Global Cooling! L.A. Experiences Hottest Day in History
The title is poking fun at the people who constantly invoke the “coldest [winter, summer, day] in history” stories as proof there is no global warming:
It was so hot Monday that it broke the all-time record — and the weatherman’s thermometer.
The National Weather Service’s thermometer for downtown Los Angeles headed into uncharted territory at 12:15 p.m. Monday, reaching 113 degrees for the first time since records began being kept in 1877.
Shortly after that banner moment, the temperature dipped back to 111, and then climbed back to 112. Then at 1 p.m., the thermometer stopped working.
I was in Dallas, Texas, where it was an unseasonably cool 73. When a colleague texted me that it was 106 in Long Beach, I didn’t believe him. So I checked the Weather Channel site on my phone. He was wrong. It was 109.
It is silly to take a single day of any type of weather and extrapolate that to conclude anything about long-term heating and cooling trends. One hot day or season does not prove global warming any more than one cold day or season disproves it.
Nevermind that global temps peaked in the late 90s.
SGT Ted (ac46d8) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:42 amTemps of 113 with a heat index of 113 are not so bad.
JD (c623a2) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:06 am> One hot day or season does not prove global warming any more than one cold day or season disproves it.
well that is certainly correct. Although there is a documented “al gore effect” where wherever the man goes, cold fronts seem to follow.
Joking aside, those who want to take away my freedom have the burden of justifying it, of proving that there is sound science underneath it. And once they got in the business of hiding the decline, i stopped believing them. It was not just the hockey stick and the lies involved there, but the fact that these men were lying to the world and the rest of the scientific community remained silent. They either didn’t catch the lies, or they did. and if they did, then they kept it to themselves proving that truth is not the ultimate issue with them.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:07 amGlobal warming has already been “proven” by any reasonable metric. Wally Broecker in 1975 accurately predicted that global average temperatures would rise in the following decades due to the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide.
What we are now seeing around the world are the consequences of our artificially heated atmosphere — and that includes national record high temperatures in Russia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Chad, Niger, Sudan, Belarus, Ukraine, Cyprus, Finland, Qatar, St Helena, Solomon Islands, and Columbia; and the hottest summers recorded at 153 different cities in the United States. And yes, it means more intense winter storms in winter.
Brad Johnson (f3404d) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:28 amAaron, they would also need to prove that they can actually make an effective difference via their policies.
I know these CFLs are a great example of ‘just do something’ leadership, which actually makes things worse. The Chevy Volt will probably wind up like that.
A hypo, that Mars will experience similar temp changes, thanks to the sun, has been verified. It’s now a theory. Man caused cooling and warming are both at the hypo stage.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:29 amYou do know that people using the “coldest X on record” are poking fun at global warming advocates who advance the “warmest X on record” as an argument for global warming, right?
The “scientists” who support global warming theory would not actually come out and say “warmest X on record is proof of global warming.” But the lapdog media would run stories on “warmest X on record,” and then discuss global warming, in order to link the two in the public’s mind, so the public thinks it’s evidence of “global warming.” “Scientists” go along and give quotes for those articles, without admitting or disputing that this is a kind of evidence.
Daryl Herbert (44415c) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:32 amLink to those accurate predictions? You know, with numbers, of course, not just some vague ‘it will get hotter’. That’s a reasonable metric, right?
And how do those numbers work? It got cooler for quite a while.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:34 amThank you for your religious sermon, Brad Johnson.
JD (c623a2) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:38 amDaryl, I’m sure you’re right for some cases, but sadly, a lot of people who pose as scientific do use these as hysterical points about the climate changing.
There is a huge number of weather stations, with plenty of opportunities every day for the next million years for there to be some of these ‘hottest’ and ‘coolest’ on record incidents. You’re smart to note this is irrelevant.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:38 amBrad
Global warming has not been proven. In fact they have repeatedly made predictions based on their models. And every time they turn out wrong they say, “but don’t let this convince you there is no global warming.” as best as i can tell, belief global warming is not science, but faith based.
To quote from the East Anglia emails: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Their predictions were not coming true. And when data contradicted their predictions they did their best to “hide the decline.”
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:42 amWe had a spate of similar weather in 1963 at this time. I had come home from Alaska on a PCS, and stopped in L.A. to pick up a car to drive to Central Texas. L.A. went through about a four-day period of +100 degree weather, and it was an uncomfortable drive, even at night, until getting into NM (plus, few homes or cars had A/C then).
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:50 amNews reader on KUSC-91.5FM just noted that the record high for this date (9/28) was 106 in 1963!
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:58 amMy family and I vacationed in So. Cal from 2 Sept.-10 Sept. We were chatting with the rental car agent asked him how the summer was and he replied “we are still waiting for it to show up” 1 day of record breaking heat doesn’t make it global warming.Especially when there’s been an unseasonably cool summer.
pam (47a9e3) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:09 amGlobal warming has already been “proven” by any reasonable metric.
Al, is that you?
Dmac (84da91) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:30 amDustin:
Exactly.
aunursa (69b3db) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:32 amPatterico, skeptics don’t claim that a cold day or a cold season “disproves” global warming. Rather, skeptics started highlighting such because AGW proponents would herald each heat wave as “proof” or the result of AGW.
Skeptics argue that what warming we are seeing, ( and don’t forget that the data shows little to no warming over most of the last decade ), are the result of natural trends and natural variations.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:54 ama FB friend of mine posted a picture of her car thermostat showing an outside temperature of 115 at about 2pm yesterday (in Monrovia).
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:26 amInaccurate, as her car is a “heat island”.
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:27 amwell, presumably this was the outside temperature; the inside temperature of a car in the sun is significantly hotter than the outside temperature.
although i suppose that the outside gauge may still be warmer than the air in general.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:32 amBtw, Patterico, 73 degrees isn’t that unseasonable for Dallas this time of year. you would have 70 degree days in the middle of summer. now it is true that you can still have godawful hot days into october in the area, but 70 isn’t all that out of whack in my experience.
i mean i am talking about life in denton, but that is only about 30 minutes up the road from dallas proper.
And as a transplanted yankee, i have pretty vivid memories of how godawful hot it was there. with apologies to texans, my joke was i had no idea why any american would fight and die for the state, before they invented air conditioning.
my other joke is that air conditioning is somewhere in the texas constitution. not sure where, but man you should see how people freak out when anyone in the entire DFW area has none.
Also i love reading about how Texas won her independance. First, credit goes to Deaf Smith, a scout with their army. he noticed that the mexicans were in this area with only one bridge providing a good route out. so they destroyed the bridge and had a knock-down drag out. But i joke that every american of mexican descent probably does a big facepalm when they read how the Texians (as they were called at the time) got the jump on them. Apparently the army was on siesta, and didn’t post enough guards. yes, really. obviously you can’t hold that against any modern mexican americans, but you have to think they do a facepalm every time they hear that.
Btw one more history geek detail. Erastus “Deaf” Smith was honored both with a county named for him, a state funeral when he passed on, and even his face on the republic of Texas’ $5 bill. http://www.sonofthesouth.net/texas/pictures/republic-texas-five-dollars.jpg
People don’t generally know this, but back in that time, people had a much more open mind about people with disabilities than we give them credit for.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:39 am
Al Gore (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:40 amAnthropomorphic Global WarmingManbearpig is real! The science is settled!oh, whoops, that was me as Al Gore. i forgot this was not a designated sock puppetry thread. my bad.
You have to say that South Park did one of the all time great take downs with manbearpig.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:41 amHere’s something Brad should read. It’s an amusing article making fun of science journalists and their style of ‘recipe’ journalism.
Journalists are always in a hurry and many of them are lazy so the two conditions result in bland and content free articles that can be used by those such as Brad to link to or to convince themselves that what they want to believe is true.
jakee308 (e1996a) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:55 amAll those pansy ass Californians can’t handle a little heat. Come spend the summer in AZ and you will really have something to cry about. ONE day over 110? We had 23 this summer-Kwitcherbitchen!
prm (310ebf) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:55 am#24…well, that explains the McCain victory –
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:59 amfried brain-cells!
btw, i will add to above, you can have 73 degree days in the DFW area, without it being raining and all that.
one of the really important features of the DFW area is that it is the end of the great plains. So wind can go from chicago down to dallas pretty quickly. As we joke in texas, if you don’t like the weather, wait a few minutes. most of the summer is above the century mark, and not even counting how it “feels.” But because of that proximity to the great plains 70 degree days can sneak in now and then.
of course that also puts denton right on the tree line, which means you get all the pollen of two major types of terrain. yay!
But as the saying goes, “but its a dry heat.” which really is significant. i think in some ways my most miserable winters was in pennsyvania, in the greater harrisburg area, right of the Susquehanna river. in part i think my parents were just cheap on the A/C, but then they also got me these pj’s that were made from 100% polyester… with humid, humid weather, man it was like wearing a trash bag around your body. you would just lay there at night and just sweat.
but then in south texas and florida, you had the godawful heat and humidity to boot. like i said, i have no idea why anyone fought or died for texas before they had air conditioning. or well, i can understand with the mexicans. i imagine to them texas was like alaska.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 11:19 am“The title is poking fun at the people who constantly invoke the “coldest [winter, summer, day] in history” stories as proof there is no global warming”
Fair enough.
But I assume you are aware of those who point to the “hottest [winter, summer, day] in history” stories as proof global warming is real.
If my assumption is correct, why did you decide to write that sentence the way you did?
Max (8d59e0) — 9/28/2010 @ 12:10 pmI believe that recently NOAA satellite readings indicated an average temperature increase of 14 degrees Fahrenheit. Why some localities had satellite temperature readings in excess of 300 degrees. And one was over 600 degrees. This of course means that the great lakes no longer exist, since they have so obviously boiled away…
Natrium (ea9c56) — 9/28/2010 @ 12:14 pm“Come spend the summer in AZ…”
Last time I was there everyone had these air conditioning machines.
Sissies.
Dave Surls (533a0c) — 9/28/2010 @ 1:03 pmAnd yes, it means more intense winter storms in winter.
Comment by Brad Johnson — 9/28/2010 @ 8:28 am
— How convenient. Methinks Brad took a few too many blows to the head when he was in the NFL.
Icy Texan (1cdac1) — 9/28/2010 @ 1:26 pmIf you place your house thermometer in the kitchen you might get a skewed reading of the actual temperature of the house it is in. Likewise many of these temperature recording devices have been moved, or are now located in urban hot spots which also skew the temperature readings higher than they otherwise would be. On the other hand perhaps God is giving Hollywood of taste of their upcoming afterlife?
eaglewingz08 (74f660) — 9/28/2010 @ 1:28 pmIt is cool for this year.
Try talking to someone who lives there about the weather recently.
Patterico (fcb446) — 9/28/2010 @ 1:30 pmAnyway…
It’s about 102F here in the Oakland Hills today, and I’m freaking roasting.
I’m sitting here starkers, pounding on my keyboard, and dripping with sweat, and it ain’t a pretty picture, I can assure you.
To add insult to injury, I had all my doors wide open all night last night, but I forgot to lock the pantry door. The local raccoon population paid a little visit, raided the pantry, and left garbage strewn all over the house. Had to spend a couple of hours this A.M. cleaning up the mess.
Luckily, it’s supposed to cool off tomorrow.
Dave Surls (533a0c) — 9/28/2010 @ 3:01 pmI have lived in the Los Angeles area for over 25 years, and I am sure I have experienced hotter. If I’m not mistaken, I think I remember 120’s in the 90’s. Is this some kind of conspiracy or something? Is the media trying to promote the climate change hog wash?
jd (525fc3) — 9/28/2010 @ 3:23 pmAll those pansy ass Californians can’t handle a little heat. Come spend the summer in AZ and you will really have something to cry about. ONE day over 110? We had 23 this summer-Kwitcherbitchen!
Heh. You think that’s bad, you should see us when we actually get a little rainfall. Storm Watch 24/7!
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/28/2010 @ 5:25 pmRain is good….the body & paint guys can make their boat payment.
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 5:40 pmThree step answer to any advocate of anthropogenic global warming:
1)The Earth has gone through multiple periods in which the climate has been much warmer than now, and wide fluctuations over the millenia from warm to cool and back have been usual for most of earth’s history. Quick example: the early middle ages (circa 1000 CE) were perceptibly warmer than our era, allowing, among other things, for the Vikings to settle and farm Greenland. When the climate cooled considerably, the Greenland settlements died off, and Europe underwent what is often called the Little Ice Age (roughly 1400-1700 CE) before a warming process began in the late 18th century. We are still undergoing that warming process.
2)There are of course various theories why these changes occur, and what the precise factors involved are: but scientists have no real knowledge of why those changes occurred. Obviously, any of the climate variation before the modern industrial age can not be blamed on human pollution, so we know Earth does not need any human involvement to warm up or cool down.
3)Just as importantly, since scientists do not know what causes climate fluctuation, they can not, as a matter of scientific method, say what impact human activity has on climate change. All they can do is speculate. But anyone who says that human activity causes climate change has no evidence to back that assertion up.
kishnevi (db1823) — 9/28/2010 @ 5:48 pmBut, but, they have their models!
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 6:09 pmModels that which, when known data is entered for the period of the 20th-Century for which known outcomes are recorded,
the answer does not agree with the data “on the book”.
If the models cannot replicate what we know has occured, how can they predict what is unknown?
It’s all a scam used to generate funding for people who can’t get employment in the private sector,
and who provide no known usable service to the society at large.
Rain is good
Do you mind if I object to that? Here in SoFla, we’re set to have a tropical storm pass over us tomorrow. (At the moment it’s a tropical depression to the south of Cuba, but it’s moving and expected to strengthen by the time it gets here.)
More generally, the summers here seem to be hotter and less rainier than normal in the last few years, but this year is neither the hottest nor the driest. We still are, however, getting daily highs in the 88-90 range, which is a bit unusual for late September, but not unprecedented. There was a week early in the summer when temps almost hit 100, rather freakish for us. (The subtropical rain cycles and the presence of the ocean mean high humidity, which means rain usually keeps the temperatures to no more than the low 90s.)
kishnevi (db1823) — 9/28/2010 @ 6:09 pmOne thing that does keep South Florida towards the high-end of the Temperate Zone, is the mass of warm water that seems to surround the place – the Gulf of Mexico to the West, and that little trickle of warmth called The Gulf Stream to the East.
My comments re body repairs had more to do with the driving skills of Southern Californian’s when confronted with liquid sunshine.
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 6:13 pmSpecially in my neck of the woods, the flooding problem can get pretty severe, as with everything
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/28/2010 @ 6:21 pmtoo much of anything can be a bad thing. Climate
has fluctuated over a wide span of time, Most of
the Mid Atlantic region, including the area that DC sits on, was underwater, some 80,000 years, for instance
DC underwater?
Now, there’s a thought!
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:11 pmAbsolutely.
Larry Reilly (ae99e7) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:21 pmAnd the hottest decade or hottest century doesn’t mean anything,either.
After all, the earth is only about 6,000 years old anyway. All the records are quite young yet.
Do you never tire of beclowning yourself, Mawy?
JD (cc3aa7) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:24 pmLarry,
how do we know that’s true? It seems the church of global warming has been caught perpetrating fraud quite knowingly, and then even going so far as to say it’s not a big deal. So unless I somehow dig up the ice cores and measure them myself, it’s hard to say when the hottest century was. Harder still to tie that in with CO2, since, of course, the Earth got colder as CO2 levels rose in the 1990s, and certainly rose at a different rate than CO2.
Why would they have gone so far to lie about the data if the data said what you claim it does, anyway? And what about the actual real science, not Science!, that hypothesized a relationship with the sun and tried a few experiments showing that hypo to be quite accurate, one of them testing Martian temps?
I believe that the climate is changing. But I also believe it’s always changing. I believe pollution should be minimized. I have a very open mind. And I always run into a brick wall when I try to talk about global warming reasonably. There’s no doubt in my mind that the climate hysterics will go down in history as kooks at best, like leech doctors, and hack politicos at worst, trading honesty for power. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have an honest discussion about global warming.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:40 pmIts typical of Larry Reilly’s trolling for him to try to smear skeptics. Its because Larry Reilly hasn’t the competence to debate the science.
And that’s what the skeptics have always focused upon, the science. The ad hominem attacks have been the tools of the AGW crowd from day one. They overtly refuse to defend the actual science.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:00 pmBy the way, the EPA is working on regulations that will only top all previous attempts at job-killing by the Obama administration.
Its like there is a contest among Democrats to destroy the most of the US economy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:01 pmThe local raccoon population paid a little visit, raided the pantry, and left garbage strewn all over the house. Had to spend a couple of hours this A.M. cleaning up the mess.
Luckily, it’s supposed to cool off tomorrow.
Comment by Dave Surls — 9/28/2010 @ 3:01 pm
Ouch!!!
MD in Philly (5a98ff) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:01 pmI bet they didn’t touch the Jalepenos!! They also don’t like mothballs and noise and light, in case the little bandits enjoyed it so much they try to come through the screens.
SPQR – I saw one estimate that it would cost 750,000+ jobs.
JD (cc3aa7) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:05 pmRaccoons can find salvation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:05 pmDave Surls @ #33, your comment made me laugh. (of course I thought, Aw, surely they were cute little raccoons!)
SPQR @ 50 – yup, cute little raccoons!
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:14 pm“I bet they didn’t touch the Jalepenos!!”
Nope.
I found out that they LOVE saltine crackers, though.
🙂
Dave Surls (65bc4c) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:15 pmSPQR-
That’s a great find, but as often the case, the editor made a grave mistake in the caption. Those two are outside the kitchen window at Dave’s house, waiting for their partners on the inside to drop some of the loot for the getaway.
MD in Philly (5a98ff) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:21 pmMD, gosh, they’re getting cuter by the comment!
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:23 pmMD, for raccoons, “loot” is salvation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:15 pmGlobal Warming is real, its caused by humans burning fossil fuels. There are mitigating factors like sulphur aerosols that counteract some of it.
People need to give up on the denial (if you have to, just tell yourself that you are right and THEY are wrong and repeat as often as needed) and move the debate on to the “what should be done” phase. This is for entirely practical reasons.
SPQR’s comment #47 touching on the negative effects of one “solution” is just the tip of the iceberg. There are all kinds of “fixes” being thought of, some of which, like a solar reflective shield in space, are pretty terrifying (no way to remove said shield, ie.turn the reflector OFF).
The time is long gone for being “right” about the causes/existence of global warming. Its time to figure out how to head off some nutty policy that is going to “save” us all.
Ed Wood (c2268a) — 9/29/2010 @ 3:33 pmEd Wood,
So you’re saying that some horrible destructive remedy will be imposed, ruining the world, unless everyone agrees global warming is caused by people and accepts a less destructive solution?
I don’t believe anything you’re saying. I don’t think the government can do very much about global warming, and you failed to rebut my point that global warming shows very little relationship with fossil fuel burning. In some periods, the earth gets colder as fossil fuels are burned more, and the greatest temp changes don’t line up at all with the greatest fossil fuel burning changes.
In fact, a lot of actual science seems to show that the sun has different periods of hotter activity, and this may be the actual primary factor in the temp changes on earth.
Your terrifying solar shield isn’t going to go up, whether or not sane people reject insane BS science. If you want to prove global warming is caused by man, do it already.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 3:48 pmEd Wood, the time for being “right” on AGW is gone? Odd, I missed when it started being “right”. None of the AGW crowds alarmist predictions have come true. None of their “science”, especially the fraudulent work on historical temp reconstructions, stands up to scrutiny.
Further, none of the prescriptions of the AGW crowd actually reduce any of their own predicted temperature rises, by their own math.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/29/2010 @ 4:40 pmDid the burning of fossile fuels drive temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period?
AD-RtR/OS! (4c7111) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:02 pmYou know, when the Vikings were farming in Greenland and Vineland (Newfoundland and Labrador)!
Just thought I’d ask, Ed.
And did the burning of fossil fuels drive temperatures during earlier periods of terrestrial history, when not only where there no humans to burn fossil fuels, but no fossils?
kishnevi (3a3033) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:36 pmWell, this is past the front page now but
My point is that governments are moving NOW to mitigate global warming. You can go on all you want about how it’s not real but nobody outside the oil and coal industry is listening anymore. They are fighting a holding action on this.
EdWood (c2268a) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:58 amYou can waste your time talking about sun spots and the maunder minimum and how it was warmer in the past etc.etc. to try to prove that you are right about global warming being a hoax, or caused by not coal and gas, OR you can pay attention to the fact that lots of governments are considering some very expensive countermeasures which may not be the right thing to do.. and then go after THAT topic. What to do or NOT to do is more important at this point.
Give in to the lies. It will only hurt for a moment. I promise.
JD (fb34b2) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:03 amI think conceding an entire battlefield to your opponent when they are lying is generally a bad idea.
JD (fb34b2) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:07 am“You can go on all you want about how it’s not real but nobody outside the oil and coal industry is listening anymore.”
Ed – That’s another thing you would be absolutely wrong on, but I admire your certainty.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:25 amJD- I’m not saying give in to anything, I’m saying shift your focus. You can still believe that global warming is bunk but while you do that please spend more time arguing vociferously against carbon taxes etc. and any other “fix” that you think is nutty.
D-rocks- Yeah got all general in that part of my post.
EdWood (c2268a) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:50 pmEdWood, so you are abandoning your claim that “only” the fossil fuel industry is skeptical of AGW?
Way to stay consistently on message.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:59 pmEd Wood, there is a concept of making points in arguendo. This is common practice for those who still give a crap about science, and therefore do not accept the demand to stop thinking critically about our climate.
An unstoppable solar shield that will ruin everything is easy to criticize without conceding that we must let the government save the world with massive powers.
Frankly, the tide is going in the opposite direction of what you claim. Global warming hysteria is far, far less rampant than it was a few years ago. People realize that much of this is a load of crap.
In fact, your own idea applies a lot better to your own argumentation. Saying no one seriously believes what I believe without being part of the Oil Company Conspiracy is kooky and ridiculous. No one is going to take you seriously when that’s your argument.
like I said, prove your point that global warming is occurring. If you can’t, don’t be surprised that people refuse to accept it’s so certain.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:07 pmEdWood
i guess when you hear the words “hide the decline” you think what you must hide is the decline in belief in Anthropomorphic Global Warming.
Sorry, East Anglia showed it wasn’t true. whether it was a hoax or alot of group think is the only question left.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:14 pmWhen’s the last time, if someone was right, scientifically, they demanded people stop discussion the issue?
I don’t hear people demand we stop talking about how the Earth is round, or how we need to sanitize medical equipment. In fact, it seems that truth leads to more discussion and analysis, not less.
Maybe global warming is caused by man. Maybe it isn’t. Those who insist we stop thinking about this critically are not confident about the matter.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:17 pmDustin
no they do that sometimes–claim the discussion is closed. but its a f— up every time they do.
for instance, it used to be dogma that no bacteria could survive in the human stomach. therefore when people got ulcers scientists attributed it to stress. but a crazy aussie scientist proved them wrong. Glenn Reynolds tells us about how far he went to prove them wrong. http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/106523/
it was pretty extreme.
so the answer is, scientists are as human as the rest of us and thus are equally prone to be pig-headed.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:27 pmYeah, OK. Just because someone is being a pig headed jackass doesn’t mean they are necessarily wrong. Like I said, Maybe global warming is man made and going to kill everybody, etc etc.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:31 pmDustin,
You obviously did not read any of my comments above either critically or closely. Nowhere above did I say stop thinking or agree or stop criticizing or stop studying. I’m saying that people making decisions on this are already moving. Their minds are made up. So you can decide to go ahead and harp on things like sunspots, or the global warming “scandal” that affected one line of research but not all the many other lines of research into the topic, or any other critique that has already been discarded by the people making decisions as not worth listening to anymore…. OR you can shift your focus and try to drive the decisions that those persons in power are making.
By all means don’t stop thinking or reading work by contrarian scientists that are published in peer reviewed journals (if it’s a book that the guy had to write coz “the global warming pooh bahs wouldn’t let me publish it” well… who’s the conspriacy theorist now eh?). Assemble all the new evidence against anthropogenic global warming you want, but in the meantime maybe you want to focus on keeping the guys in power who DO believe in anthro-glob-warming from doing something that is going to cost a lot of time and money.
Daleyrocks- of course I backed off my generalist statement. It seemed to confuse you. Not sure what you meant by staying on message.
EdWood (c2268a) — 10/1/2010 @ 11:21 amedwood
named for the quixotic and clueless director… how appropriate:
we can debate whether anything is moving these days. i seemed to remember that big summit coming to nothing.
But this wins the award for the most clueless line ever:
> By all means don’t stop thinking or reading work by contrarian scientists that are published in peer reviewed journals (if it’s a book that the guy had to write coz “the global warming pooh bahs wouldn’t let me publish it” well… who’s the conspriacy theorist now eh?)
There IS a conspiracy to keep skeptics out of the scientific journals. it was confessed to in the intercepted emails.
I suppose next you will denouce people who talk about a conspiracy by booth and other agents to kill many members of the executive branch just after the civil war ended. (and in case you are really dumb about history, there actually was, but it failed in all its assassination attempts, except against Lincoln).
really, seriously, have you even read about climategate?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/1/2010 @ 11:29 amAW-
“There IS a conspiracy to keep skeptics out of the scientific journals. it was confessed to in the intercepted emails.”
Haw haw haw!!! So my conspiracy is nutty but yours is true!
First: Let’s play the follow the money game. Who stands to lose more money if GW is real/not real. Oil and coal corporations, as governments and then everyone else shifts their energy needs/subsides/tax breaks away from oil and coal… OR … a bunch of scientists who will have to give up the 10,000/yr in summer salary they make off the grants they write (the rest of the $ goes to overhead, employees, etc.).
I say it’s the first group of guys. Especially because the second group has nothing to lose, they will just refocus their research on a different aspect of the problem if gw isn’t real (not anthropogenic? Oh geez well then what the heck is going on? Gimme another 300,000 and we will find out! Cooling now? What is controlling this climate cycle? etc.etc.etc.)
Second, There are good atmospheric scientists out there who are still leery of global warming models or results etc.etc.that are still being published. You can find them in peer reviewed journals such as Science and Nature and Climatology. Go have a look.
Third: Read this: http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2010/02/real-struggle-behind-climate-change-war.html
EdWood (c2268a) — 10/1/2010 @ 12:22 pmThe science is settled. DENIERS !!!!!!!!!!!!
JD (53c560) — 10/1/2010 @ 12:25 pmEd Wood
> Who stands to lose more money if GW is real/not real.
First, you ignore the fact that unlike any oil industry-paid scientist, these people were caught red handed falsifying data.
Second, the issue is not money generally, but money in research dollars. If the scientist is not getting PAID by oil companies, what does he care if their industry is harmed?
When it comes to money in research dollars, government money far outstrips everyone else.
> Especially because the second group has nothing to lose, they will just refocus their research on a different aspect of the problem if gw isn’t real
Lol, they stand to lose their jobs as global warming experts, if it turns out that AGW is bull.
And it is.
And once discredited, why would anyone hire them? in science your reputation is pretty important.
> Second, There are good atmospheric scientists out there who are still leery of global warming models or results etc.etc.that are still being published
Yes, and bad scientists who are trying to silence them.
> Third: Read this.
Mmm, so how does “hide the decline” fit into that?
You know what hide the decline was about? You see, let me explain it to you. As you may or may not know, we haven’t been actually measuring temperatures very long—only since the mid-19th-century.
So how do we know what the temperatures were back before then?
Well, the scientists said, let’s measure the width of tree rings. So they used them for much of the data. Only there was a problem. In the 1960’s, the tree rings indicated a decline in temperatures, but the real world measurements showed a rise. In other words they had on their hands clear proof that tree rings were not a proper proxy for real world temperatures.
So what did they do? they hid that decline with a “nature trick.”
This is not how scientists behave. Well, okay “christian scientists” who claim that they can prove that the earth is like 4,000 years old or something. I mean that is what it is like. You start with the conclusion and disregard and hid the data that contradicts it. But that is not how real scientists are supposed to behave.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/1/2010 @ 12:42 pmEd wood, you say it’s a waste of time to bring up valid issues, and deny a lot of reality, and then insist you’re not telling us to stop criticizing and studying.
I think you’re extremely unreasonable, paranoid, and contradicting yourself when your unscientific approach has been utterly exposed.
It’s quite well proven that the academy and peer reviewed journals have excluded a lot of valid evidence, even data they know is accurate, in a conspiracy to keep the global warming myth alive.
They simply wouldn’t do that if they were right. They know there was a decline in temps. They know global warming is not caused by people. They committed the fraud because they saw the evidence prove their fraud wrong. Why? I’m sure there are various reasons. This kind of thing has happened all through human history.
Folks like you who argue so unreasonably have always been around.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 12:48 pm-When it comes to money in research dollars, government money far outstrips everyone else.-
Huh?
Aw- You misunderstand me. I mean that oil and coal corporations, not scientists, are gonna lose more money PERIOD if gw is real and the public uses some other form of energy to run industry, heat houses, run cars etc. They have WAY more to lose than a scientist who will just refocus their research. So if we are playing the duelling conspiracy theory game, I say MY conspiracy theory is way more plausible than yours just based on the fact that the guys in my conspiracy have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more money to lose.
-and bad scientists who are trying to silence them.-
Hey, I will concede the point that there are opinionated arrogant scientists out there who will spike a paper, but I will not agree that those dishonest scientists are in the majority or hold some sort of all powerful gate keeping mojo over the thousands of other climate scientists that review papers for dozens of other journals. If your paper doesn’t get into one journal you send it to another…. and razz the guys who you think spiked your paper when you present your results in a talk at the next climate science meeting.
-Mmm, so how does “hide the decline” fit into that?-
Last I heard the climate gate peoples’ work had been checked out and the work is ok. Their “we have to save the ignorant masses from themselves” attitude may not be ok but the work is.
You know a few years ago a couple of cops got caught working as hit men for the Mafia. These cops, being cops, went around as if they were protecting people from “crime”. So under your logic the fact that these two cops were criminals “proves” that all cops are hit men or at least some sort of criminal. Obviously cause these two cops were criminals (and all the other ones who go to prison every year for committing crimes) the whole “there is crime” theory needs to be thrown out the window and the hysteria over the “crime myth” needs to end.
Dustin-
“It’s quite well proven”… a conspiracy to keep the global warming myth alive.”
Real data please. I’ll concede a case or two of a spiked paper but a spiked paper or two does not a conspiracy make.
EdWood (c2268a) — 10/1/2010 @ 1:11 pmEd
> You misunderstand me.
No, I pulled the rug right from under your theory. If you are going to claim that the bias in science is supposed to work in favor of the industry, you have to show that their money is going into the scientists’ pockets and that it is greater than the financial interest in maintaining AGW.
> but I will not agree that those dishonest scientists are in the majority or hold some sort of all powerful gate keeping mojo over the thousands of other climate scientists
What thousands of other climate scientists? There are only a few institutions even researching the materials.
And those scientists seemed to think they could organize a black balling of certain journals.
> Last I heard the climate gate peoples’ work had been checked out and the work is ok
Yeah, East Anglia cleared itself of all wrongdoing. So did CBS news in the rathergate scandal. I trust the fox to watch the chicken coop, too. /sarcasm.
> So under your logic
The situations are not comparable. These scientists falsified data, hid contrary evidence etc. They did this in journals for all the world to see. and the only people who called them on it were tarred as “deniers” and industry shills—as you just tried to do. No one on the AGW side of things said, “hey, wait, I believe in AGW, but this data is bogus.”
The metaphor is actually more like Dan Rather and the Rathergate memos. Now I take it as a given that Rather and Mapes didn’t create the fake documents. And when they aired it, they thought they had something legit.
But then people started pointing out problems. And they stuck their fingers in their ears and pretended not to hear. The blogosphere tore it apart and they kept pretending that the data was valid. Dan Rather even referred to the guy who gave them the documents an “unimpeachable source.” Which itself a dubious thing to say. And finally after a while they realized they had to admit they had done something wrong.
Now like I said, I given Rather and Mapes the benefit of the doubt. They didn’t know they were airing fake documents. But at some point during the scandal, it became clear that they were not honestly dealing with the very real problems in their evidence. And while they weren’t at fault for the initial presentation, at some point they were responsible for continuing to pretend they were genuine.
Now maybe you could even say they weren’t immoral people, just careless—too much in their echo chambers to recognize that, gee, those don’t look very much like typewriter typed documents and in fact they look like something from word. But one way or the other, it was clear by the end of it that they could not be trusted to see the truth. And thus they were appropriately fired where the ability to recognize the truth was a necessity.
The same can be said for your scientists. They knew or should have known that East Anglia data was crap. So either they knew and didn’t say anything, or they were so much in their echo chambers that they didn’t even see the problems. And either way, they are unreliable.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/1/2010 @ 1:29 pmEd Wood has bought the AGW gospel hook, line, and sinker, and is peddling the same discredited BS as all of the ones that preceded him. You are just anti-science DENIERS bought and paid for by oil and gas money. It just ignores anything that does not confirm his theories, and posits that the best way forward is to accept the fraud, and argue over what to do to fix the problems resulting from said fraud. Abject BS.
JD (c8f5e6) — 10/1/2010 @ 1:39 pmJD
> It just ignores anything that does not confirm his theories
In other words, he is just like an AGW scientist.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/1/2010 @ 1:41 pmPerfect test for an unreasonable person.
How do you know they are kosher? Why because some authority told you to know that.
But if you look for yourself, there’s no doubt whatsoever that they are crooks and cheats and frauds and have absolutely zero credibility. It’s actually quite a bit worse than that, since they conspired to commit fraud and harm actual scientists for telling the truth.
I don’t need to ask for permission from these clowns what to think. Anyone who is aware of this issue can think for themselves and see just how serious climate-gate was.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 1:42 pmdustin
the readme files establish for a fact the data was not valid. The guy explicitly said he was just making crud up after a while.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/1/2010 @ 1:44 pm“Who stands to lose more money if GW is real/not real.”
Ed Wood – Last estimate I saw showed the AGW fraud industry raking in $78 billion of grants since the beginning of the 90s. That’s a lot more than some $10,000 summer jobs. Heck, fraudster Michael Mann got hisself at least $16 million of grants alone and all he does is lift other peoples’ data. Not much overhead in doing that, is there? It has been one ginormous gravy train for its supporters.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/1/2010 @ 1:59 pmYes, they were making crud up. Moreover, they were making crud up because they knew that the truth contradicted their claims, their agenda, their wealth, and their political power.
Once again, look at what the left accuses the right of, and be worried this is what the left is doing. Sure, plenty of normal lefties would never do such an extreme thing, but this is a perfect example of projection.
A vast conspiracy of oil funded researchers peddling a lie? The conspiracy and the greed have led to a long pattern of deceptions from the left. Projecting violent extremists, racism, corruption, lack of transparency… it always is a good idea to wonder if they are projecting.
In this case, when a global warming hoaxer complains about resisting science, I laugh my ass off.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:03 pm-If you are going to claim that the bias in science is supposed to work in favor of the industry-
AW- Here is what I actually said-
-You can go on all you want about how it’s not real but nobody outside the oil and coal industry is listening anymore-
Yer gonna call me crazy but I don’t see any hints in this statement that there is some conspiracy to bias science. It was a generalist statement but of course I stepped back on that when D-rocks pointed it out.
Now IF there were some conspiracy to preserve the billions (trillions?)of dollars a year in oil and coal profits, say, an oil and gas funded “denialist” enterprise mostly based on books from think tank scholars, the bought skepticism of a couple of prominent scientists who have sold their skepticism before, and an echo chamber of “conservative” bloggers to repeat all of the allegations of previous “experts” ad nauseum while lobbyists from the oil and coal industry go to their congressmen and say “gee sir, polls show that the people don’t like this global warming thing, oh and here is 10 grand for your campaign”, IF there were people saying that that conspiracy existed, I am saying that it would be a lot more plausible of a conspiracy than YOURS
which posits that a large group of people who under normal circumstances would be constantly ripping each others’ work to shreds, (coz they are trained to, and coz their bosses are competing for the same pot of research money) are going to suddenly all switch off their brains and act against their own self interest to help perpetrate (or groupthinky just follow along with) some big global scientific fraud. All for the 10 grand or so each year that they would pocket from said grants.
I like my conspiracy more than I like yours.
-No one on the AGW side of things said, “hey, wait, I believe in AGW, but this data is bogus.”-
You just said, before you made this statement, that the work of those scientists had been reviewed. So obviously someone was listening.
-Now like I said, I given Rather and Mapes the benefit of the doubt.-
Yes, I like your metaphor a lot better than mine, let’s stick with it. So under your logic above you would condemn ALL broadcast journalism as unreliable or false just because Dan Rather and co. perpetrated a fraud (Let’s say they DID know they were lying). What if there were seven other lines of evidence that GWB was a lousy AWOL airman? Would you immediately dismiss those lines of evidence as well?
When the press found out that some of the John Kerry Swiftboat guys were lying sacks of crap who weren’t anywhere near the place Kerry was allegedly so heroic at did you immediately dismiss ALL of the swiftboat vets? Assuming you were old enough to care about this (not suggesting that your ideas are immature, I just don’t know anyone’s age here) I doubt that you did.
EdWood (c2268a) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:09 pmYours is a conspiracy. What AW and others have pointed out to you is not a conspiracy, they are basic facts. That you resist facts is your issue, not theirs.
JD (eb1dfe) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:19 pm-posits that the best way forward is to accept the fraud, and argue over what to do to fix the problems resulting from said fraud.-
JD, well I think that this statement of yours pretty much sums up why my initial suggestion, which I thought was just being pragmatic, is a fail. You’re right, there is no way to argue about what to do without tacitly accepting the argument.
-But if you look for yourself, there’s no doubt whatsoever that they are crooks and cheats and frauds-
EdWood (c2268a) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:20 pmSorry Dustin but I will still take the word of a trained scientist over someone who has an opinion but no data.
Eddie Munster
> You can go on all you want about how it’s not real but nobody outside the oil and coal industry is listening anymore-
Lol, more like the other way around. to most people AGW has become a joke.
> I like my conspiracy more than I like yours.
The problem is that the dishonesty has already been proven on your side. And all you have is a conspiracy hypothesis.
> You just said, before you made this statement, that the work of those scientists had been reviewed.
Yeah, after it all blew up in their faces, and they were caught red handed faking the data.
> So under your logic above you would condemn ALL broadcast journalism as unreliable or false just because Dan Rather and co. perpetrated a fraud
On the contrary. At the time many news outlets started to notice that there was legitimacy to the complaints and called them out for it. I would have to go through some very old files to name names. But they were out there, telling them that they were wrong, or at least expressing doubts and concerns.
And at the time I recognized I recognized that the damage was mainly isolated to CBS news.
> . What if there were seven other lines of evidence that GWB was a lousy AWOL airman? Would you immediately dismiss those lines of evidence as well?
Well, it depends on the source. If it was CBS news, nope.
> When the press found out that some of the John Kerry Swiftboat guys were lying sacks of crap who weren’t anywhere near the place Kerry was allegedly so heroic at did you immediately dismiss ALL of the swiftboat vets?
Actually Kerry was the only proven liar in all of that. He claimed that on Christmas, in 1968, he was in Cambodia and heard President Nixon deny that there were troops in Cambodia. He said the shock of hearing the president of the united states lie like that was “seared, seared” into his memory. Except it was untrue, given that Nixon was not the President of the United States, in December of 1968. He was on that date the president elect.
But he got a hat. He still has that hat.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:26 pmThere is nothing “scientific” about AGW. There is a lot about it that is “science-y”, but not at all scientific. Ed gets his words confuzzled.
JD (eb1dfe) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:28 pmJD has it pegged. Rulers demanding compliance with their political agenda have flavored their threats with sciencey sounding stuff. They use words like data, but reject actual information. They use words like study, but reject critical analysis. they use words like consensus to shut down debate.
Anyone can look at Ed’s first comment here. It’s just the latest. If we don’t get on board, the AGW crazies will ruin the world with a solar shield. LOL, Highlander 2.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:33 pm-to most people AGW has become a joke.-
Only in conservoRushPalinO’Beckistan or whatever alternate reality you live in AW.
JD I agree with your analysis of my position and why it is flawed, but if you actually believe this statement you made
-There is nothing “scientific” about AGW. There is a lot about it that is “science-y, but not at all scientific-
then you don’t understand how science is done or scientific evidence is presented.
Dustin you obviously don’t understand how science is done or scientific evidence is presented. You also obviously didn’t actually think about anything I wrote above, unlike JD who was able to see why my argument was fatally flawed while you were only able to pontificate.
EdWood (9b4419) — 10/1/2010 @ 9:21 pmObviously I don’t understand how science is done.
I expect hypos to be tested in double blind experiments before considered working theories. I’m basically a heretic. I expect challenges to the orthodoxy, with such tests and data, to receive a fair appraisal in peer reviewed journals, for full discussion.
I also expect those who thwart that stuff to completely lose their credibility.
You, on the other hand, believe in insulting me a bunch of times.
I think I understand what you are perfectly well. It is utterly predictable that you would say I am too stupid to make an opinion on a scientific matter.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 9:26 pmDustin, there you go again with that reading thing. Where did I say you were stupid? I said that you obviously don’t understand how science is done or how scientific results are presented, ie. I said you were ignorant, not stupid.
Hey maybe I am wrong, but what I have to base my opinion on is your comments above which basically say “all scientific evidence pointing to anthropogenic global warming is wrong or crooked and all scientific evidence pointing to non-anthropogenic warming is correct” which is not how science works.
How science works is that if someone has some good data that has merit, you need to change your own model to incorporate that data or have a very good reason to explain why not. If you can’t do those things but try to blow the new data off your colleagues doubt your rigor and your rivals rip you to shreds. Your AGW rivals, the guys “on your side”, not the mythical oil conspiracy paid rivals.
Also I’m being insulting because you keep writing about things I said in my comments that I never actually said, like this -If we don’t get on board, the AGW crazies will ruin the world with a solar shield-
I didn’t say the above, but your misinterpretation of my posts does prove JD’s point about why my suggestion to shift focus just isn’t going to work.
EdWood (9b4419) — 10/1/2010 @ 11:04 pmEdWood
> Only in conservoRushPalinO’Beckistan or whatever alternate reality you live in AW.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
> then you don’t understand how science is done or scientific evidence is presented.
No, we understand how it is done and what they have done here. “hide the decline” and all that.
I mean seriously, you can’t even defend that email. And you don’t even try to defend the readme file. These resulted in world-famous graphs presented via the UN to the whole world and NO ONE said boo about it… except the people you tar as deniers and shills.
So they told the truth. Everyone on your side either lied, or remained silent while others lied. So why should we believe your side again?
If it is not outright fraud, it is incompetence on a massive level and inattention. And either way the result is the same: we can’t trust it.
You and your side are proposing to limit MY freedom. You are proposing to take MY money through higher taxes. You bear the burden of justifying it with scientific evidence.
Right now all you have is religious fervor.
But hey, any day now, we will find Manbearpig!
Your movement is a joke.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/2/2010 @ 8:39 amHey Ed, we here in AK love environmentalists.
The Kodiak Grizz (96ebfd) — 10/2/2010 @ 8:56 amWhy don’t you stop by, and we’ll do lunch.
-You and your side are proposing to limit MY freedom. You are proposing to take MY money through higher taxes.-
Now you are starting to figure out what I was talking about with my very first comment.
-Everyone on your side either lied, or remained silent while others lied.-
But apparently you are still living in conservoRushPalinO’Beckistan.
I guess AGW has been turned into just another wedge issue. Ah well.
EdWood (9b4419) — 10/3/2010 @ 12:09 amEdWood, that’s yet another completely baseless insult.
You slur us, saying we’re living in ‘conservoRushPalinO’Beckistan’.
That’s pathetic. We’re demanding a debate based on reason. That’s why AGW has been rejected by society. Every time we ask for evidence or reason, we get this hysterical slur type argument you keep screeching.
You wish AGW was a wedge issue. It’s not. Until you can make a reasonable argument, it will be easy to shut you down, every time. So long as your argument is to name a bunch of people you’re afraid of as boogeymen, and threaten us with some solar shield of doom, no one is going to buy your ‘argument’.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/3/2010 @ 12:21 amJust wanted to point out that ed was specifically referring to people I already proved were admitting to lying about their data.
He’s taking their word. Because they are ‘trained scientists’. OK, Ed’s lying too, though. He’s taking their word because they are saying what he wants them to say. There are plenty of trained scientists who disagree with Ed, and didn’t commit fraud… Mann and pals noted their work was accurate when they fretted about the decline they proved, after all.
He’s crazy when he thinks this is about my opinion vs. some fraud’s data. My opinion is simply that we should be honest and use the scientific method.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/3/2010 @ 12:33 am