glaciers are now increasing, so of course that means that GW is real, and the fact that much of the US (as well as Europe) is experiencing record snows and cold also proves that GW is real. It’s like they’re playing poker with a stacked deck – heads they win, tails they win.

    Dmac (498ece)

  4. Global warming-the convergence of (leftist) politics and religion.

    Chris (6b0332)

  5. I think you should notify the US military that global climate change is a farce so they can abandon their plans on dealing with strategic changes to national security because of the melting arctic and other aspects of GCC.

    You only further your ignorance when you cite one isolated example to prove a meaningless point … parroted by conservative lock-step thinking. You might consider studying the issue.

    Kenton (2360d8)

  6. Kenton, you might consider reading a few more posts before accusing Aaron of citing “one isolated example.” As he said, other evidences of the anti-AGW argument that have been read, dissected, and discussed here have been so extensive that by this point it seems like piling on. By now, we’re reluctant to make the point too forcefully because we feel sorry for people like you who still believe these idiots.

    Gesundheit (aab7c6)

  7. MD: sounds bogus to me. For one thing, how would the addition of hydrogen improve the combustibility of gasoline? For good combustion, BOTH hydrogen and gasoline need a good dose of oxygen. If the device did anything, it should pump the pure oxygen into the cylinder. THAT would make a nice bang.

    Gesundheit (aab7c6)

  8. BTW, ran across a commenter a few weeks ago – can’t remember where, who suggested the radical idea of putting an alternator on an electric car to generate electricity to recharge the battery, thus yielding limitless mileage!!!

    Like global warming believers, some people seem impervious to education.

    Gesundheit (aab7c6)

  9. we feel sorry for people like you

    Yes, I’m glad you feel sorry for people like me, the world scientific community, and the US Military.

    I guess I can understand your position, knowing that only 6% of scientists consider themselves “Republican”, clearly Republicans ‘don’t do science well.’

    97% of 1372 Climate Scientists (note: not just ‘scientists’) polled by the National Academy of Sciences affirm that man influenced climate change is a fact. Further, those that do not accept this conclusion are those with lesser expertise as measured by achievement and scholarship in the field.

    Kenton (2360d8)

  10. Concensus!

    vote for pedro (e7577d)

  11. Kent

    > You only further your ignorance when you cite one isolated example to prove a meaningless point …

    Are you really Kman? Because like that man, you have apparently failed to read the post. Or you would have noticed its not ONE idolated example. And the problem is that it is an isolated but FAMOUS example. But none of the so-called scientists who believe in AGW noticed it was bunk.

    Only the so-called deniers did.

    Time and again, the prediction of the global warm-mongers prove to be false. But no one contradicts them ahead of time (except the deniers), and after they are proven wrong—indeed proven to be faking data—no one even shows a moment of doubt or circumspection.

    And as for polling, yeah, I am sure they said something like that to Darwin, or to Copernicus. Science is not a democracy. Instead it is one person who is right, and can prove it.

    You 97%, if that is a real number, are consistently proven wrong.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  12. Kenton, are you completely sure that “climate science” is even a real field of scientific examination and rigor, or is it not proving itself to be more akin to such agenda driven curricula as “women’s studies”?

    elissa (dea0c2)

  13. Kent’s statistic is mythical. However, it’s also about as intelligent as claiming all nuns believe in Jesus.

    Surely it’s clear by now that climate science is a racket, and those dedicating their lives to that specific field are ideologues.

    It’s a particularly unscientific response to real science (IE the evidence in this post, proving a hypothesis is in error via the scientific method). ‘But the authorities agree with me!!!’ is irrational, and anyone with a basic education would reject Kent’s obnoxious ‘argument’.

    I’m sure, if blind faith in a field already proven to hide the decline is Kent’s basis for judging someone’s qualifications for even talking about this, he’s not serious. That’s the argument of a desperate loser.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  14. It is amusing to hear the ignorance. The lock step talking points and links from ‘hotair’ and ‘newsbusters’… etc.

    Did you know that only 1 in a 1000 of the “Petition Project” signers (that “pedro” cited above) is a climate scientist? Did you know that project was started in cooperation with Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute? Did you know the petition included a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz who produced junk science to “prove” tobacco smoking was not harmful? Did you know that attached to the petition was a non peer reviewed “research paper” made to mimic the format and letterhead of the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal in an obvious attempt to deceive?

    Yes, you have a lot of integrity behind you there, my friends.

    Kenton (44361b)

  15. Climate science is nothing like “women’s studies”. Women’s studies doesn’t have billions of dollars in government and private money being poured into it in order to prove the reason for its existence.

    Socratease (e559c0)

  16. I think it’s interesting that Kenton has moved the goalposts from “scientists support AGW theories” to “climate scientists support AGW theories”. Keep in mind that “climate science” didn’t exist 20 years ago as a degree or specialty. What we had was meteorology, which judged correctness by success in the real world, unlike climate science. Most meteorologists do not support AGW theories. Us non-scientists aren’t as impressed with ranks of highly-subsidized (with our tax dollars) self-proclaimed experts who tell us we must destroy our productivity and economy in response to their theories which have a long record of failing to accurately predict anything. And I keep remembering the saying that any field of study with the word “science” in its title is not a science.

    Socratease (e559c0)

  17. Yes, you have a lot of integrity behind you there, my friends.

    Comment by Kenton

    What does this even mean? You’re not even talking about science at all, but rather insisting one group of people is right, on faith, and another group must lack integrity because someone in that group makes money for a living.

    Here’s a secret for you: oil companies have a lot of scientists in them, and theirs is the kind of science that has to resort to facts in order to make money. Your climate scientists have to resort to propaganda and silencing dissent to make grant money, rather than science.

    It sounds like you’re pretty desperate to ignore the facts. The glaciers were said to be linked to global warming and vanishing. That climate science myth has been busted. Your reaction: ignore them, they can’t be right because they don’t agree with me.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  18. Kenton-

    Do you remember reading newspapers in the mid-70’s predicting we were headed for another mini-ice age? I do. That was based on the same temperature data set they are using to predict global warming. From early in the 20th century until mid 70’s it was trending down. After the mid-70’s it was flat line awhile then went up, at which point people started on global warming. This is what happens when you try to do science with a sample set so ridiculously small in comparison to what you are studying that you can’t tell anything. Later on, when the data (however flawed to begin with) did not match predictions and continue rising, they started using “adjustment factors” to manipulate the data, and happening to “lose” the original data in the process.

    “Science” based on inadequate data and made-up data. All they were tracking were fluctuations in world temperature across the 20th century and repeatedly trying to say there was a long term trend, when another 10 years repeatedly demonstrated their overreaching.

    40 years ago the consensus opinion was that ulcers were caused by stress and too much acid, and the guy who said bacteria had something to do with it was an idiot. Now the guy who was an idiot has a Nobel prize and ulcers are tested for bacteria and treated for such when it is found.

    Scientists are human beings first, and human beings can fall for the “Emperor’s new clothes” like anybody else, especially when they have something to gain, like money and fame.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  19. So, I guess the US Navy’s Task Force on Climate Change that issued this report that is designed to “ensure Navy’s strategies, policies, and plans are informed by scientifically-based climate change assessments and predictions” is all based on liberal lies?

    “A preponderance of global observational evidence shows the Arctic Ocean is losing sea ice, global temperatures are warming, sea level is rising, large landfast ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctic) are losing ice mass, and precipitation patterns are changing.

    Climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, U.S. military installations world- wide. Melting permafrost is degrading roads, foundations, and structures on DoD and USCG installations in Alaska. Droughts in the southeast and southwest U.S. are challenging water resource management. Sea level rise and storm surge will lead to an increased likelihood of inundation of coastal infrastructure, and may limit the availability of overseas bases.

    The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) examined Navy issues and concerns due to global climate change during a CNO Executive Board (CEB) on May 15, 2009. That CEB resulted in decisions to establish Task Force Climate Change (TFCC)”

    –US Navy, Chief of Operations 5/21/10

    Kenton (b8e843)

  20. MD in Philly
    Why do you quote things like “reading newspapers in the mid-70′s predicting we were headed for another mini-ice age? ”

    You’re showing your age, certainly showing you believe in such a false equivalency… citing predictions when super computer climate modeling was in it’s infancy.

    I guess you’ve really proved something!

    Kenton (b8e843)

  21. You’re showing your age, certainly showing you believe in such a false equivalency… citing predictions when super computer climate modeling was in it’s infancy.

    Actually, he made a great point. Climate scientists have never been right before. You cannot make an accurate hypothesis or testable prediction that isn’t debunked later.

    Your super duper computer modeling is the crap that was made to ‘hide the decline’. This article is yet another example of a busted prediction.

    In real science, rather than climate science, when a theory or model leads to a wrong prediction, that’s proof the theory was incorrect in some way.

    Isn’t it interesting to you that 999 out of 1000 of the people who called this right aren’t ‘climate scientists’? That’s powerful evidence that ‘climate science’ is not science.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  22. citing predictions when super computer climate modeling was in it’s infancy.

    There is not one climate model in existence that can accurately predict the last fifty years when date from the 1950’s is entered into it.

    gahrie (ed7a50)

  23. –US Navy, Chief of Operations 5/21/10

    Comment by Kenton

    Kenton, Appeal to Authority #8 1/30/11

    We get it. You think you’re right because “someone said so”. why repeat the same argument over and over again? It’s fallacious, and we’ve rejected it. Move on to something less stupid, please.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  24. “hide the decline”… “drill baby drill” … “take America back”

    Are you a parrot or a thinking person?

    Go back and read the US Navy report. #19

    I thought conservatives were pro-military? I guess not … when it detracts from their bogus arguments.

    Kenton (b8e843)

  25. Are you a parrot or a thinking person?

    That’s an excellent question, Kenton. Me, I’m a thinking person, who can understand this post’s relevance to climate predictions. You, on the other hand, are a parrot, telling me to believe someone despite the scientific method.

    You don’t even offer any sort of rational response, just insisting something is ‘bogus’ because you don’t agree.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  26. Kenton – Sadly, the good Chief of Ops appears to be unable to read numbers.

    In the last two decades Global average temp has either held stead or dropped. In addition, Arctic Ice has in fact been increasing over the last decade.

    The number of things wrong with the models being used to “prove” global warming are legion. They focus on Carbon, and ignore water vapor (which is not only more abundant by orders of magnitude, but also has a greater impact on energy absorption and reflection). They assume levels of positive feedback which observation does NOT support. They gives too much statistical weight to surface data (by as much as 60%) and ignore upper atmosphere.

    Here’s something for you to read, in it’s entirety. Read it all, and then return. Failure to prove that you have actually read it with DQ you from further conversation because you will have proven yourself unwilling to subject yourself to the other side’s argument.

    Read this, then we can talk.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  27. It’s occurred to me more than once that many, if not most, of the “facts” that “confirm” the evils of global climate change — oh, hell, let’s call it global warming — are nothing more than pseudo-scientific cherry picking. Anything that doesn’t confirm the conclusion is simply ignored or minimized. Anything that might be twisted into some sort of confirmation of our doom is immediately trumpeted as scientific proof. And anybody who retains a speck of skepticism is somehow an oil company shill ready to sell out the human race. Bull. I took science courses BEFORE the global warming crowd stuck their noses into the tent.

    I ain’t buying it until Florida is under water.

    bobdog (166386)

  28. Future events will effect you in the future.

    Pious Agnostic (f24095)

  29. Ummmmm… our military; being top notch, plans for nearly everything. Plans are made all the time from planning to invade Britain (to retake it) to plans to fight in Africa, South America, China etc.
    They plan for drought, they plan for cold, they plan for monsoon.
    AGW is the cult idea of the day and I’m sure they’ve been badgered by geniuses like Barbara Boxer and Jane Harmon into producing reports about whether or not they believe it is an issue or not.
    Plus they have the burden of introducing these reports in enthusiastic language whether they want to or not.
    The military follows orders after all.

    The claim that all scientists who do not fall lock step for AGW are second rate is simply untrue.
    A cursory survey through google produces climate scientist names that have MIT, Cal Tech, and Emeritas associated with them.
    I’m not onboard with research that requires willful suspension of disbelief. (A phrase some noted genius on military matters put to great use some years ago)
    Why do AGW cultists require me to suspend disbelief?
    Is all research only supposed to churn out more verification? Or is it OK to go out and subject AGW to rigorous, energetic testing? Oh wait, the consensus is in; there is no more research to do.
    I’ve got to give the researchers up on those frigid glaciers a nod… they reported the truth of what they found.
    AGW is falling apart. Admit it. Why else shift the goalposts to “climate change”. Climate change is a weasel phrase for that my friends from windy west Texas call the “weather”.

    Have you read this?

    bwaaaha haha… come on admit it. These scientists slurped up the koolaid and then barfed on themselves.
    They are so smart that they are dumb…

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  30. Thanks for quoting Lindzen, one of the leading global warming skeptics and member of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.

    Lindzen is a qualified scientist and his opinion matters but he has been wrong before and presently, like many denialists, is in the twilight of his career and has been a shill for tobacco companies who refutes the dangers of smoking. A grain of salt is in order.

    Kenton (b8e843)

  31. Should be: AGW is the cult idea of the day and I’m sure they’ve been badgered by geniuses like Barbara Boxer and Jane Harmon into producing reports about AGW whether or not they believe it is an issue.

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  32. So you are saying his provable math is wrong, but the not-yet-right-once math of your side is correct?

    Name me one time a model for Global Warming has been right.

    Even once.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  33. _____________________________________

    knowing that only 6% of scientists consider themselves “Republican”, clearly Republicans ‘don’t do science well.’

    If that also means 94% of people in that field are emotionally — if not also politically — of the left, then common sense isn’t going to be a strong suit among them. People can be intellectually above average (eg, Hollywood actors with their rote skills), but they can be utter fools, and damn dishonest, when it comes to the way they think in general.

    A good number of them certainly will be full of the limousine-liberal phoniness of folks like Al living-the-high-life Gore. Or those suffering from cognitive dissonance like John living-in-sweaty-hot-box-Arizona McCain.

    One reason I’ve long suspected AGW was a bunch of BS is because I dislike hot weather. For years I have been aware of the effect that a mass of air in the atmosphere — aka high pressure — has on temperatures. So far, all the AGW alarmists have yet to correlate the way that carbon dioxide (particularly from human sources) nurtures and increases high-pressure weather cells.

    Since AGW alarmists believe mankind is so influential in the Earth’s climate, I recommend they go out on a clear day — preferably around noontime — and without any protection for their eyes stare straight into the sun.

    Mark (411533)

  34. Lindzen is a qualified scientist and his opinion matters but he has been wrong before

    So being wrong once dooms you forever?

    So I guess his mistake is not having been wrong enough.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  35. Trolls like Kenton, and lefty web blogs like Washington Monthly, assume that science agrees with them because…, well because.

    My best example of another politically connected science program was the Human Genome Project. It was set up with government money in bot the US and UK. Jim Watson was the titular head although his fame from the DNA double helix was far over rated. The people with grants considered themselves set for the next decade or two.

    Something happened. A guy named Craig Venter came along and decided that money could be made by patenting potentially useful genes. He convinced another guy whose company made the nucleotide sequencing machines. They got together and formed TIGR, The Institute for Genomic Research. In two years, with no government money, they had the genetic code. The usual suspects were enraged. There is a good book called The Gene Wars with the story.

    Venter finally met with Watson and, when they could not agree on cooperation, Venter suggested the Human Genome Project do the mouse genome. That really enraged them although that was probably a more important project for pure research. The mouse is the most useful animal in experimental biology.

    So Venter went on to do the mouse, Hemophilus influenza, which caused many childhood illnesses, rice, the worlds most important food grain and many others including most pathogenic bacteria.

    The Human Genome Project managed to get Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to insist that credit be shared between the folks who did the work and the folks who got the grants. After all, we wouldn’t want to imply that all those research grants went down a rat hole, would we ?

    Venter is now a billionaire and is hiring the best biological scientists in the world for his institute, now in La Jolla.

    If climate science could make money, besides grants which have nothing to do with ability, the CRU folks and Michael Mann would long since have been surpassed by real intellects. They are rent seekers who have mastered the art of getting grants.

    Interestingly enough, the Met Office in UK may lose their contract because of poor predictions. They are defending themselves by saying the government chose predictions that supported warming. There is one guy who provides correct forecasts more often than the Met. He relies on solar activity, as most of us do on climate.

    Mike K (8f3f19)

  36. Are you in denial of the US Navy, which operates regularly in the Arctic, when they cite observable evidence of climate change, effects significant enough to document unequivocally in this report? Do you think they are lying, or are part of a larger conspiracy?

    “A preponderance of global observational evidence shows the Arctic Ocean is losing sea ice, global temperatures are warming, sea level is rising, large landfast ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctic) are losing ice mass, and precipitation patterns are changing.”

    Kenton (b8e843)

  37. Is this Yelverton, because I’m getting that stink of
    Soros astroturf

    narciso (e888ae)

  38. Kenton is but one of my many identities.

    SockPuppet (d4bbf1)

  39. I thought conservatives were pro-military?

    That reminds me of the pernicious, idiotic effect of political correctness run amok. Incidentally, fear of AGW is certainly a part of that. So if politically-correct reactions are as absurd as they were in the following case, then there definitely will be no less foolishness when it comes to something as comparatively vague — and non-immediately life threatening — as the topic of climate and carbon dioxide.

    “Protecting the Force: Lessons From Fort Hood” never mentions Islamist terror. Its 86 mind-numbing pages treat “the alleged perpetrator,” Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, as just another workplace shooter (guess they’re still looking for the pickup truck with the gun rack).

    The teensy bit of specific criticism is reserved for the “military medical officer supervisors” in Maj. Hasan’s chain of command at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. As if the problem started and ended there. Unquestionably, the officers who let Hasan slide, despite his well-known wackiness and hatred of America, bear plenty of blame. But this disgraceful pretense of a report never asks why they didn’t stop Hasan’s career in its tracks.

    The answer is straightforward: Hasan’s superiors feared — correctly — that any attempt to call attention to his radicalism or to prevent his promotion would backfire on them, destroying their careers, not his. Hasan was a protected-species minority. Under the PC tyranny of today’s armed services, no non-minority officer was going to take him on.

    Mark (411533)

  40. Kenton:

    You are an odd sort of bigot, but a bigot nonetheless. That is not an insult.

    Ag80 (e03e7a)

  41. I thought leftists always distrusted the US Military, and discounted anything they may say as supportive of the right-wing.

    Guess I was wrong; what could have changed?

    Pious Agnostic (f24095)

  42. A preponderance of global observational evidence shows the Arctic Ocean is losing sea ice

    Funny that satellite images can’t back that up.

    global temperatures are warming

    Again, odd that global averages haven’t gone up in the last decade. In fact, average temps have dropped.

    sea level is rising

    No, in fact. This is a frequent claim that has yet to be shown to be true. Just because someone with bars on their shoulders says it doesn’t make it true without proof.

    large landfast ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctic) are losing ice mass

    No, they aren’t. They have been gaining mass for – again – a decade.

    precipitation patterns are changing.

    Please tell me the exact ideal rate of precipitation. While you are at it, please tell me what the ideal global temperature is, so that we may strive to raise or lower current temps.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  43. Comment by Kenton — 1/30/2011 @ 10:25 am
    Why do you quote things like “reading newspapers in the mid-70′s predicting we were headed for another mini-ice age? ”
    – I wasn’t quoting anything, I was making the quote.

    You’re showing your age,
    – Indeed, hopefully with age comes wisdom.

    certainly showing you believe in such a false equivalency… citing predictions when super computer climate modeling was in it’s infancy.
    – The point was not about computer modeling, it was about the dangers of using inadequate data. If you are looking at something that varies over centuries and millenia, and depending on which ten years of data you look at you get opposite predictions, your computer models don’t even come into the picture. As said in the beginning of computers, “Garbage in, garbage out”.
    – Computer models are still in their infancy. How many IBM researchers and pounds of computer hardware does it take to win at “Jeopardy”?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  44. super computer climate modeling

    This phrase made me curious about what kind of hardware that the East Anglia University Climatic Research Unit uses for their climate modeling.

    My (admittedly limited) search didn’t come up with anything. What constitutes a “super computer” these days, anyway?

    Pious Agnostic (f24095)

  45. One wonders if Kenton’s brain hurts.

    Reading his posts is definitely giving me a migraine.

    Icy Texan (11dbe9)

  46. Kent so basically your response is…

    the consesus is settled.

    bad people are on your side.

    These are logical fallacies. What you need is data to prove you are right.

    Scientists observe and make predictions based on their theories. when their predictions turn out wrong, they re-examine their theories. that clearly is not happening, however with global warming.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  47. climate change is a hoax… I saw this silly article the other day … it’s about how groundwork is being laid to sue people for their evil role in making the climate change… LOL.

    I think when the lawsuits start it’ll be the climate change fraudsters what are gonna need to lawyer up I think.

    Al Gore is protected with shell companies, but the fraudulent scientists are gonna be screwed to the wall.

    happyfeet (ab5779)

  48. The science is settled. That is all.

    [How did that sock-puppet sneak in here?]

    Clark Ken(ton)-doll (11dbe9)

  49. These climate scientists are the best that politicians can buy.

    Neo (03e5c2)

  50. Kenton – Please define the term “climate scientist.”

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  51. MD in Philly – I think it’s pretty clear Kenton is not old enough to remember the mid-1970s.

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  52. We really ought to cut the Gaianist hysterics some slack.

    They have lost the war. Skirmishes continue, but:

    There will be no global wealth redistribution or slealth implementation of Marxism based on sob-sister myths about drowning polar bears. The world has seen through the ruse.

    Those countries, regions and states that bought the propaganda are doing nothing but voluntarily trashing their economies for the sake of feelgoodism and political correctness. Watch California in the next few years to see the result.

    A million electric cars our national goal? How truly lame and fail-worthy.

    The Sons of Canute may gnash their teeth, but even the king now knows that the tides care nought for him.

    To watch a fine example of the spluttering madness, tune in to LGF and look for the rants of the aptly-nicked LudwigVanQuixote, as he devolves into impotent rage over those “G-d damn FUCKING morons” in the GOP who refuse to turn the world on its head to further his delusions.

    Mork (497a71)

  53. Someone still believes in GW?


    Torquemada (2a42d3)

  54. daley-

    We had a DVD of “Invincible” on last night, about open-tryout success Vincent Papale of the Philly Eagles in 1975. The music sounded like the soundtrack to high school.

    All you young-uns out there, you probably get tired of hearing everyone talk about “how time flies”, etc., etc., but one day you’ll find the music you listened to in high school and college on the “oldies station”, or whatever it’s equivalent will be in 30 years, and you’ll wonder who it is in that high school graduation photograph and who is that in bathroom mirror.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  55. What the World needs….
    One of Harry Truman’s one-armed economists;
    And Climate Scientists that are incapable of lying their asses off.

    Yeah, I know:
    Never happen, G.I.!

    AD-RtR/OS! (7f028f)

  56. #52

    running into the girl who was the hottest thing going and having to resist the impulse to back up three steps out of horror.

    or seeing the star athlete and realizing he just was 10 years more mature than most kids and now he looks like death rides on his shoulder.

    then there is the girl that looked average back then that bloomed into a beautiful, strong athletic, capable woman who everyone thinks is half her age… and realizing hey, that is my wife!

    that and remembering my teachers lecturing us that if we didn’t recycle we’d be entombed in nuclear winter glacier by 1999 and if we used spray deodorant the ozone layer would dissipate off to mars or something and I’d die of skin cancer by the age of 31.5

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  57. MD in Philly, the reason that the device you describe is a fraud is simply the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  58. Ad hominem and appeal to authority are the two primary logical fallacies that AGW proponents use.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  59. More discussion of fraud in AGW “science”, including the fact that the British Met office claimed that 2010 was the hottest year on record when CRU’s data showed that it wasn’t.

    This is how “consensus” is built, by fraud.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  60. Kenton be butthurt!

    vote for pedro (e7577d)

  61. Well SPQR, I thought about that. I know you can’t get more energy out of the hydrogen itself than went into generating it, but I don’t know if the addition of hydrogen back into a low efficiency process can increase the efficiency of that process. I don’t know how much of the inefficiency of an internal combustion engine is in the physical mechanics, or the amount of energy lost in the combustion of fuel, or whether the fuel burns inefficiently or all of the above.

    I found much more support, including more technically respectable sources, for the concept of stripping some of the hydrogen off of the hydrocarbon fuel molecules and shunting that back into the fuel mixture, but that is a more elborate process that costs more money to build, though it is being looked at by auto manufacturers, reportedly.

    Energy changes associated with chemical reactions I understand, the physics and engineering of “heat pumps” and such is another thing. It hasn’t kept me up at night, but I’m clueless how you can burn natural gas to power a refrigerator…

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  62. MD in Philly,
    Here’s an explanation of how certain refrigerators work that includes natural gas ones.

    # Heat is applied to the generator. The heat comes from burning something like gas, propane or kerosene.
    # In the generator is a solution of ammonia and water. The heat raises the temperature of the solution to the boiling point of the ammonia.
    # The boiling solution flows to the separator. In the separator, the water separates from the ammonia gas.
    # The ammonia gas flows upward to the condenser. The condenser is composed of metal coils and fins that allow the ammonia gas to dissipate its heat and condense into a liquid.
    # The liquid ammonia makes its way to the evaporator, where it mixes with hydrogen gas and evaporates, producing cold temperatures inside the refrigerator.
    # The ammonia and hydrogen gases flow to the absorber. Here, the water that has collected in the separator is mixed with the ammonia and hydrogen gases.
    # The ammonia forms a solution with the water and releases the hydrogen gas, which flows back to the evaporator. The ammonia-and-water solution flows toward the generator to repeat the cycle.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  63. Anyone who links to, and then misrepresents a news story, is untrustworthy.

    The researchers found that half of the studied glaciers in the Karakoram region are stable or advancing, whereas about two-thirds are in retreat elsewhere throughout High Asia.

    Yet AW would have you think, by cherry picking one region that is an anomoly (because of the debris), that ALL global warming is false.

    The recent study here only shows that there are CONTRIBUTING FACTORS which have nothing to do with global warming, but can effect glacier decline or advancement. What the study does NOT do is make global warming out to be a lie.

    But being accurate is not the in the interest of propagandists like Aaron Worthing, or the “useful idiots” who jump on the story because it confirms their pre-disposed beliefs (even when it doesn’t).

    Kman (26c32e)

  64. Anyone who links to, and then misrepresents a news story, is untrustworthy.

    Kman, practically everyone here is aware that you’ve done exactly this many times.

    Yet AW would have you think, by cherry picking one region that is an anomoly (because of the debris), that ALL global warming is false.

    Oh look: you did it in this very freaking post.

    Aaron’s not stupid. He knows the earth gets warmer and colder variously. The climate changes and he hasn’t denied it. He noted that a specific prediction was laughably wrong, because it’s important to remember that the hysterics surrounding AGW is largely BS. the ‘climate scientists’ are political creatures who can’t be relied on.

    I guess I should observe the agreement many of us have had to not respond to you at all, because you’re a serial liar.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  65. Kman, it was the AGW crowd that began claiming that every glacier retreat was global warming caused.

    It is the skeptics who say that glacial dynamics are more complicated than that, that glacial growth/retreat is more often a function of precipitation and criticized the original scaremongering. And were called “deniers” as a result.

    So your attempt to blame skeptics for the “cherry picking”, and the oversimplication, is just another example of your own double-standards, and your own failure to actually apply any skepticism to AGW itself.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  66. Aaron, I wish you wouldn’t use “deniers”. This is a lefty ruse to make us sound like Holocaust Deniers. We are “sceptics”.
    Kenton, the navy has been studying the ice sheets for less than 30 years, a mere blip on the climate scale and, as such, useless in the context you want to make. Besides, you’ll note that a Task Force is called for. Do I have to explain to you how government and the military loves to grow, even if it’s a waste of money (see Bradley Fighting Vehical).
    M. Mann arguably started all this hysteria with his “hockey stick” graph, which has been debunked, meaning, even the most super of the super computers will spit out the result you want if you only give it the information you want in the first place (hmmm, kind of like the Congressional Budget Office but, I digress). Let’s keep in mind that really big computers are used to model the expected path of hurricanes and they aren’t very accurate beyond 48 hours hence the spaghetti we see on newscasts.
    Finally, until “climate scientists”, (wait, I have to giggle a little) tell us why things like the Roman Warm Period (warmer than today by the way), the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age happened in the past (and I’m only picking times within written history so as not to make the assignment too difficult)and include them in their “models” I will reserve judgement on whether or not they can tell the future.

    Nick Shaw (71b010)

  67. Thank you, Bro. Bradley

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  68. Kman, Kenton.

    Give it up, you don’t what you’re dealing with here. The majority of Republicans don’t believe that human evolution is accepted scientific fact. Their intellectual leaders are Palin, Bachmann, Beck.

    Need I say more?

    Will (d30721)

  69. The majority of Republicans don’t believe that human evolution is accepted scientific fact. Their intellectual leaders are Palin, Bachmann, Beck.

    The hilarity is that each of those people actually thinks Evolution is real.

    Believing in a creator and accepting evolution are not mutually exclusive.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  70. We are legion.

    SockPuppet (d4bbf1)

  71. Give it up, you don’t what you’re dealing with here. The majority of Republicans don’t believe that human evolution is accepted scientific fact. Their intellectual leaders are Palin, Bachmann, Beck.

    Need I say more?

    Comment by Will

    I don’t know about Bachmann or Beck, but I know for sure that Palin does actually agree with the theory of evolution.

    I actually thought everyone knew that. It’s not a secret or anything.

    I agree with your sentiment that you might as well give you. You, kman, and kenton are definitely not changing any minds.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  72. BTW, shouldn’t we get the considered opinion of Barrie Harrop of Australia on this question?

    AD-RtR/OS! (7f028f)

  73. I see Scott beat me to the punch. But yes, there’s no reason why a religious person can’t agree with evolution.

    When I learned how my mom baked cookies, I didn’t lose appreciation for the fact that she did make them for me.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  74. Will, I believe in evolution. Why are you lying about our beliefs? Does inventing something out of whole cloth make you feel better?

    Science is not about following a faux consensus. Science is about open data and open methodology, as well as repeatability of experiment. None of which the AGW crowd believes in.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  75. If human evolution is a fact, why are so many liberals stuck in the Stalin era?

    Mork (c5be05)

  76. Lots of religious people have accepted evolution as fact for decades now–and don’t see it as being in conflict with Scripture.

    I’ve always explained it this way; I believe in Intelligent Design. I believe that evolution is the mechanism that God used to implement that Design.

    On the main question–always remember this:
    Earth’s climate has changed through its history, including those aeons when there were no mammals around, much less a late arriving specied now called homo sapiens.

    Scientists don’t actually know why those changes happened.

    Which means that they can’t assign any specific reason for whatever climate change is now happening. They can tell us however that earth’s climate is well within the bounds of previous eras of history, including periods such as the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age which occurred during (relatively) modern human history.

    So that means that any claims on behalf of AGW are (to use a scientific term) pure hogwash.

    kishnevi (1217b8)

  77. Will, the majority of Democrats believe that socialism works. Their intellectual leaders are Obama, Pelosi and Waters (oh yeah, and Will).
    I guess that makes us even.
    Darn it Mork, you nearly took the wind out of my sail!

    Nick Shaw (71b010)

  78. I’ve always explained it this way; I believe in Intelligent Design. I believe that evolution is the mechanism that God used to implement that Design.

    I respect that Kishnevi, but “Intelligent Design” is in fact a label for creationism.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  79. Hey, didn’t somebody once say, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”? Oh yeah, that was President Reagan. The tendency to which he referred is on full display on this thread, I think.

    elissa (dea0c2)

  80. elissa, without exception, the people who come here to parade their intellectual superiority over AGW skeptics usually know less about the details of AGW science than the skeptics do.

    Even if we skeptics are in fact “wrong”, we actually are better educated in the topic than the AGW proponents we run into.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  81. This “JD” above is a fraud using the real JS’s nick I’ll bet.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  82. but “Intelligent Design” is in fact a label for creationism.

    No, it is a FORM of creationism.

    But it is not even close to what the left likes to think of when they use the term “creationism”. It is not “and on the 6th day”.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  83. As usual, Yelverton leaves a fair bit out, then again he wouldn’t deign to read the book himself
    “But I believe that God created us and also he can
    create an evolutionary process that allows species
    to grow and adapt” (GR, 217), thanks for playing.

    narciso (e888ae)

  84. 97% of 1372 Climate Scientists

    that works out to 1330.84 Climate Scientists.

    Does that mean one guy agreed with only 84% of Global Warming ideology, or that 84% of one guy agreed with AGW but the remaining 16% disagreed? And if so, can we find out which 16% of him is the smart part?

    kishnevi (1217b8)

  85. Is that Yelverton lying again?

    Amazing how much these “superior intellects” just outright lie.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  86. SPQR and Scott: I understand your point, but until I find a better aphorism to describe my view, I’ll continue to use it.

    I should note that I’m thinking of ID as the intellectual tradition of Paley (with his “watchmaker” analogy) and the 18th/19th century.
    It doesn’t really have anything to do with the creationism I suspect is espoused by folks like the minister who preached at my stepmother’s funeral today, and who apparently thinks the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelations is a literal description of Heaven, down to the giant pearl that serves as the city gate.
    The 18th and 19th centuries, even though they accepted the literal accuracy of the Bible, had a much more flexible view of how it worked in practice than modern fundamentalists do. They were prepared to accept the proposition that perhaps God phrased Itself in accordance with the people It was addressing at the time and what they knew.

    kishnevi (1217b8)

  87. I wish I could get under the skin of our resident half-loughner as well as the actual JD must have.

    What a ridiculous overreaction to an attempt to debate about global warming. This character has been screaming about how everyone agrees with him, and then sets out to manufacture another ally.

    I guess it will never occur to these people to try science instead of politics.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  88. Comment by narciso — 1/30/2011 @ 6:51 pm

    I will be glad to think that Palin does believe in evolution, but it should be noted that her phrasing is consistent with one idea espoused by some creationists: that after the initial act of creation, in which God individually created each species (including of course humans), evolution was allowed to work as a natural process. That’s how they get around evidence of evolution occurring in periods and places where humans have observed the process, yet stick to the claim that humans did not evolve from apes. Notice that in the quote she refers the creation of humans and then refers to evolution as a conditional thing (“God can create”) which may or may not apply to humans.

    kishnevi (1217b8)

  89. Yelverton’s dishonest thread hijacking and fraudulent use of other’s nicks continues.

    That’s the “intellectual superiority” he demonstrates, ie., dishonest, lack of character, and mental ilness.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  90. She’s not my intellectual leader. But, you make a common mistake. Credentials do not make you smart. The proper use of the scientific method doesn’t make the results true, but they should be considered.

    And you are not JD.

    Ag80 (e03e7a)

  91. The thing is I’ve found this out about other trolls, is their sockpuppeting is so far below
    average, because they don’t know our writing styles

    narciso (e888ae)

  92. It’s funny that some here will accept the “consensus” of a relatively few people that AGW is a fact while at the same time won’t accept the “consensus” of a lot more men and women of the cloth, nay, the majority of Americans and possibly, people of the world, that evolution is not a proven theory.
    Now, I’m not saying I’m a creationist or intelligent designer, in fact, I give credence to the theory of evolution but, I hesitate to accuse others of being dolts for their beliefs (you know, just in case I’m wrong)
    It’s just telling that liberals, in today’s sense not the classical, are more than willing to agree that a consensus is equal to fact as long as they agree with it.

    Nick Shaw (71b010)

  93. Okay, I think i have filtered out all the fake JDs.

    Yes, someone, not sure who, was pretending to be JD, so if there were any nasty words exchanged, we should recognize it was not JD always talking as JD, and of course if anyone responded angrily, I am sure JD understands it was mistakenly at him.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  94. Well a consensus is not science, the latter is provable, or able to be recreated, computer models
    are already one level removed from the system

    narciso (e888ae)

  95. it was not JD always talking as JD

    You mean he’s coming back?


    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  96. Oh, Scott. I think there are folks posting here who deserve your ire and scorn much more than JD.

    Like the fake JD.

    Your mileage may vary.

    Simon Jester (3c0156)

  97. Why? Are the fake JD’s buddies with a guy that threaten me too?

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  98. Did you know that only 1 in a 1000 of the “Petition Project” signers (that “pedro” cited above) is a climate scientist?

    can only a priest debunk exorcism? just wondering.

    j curtis (618aa2)

  99. Other than that, my analysis last time pretty much applies as is. It is summed up in two points.

    Ah, I suggest a point 3?

    3) The media will not provide this story anywhere near the amount of coverage it gives to any pro-AGW story.

    Browser Snake == IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)

  100. dammit. sock puppet Friday. LOL

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)

  101. > can only a priest debunk exorcism? just wondering.

    Nope. You gotta be a libtard priest. Just sayin’.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)

  102. But yes, there’s no reason why a religious person can’t agree with evolution.

    The weirdest thing about those who scream about this is that Darwin was a life – long regular church – goer at a protestant church in England, and saw no conflict at the time. Interestingly, most among his church membership felt likewise.

    Dmac (498ece)

  103. Dmac, this whole topic seems to get folks on both sides really furious. Me, I am not so certain I understand either the mind of God or mechanisms that have been going on for a couple of billion years. Both are sins of hubris, I think.

    But I don’t think that religion should be taught in school, unless that school is explicitly religious. My opinion only.

    Simon Jester (3c0156)

  104. But I don’t think that religion should be taught in school, unless that school is explicitly religious. My opinion only.

    Comment by Simon Jester — 1/31/2011 @ 8:10 am

    I think there’s way to do it. The bible is a major facet of American culture, and you’re not really understanding American or Western history without a survey of Christianity. I think a 2 semester course in high school covering the world religions can be helpful.

    However, your other point is right. People let emotions get the better of them. I’d make the class an elective.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  105. I would love to see a comparative religion course. Heck, I would love to see a world history course.

    But the first would be a flashpoint for the Dawkins types.

    Simon Jester (3c0156)

  106. We’re way off course here but, I can’t help responding to Dustin. A course covering religion seems like a good idea until you realize the quagmire you have stepped into when the Islamists insist that only a Muslim could teach their point of view. And let’s not forget the progressive slant of schools in general that have been shown to downplay Chritianity and overplay Islam. Sorry, IMHO religion should never be a part of school training as it is subjective and entirely based on belief. Religion is best left to the home and it’s own edifices.

    Nick Shaw (71b010)

  107. Here is the announcement of a seminar being held at the national labs next week:

    Recent Arctic Warming: Natural Climate Variability and Anthropogenic Contribution

    Increasing Arctic temperature, disappearance of Arctic sea ice, melting of the Greenland ice sheet, sea level rise, increasing strength of Atlantic hurricanes; are these impending climate catastrophes supported by observations? Are the recent data really unprecedented during the observational records? Our analysis of Arctic temperature records shows that the Arctic temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s were almost as high as they are today. We argue that the current warming of the Arctic region is affected more by a multi-decadal climate variability than by an increasing concentration of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, none of the existing coupled Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (generally called climate models) used in the IPCC 2007 climate change assessment is able to reproduce neither the observed 20th century Arctic climate variability nor the latitudinal distribution of the warming. Models need considerable improvements before their projected “scenarios” can be taken seriously.

    The skepticism is starting to be able to be talked about openly despite the attempts by the AGW crowd to suppress dissent.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  108. Consecutive winters producing new record lows will kind of do that to you.

    Where is “the end of snow” when you need it?

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  109. AD, the researcher noted above is doing work to establish what I’ve long believed, that we are seeing natural variability more than any human-caused effects.

    Science would be able to establish this if the AGW crowd had not decided to destroy the scientific method, suppress dissent and undermine the integrity of the scientific community in the name of power.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  110. It was all, ever, about the funding!
    They are just a bunch of research whores, who are deathly afraid that they might have to go back into the classroom and actually “teach” something to someone.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4584 secs.