The Spectacle Blog
Weather is Not Climate, Except When It Is
Just ask global-warming-no-matter-what reporter Bill Blakemore of ABC News, who says all us chilly folks are not suffering because the warming’s gone away.
Just ask global-warming-no-matter-what reporter Bill Blakemore of ABC News, who says all us chilly folks are not suffering because the warming’s gone away:
No, the cold snap in some parts of the northern hemisphere (New York, Florida, Beijing, Northern India, Europe) does not mean that manmade global warming is not happening, or even that it’s happening just a little less….
Weather is short-term and local — say, the next five or 10 days in the Tri-State Area.
Climate is long-term and regional (or bigger) — say, the average over the next 20 years in the American Northeast.
But as Newsbusters noted back in June 2006, Blakemore was more than willing to explain how the weather at the time was evidence of global warming, in a discussion with ABC colleague Bill Weir:
Weir: A new National Academy of Science study says the Earth is hotter now than ever and humans are to blame….
Blakemore: The study reconfirms what scientists have been warning about: man-made global warming is real and underway. Americans can see effects right now out the kitchen window: five inches of rain in five hours in Toledo, Thursday. Downpours so sudden and massive.
Man on the street: It’s the watching your headlights go underwater is the signal that you’re in trouble.
Blakemore: This on top of the great downpours causing havoc in Houston this week and in the Northeast the spring. All fit exactly the weather patterns predicted for years by scientists warning us about effects of global warming. More frequent extreme weather they said, including heavier downpours.
But that snowstorm in Houston in early December 2009? Of course — evidence of global warming too!
Get it through your thick heads, people. Everything points to global warming. Hot weather, rainy weather, stormy weather, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes — are all evidence of global warming. Cold weather is not evidence of global warming because it’s just “weather,” not climate. Unless the cold weather has “extremes,” like heavy snow or blizzards — then it’s an extreme weather event that has intensified because of the effects of global warming.
Thank God for brilliantly logical reporters like Bill Blakemore.
View all comments (90) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by Paul Chesser
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/09/weather-is-not-climate-except
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
ECM| 1.9.10 @ 12:08PM
The downside, of course, is that this propaganda has, indeed, seeped into the (not entirely water-tight) brains of the general public--I can recall at least a dozen conversations where this very 'fact' was tossed in my face as 'proof' for global warming.
Eric Cartman| 1.10.10 @ 3:56AM
Climate is just a bunch of weather :-)
Jim Hlavac | 1.9.10 @ 2:19PM
When it snowed here in South Louisiana on Dec. 4th, 2009, I was at a Christmas Party. I joked about the snow and cold in our time of global, um, warming. I was told by everyone that "well, that's because the average is going up." I was a bit perplexed. So I went out, gathered up snow, made the balls, and walked back in and tossed them at the assembled mass huddling to be warm - -"here -- average this." and "Isn't this warm?" And finished with "it's no wonder you are all so broke -- you can't do math -- cold is cold, it drives down the average." And well, the party had to break up at that point for we all had to scurry home because the snow was heavy and we have no snow capabilities. But there were more than a few shocked faces as the "warm" snow hit them in the kisser. Egads, they're brain dead.
Akaky| 1.9.10 @ 4:10PM
So if weather is local and short term and climate is long term and regional, how come they can predict the weather fifty years from now but they can't tell me if it's going to snow two weeks from now? Am I missing something here?
lastrep| 1.10.10 @ 4:47PM
Another question I've asked several times is:
If company A can buy the right to pollute from Company B when A is above the limit and B is not, where is the reduction in pollution? It's a scam that Madoff would be proud of.
Victory67| 2.14.10 @ 9:09PM
You nailed it!
Bob| 1.9.10 @ 4:12PM
OK, Chesser, simply prove your case. Show us the data, not hyperbole. Please show a chart of average annual global temperatures for the last century when measurements began. Don't just show the last couple of decades. This is a longer term phenomenon. All you have to do is show us the data... Please.....
And don't just say you don't believe the data, that's an idiot's answer....
Patriot| 1.9.10 @ 7:59PM
It takes an idiot to know one.
Econ101| 1.9.10 @ 8:45PM
Hmmm, data fudged and the orignal tossed? Climategate? And why wouldn't someone be skeptical of that data? How about some hard data that the worlds sea ice hasn't changed in 30 years? http://www.meteorologynews.com.....e-rebound/ If it's getting so freakin' hot, why isn't there more melting?
lastrep| 1.10.10 @ 4:51PM
All the data I need is in the climategate e-mails. They DOCUMENT the fact that cooling has been covered up, data has been manipulated, and that data from skeptics actually agree with the unmanipulated climate change data.
Susan Salisbury | 1.11.10 @ 7:11AM
1) go read http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ : proof of warming is not proof that it is caused by carbon dioxide. The world was warmer in the Medieval Warming period long before manmade carbon dioxide was a factor.
2) The data is fudged: Read http://wattsupwiththat.com/200.....rwin-zero/ Data in the "adjusted data set" has been adjusted upward with no explanation as to why.
3) The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Go look at at anthony Watt's Web site called surface stations dot org. (only allowed to have two links in the post)Unlike Goddard Space Center, Hadley Climate Research Unit and other global warming pushers, Mr. Watts has made his data(which includes photographs of the measuring stations) completely available on the web, and what it shows is that, in the United States which accounts for a large percentage of the data stations in the data set used by CRU et. Al., the accuracy of the vast majority of the surface temperature measuring stations have been affected by features like, large expanses of concrete (which absorbs heat more than ordinary dirt) air conditioning vents, cell towers and other sources of artificial heat. This means "Raw data" from these stations should be adjusted downward, but it isn't.
I could write a much longer post, because I have become interested in this issue and have been reading about it on the Internet.
My son the geologist told me a long time ago that he was a skeptic for the very simple reason that geologists know that the world has been much warmer than it is today long before mankind ever walked on this earth (that is, if you believe in evolution) There is all sorts of fossil and other data that prove it. The Medieval Warm Period is documented in history and archeology. There are reports and records of crops being grown much farther north than they can now be grown.
Which leads to my last point. There is no proof that a little warming would not be a good thing as opposed to a bad thing.
Oh, and Carbon Dioxide, far from being a dangerous gas, is essential to life on this planet.
Done.
Bill| 1.11.10 @ 9:58AM
Anyone reading these p0sts old enough--as I am--to remember the 1970s? Back then, these same climate scientist types were, with equal solemnity, cautioning that by approximately the year 2000 we would enter another ice age unless dramatic measures were taken to reverse the harm humans were doing to "Mother Earth." The explanation was that particulates from automobiles and industrial facilities were gathering in the earth's atmosphere in sufficient quantities to block out the warmth of the sun. Hence, catalytic converters in the place of mufflers, unleaded instead of leaded gasoline and the EPA which placed all kinds of restrictions on emissions from industrial facilities. Seems obvious to me that all we really need to do to stop the warming is revert to mufflers, leaded gasoline and unrestricted industrial facilities. Makes as much sense as windmills. The truth, of course, is that the so called climate scientists haven't a clue what's going to happen years from now. They cannot even predict accurately the weather a week from today. However, we can say with assurance about them one thing, which is as true now as it was in the 1970s: they prosper from grant monies and they get the most grant money when they predict future catastrophies which they must study verrrrrrry carefully in order to protect us from ourselves. What a farce! What a shame that we have such short memories and don't study history any more. Ergo, we are doomed to repeat it.
Roy| 1.12.10 @ 12:19AM
The way we had it in my elementary school, we were going to run out of fossil fuels within a decade or two. We'd better forcibly take trillions of dollars from people and spend them on solar plants.
Now - we're never going to run out of oil. We're going to keep burning it forever, leading to apocalyptic warmodoom, but wouldn't you know it, the solution's the same! Talk about luck!
Rob H| 1.17.10 @ 2:41AM
Would that be the worldwide temperature data set gathered by Hadley/CRU that they destroyed? Whoops!
JP| 1.9.10 @ 4:27PM
Bob,
Why stop at 1900? Here's a bit of news: global temps have been on the increase since the coldest decades of the Little Ice Age (ie circa 1660-1700).
And here is why the GHCN network is flawed:
Since 1970 2/3rds of the global reporting stations have closed (esp. in Siberia, Africa, and South America). Of those reporting stations that remain, over 70% of them are classified as urban stations; the majority of them are at airports. The remaining 25% of the stations are rural.
NASA only uses 6 reporting stations in all of South America; for Africa it has less than 2 dozen. Niether NASA nor NOAA use the UAH satellite soundings for the oceans, but relies on a few dozen buoys.
As a result, there is a huge UHI (Urban Heat Island) effect in CRUs' NOAA's and NASA's temperature analysis. This UHI signal has been extracted from thier temperature sets by professional statisticians. And these scientists have proven that as much as 1 deg C of the total 1.5 deg C warming since 1900 is a result of the UHI. Once one subtracts the UHI, one finds that the globe has "warmed" totally by .5 deg C since 1900 (using a baseline of 1900-2000 as a median).
There have been peaks and vallies in the temperature analysis. And this oscillation is highly correlated with both ENSO and the PDO.
Bob| 1.9.10 @ 5:06PM
So the only way to deny global warning is to say that the data is flawed? Using that logic, I think I'm going to challenge my wife's W-2 in terms of income reported....
As far as my research shows, the UHI argument used by global warming deniers has been debunked in several studies because most of the data collecting stations existed in cool islands. You probably received your information from one of the denier sites, right? Have you ever even heard of "cool islands"? I doubt that the denier sites have even spoken about them.
It is too bad the electorate is so poorly educated in science and math so they could come to their own decisions rather than use specific political sites as you do.
I don't have any questions about the amount of global warming that has existed. However, the relationship between the significant rise of CO2 and global warming is still an unproven theory in my analyses. I don't know how much of global warming is caused by man even though I accept the temperature increases. Furthermore, even though we've had a decade of temperature declines, I have seen these declines before, once in the early 1900's and once in the mid-1900's. Otherwise, the climb has been fairly consistent.
Therefore, I think there is a tendency to overreact to the global warming "threat". I'd rather spend more money on research right now and less on immediate solutions. In that respect, you'd probably agree with me.
Paul McGrath| 1.9.10 @ 5:36PM
Hi Bob,
To begin with, I like your presence here. Although you often disagree with those here, you are thoughtful and logical and why in the world would anybody be resentful of this?
My big problem, and I suspect I got it from either here or National Review, is that nobody has ever posited a cost/benefit analysis regarding the solution to this so-called problem. In fact, the problem hasn't truly been defined.
But let's say for example that it can be conclusively proved that the temperature of the earth is going to rise by one degree in the next fifty years. First, what effect will this have on me, my society, and on the earth in general? Second, what effect will government proposals have on this problem. And thirdly, how much it is going to cost?
If the rise of the earth's temperature by one degree will cause the oceans to rise by three inches over the next fifty years, and to prevent it I have to pay $25,000.00 a year in taxes, then I would likely be against a proposal to reduce global warming. But nobody has ever spelled this out in any detail.
Then there is the problem that even now, the world is not convinced that there IS a global warming problem. In fact, it is pretty clear that there are those in the scientific community who manipulated evidence to skew the findings, and, as you correctly pointed out, the earth's temperature has actually decreased every year since 1998.
Tends to make one skeptical, especially since, like you, I have been around for a while. As a boy, it was the pollution problem, then it was the overpopulation problem, then it was that the world was going to run out of resources, then it was the hole-in-the-ozone layer problem, and now, of course, it is global warming--excuse me--climate change.
And what do you know, the solution to every one of these problems was more taxes and more government regulation. Yep. Tends to make one REAL skeptical.
Bob| 1.9.10 @ 5:46PM
I am not skeptical of the data and I do believe there is a high probability that the longer term warming trend will continue. But that does not mean we should overreact like Chicken Little.
As to cost/benefit analysis, I don't see that we have the means to make a good analysis at this juncture. That's why I think we need to spend much more on research. Research is always significantly less expensive than implementation. I have this same approach to solving our energy problems. I'd have a Manhattan project to solve some of those issues as well.
In general, Republicans today don't seem to believe in research except for military weapons. Of course, Dems take the opposite approach and use the barest of research to justify a huge implementation expense.
Peter Carroll| 1.10.10 @ 2:32PM
Bob: What is the "energy problem" that requires a Manhattan Project? There is no problem with shortage of energy on this earth (plenty of oil, coal, tar sands, natural gas, and nuclear, plus piddling amounts of hydro and expensive photo and wind energy). Even if you define the energy problem as over-reliance on energy supplies from foreign countries with hostile interests, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and Venezuela, then that is an easily solvable problem that doesn't require a Manhattan Project. Unless the Manhattan Project was focused on "How to Persuade Liberals to Support Energy Independence by Allowing Development of US Energy Resources".
Victory67| 2.14.10 @ 9:25PM
Isn't it researchers who have us in this quandry now? To believe or not to believe that is the question. Take government out of research and we might be surprised. Take the pressure and heat off of scientists and we may have truth.
Victory67| 2.14.10 @ 9:28PM
This was a reply to Bob.
JP| 1.9.10 @ 7:13PM
Good grief anyone with an broadband connection, Excel, and a knowledge of how the GHCN data is encoded can do the work themselves. It isn't rocket science, and I have no idea what you mean by "cool Islands". Either the station is rural or urban. NOAA makes the classification, not me. For crying out loud, all a person has to do is usal Google Earth and they can see for themselves where observation points are.
If you do a simple statistical analysis of the data, as any 10th grader is capable of, you can easily see the UHI signal. Two thirds of the AGW signal is UHI.
JP| 1.9.10 @ 7:19PM
I don't take it you ever worked in science, or you'd never make such stupid remarks. I was weather forecaster for over a decade. I suppose I can't blame you for not knowing how to decode the USGHCN surface data and do a statistical analysis. I suppose you didn't know that it is the government that classifies GHCN stations (urban or rural). There are no classifications for "cool islands".
Patriot| 1.9.10 @ 8:01PM
But Bob went to Harvard--isn't that all that matters?
econ101| 1.9.10 @ 8:54PM
Pls provide some info on "cool island". Never heard of it. Bottom line tho, proponents of AGW cite all their data, skeptics cite all their equally valid data. Even if the globe IS warming, how can you quantify how much is man's fault, if any? http://www.climategate.com/ger.....ing-theory" How in the heck can anyone say the science is "settled"? That being the case, over-reaction like cap and trade is irrational. Spending literally trillions of dollars, shipping hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas to places without cap and trade, radically raising the cost of energy during a recession...how in the world does that make sense????
Bob| 1.9.10 @ 5:14PM
JP, one further comment. Even if you make the mistake in believing the UHI effect, you'd realize it was a constant, not a variable. As such, trend data is not affected. That would disprove your theory in any event.
JP| 1.9.10 @ 7:08PM
Bob,
Anyone can download the raw GHCN metadata of the last 100 years from NOAA's ftp site. I was a weather forecaster for over a decade, and I know how to read thier encoded data and pull the station classifications (rural or urban) as well as Tmax and Tmin data. Anyone can aslo pull thier longitude and latitudes and use Google Satellite to find out exactly where the Stevenson Screens or observation points are. Any 1st year Met student worth his salt knows the strong effects of UHI. Anyone with the desire can also visit the WeatherUnderground and compare 2 adjecant reporting stations and compare the how obvious the differences between urban reporting stations and nearby rural ones. It doesn't take a rocket science to figure this out.
Once the data has been downloaded, all you have to do is sort out the stations that have 100 year records from those that do not. Use Mathematica, R, Matlab, or Excel to create a 100 year trend analysis using one standard dev. Then resort the data and pull out the stations that are classified as rural and again create a 100 year trend analysis; do the same for the urban ones. And compare. Finally, create a sort which classifies each station based on how long they've been operating and compare that information. Over 4000 stations (of which 60% are rural) have closed.
Once you've compared the rural analysis from the urban analysis, you will see that a full 1 degree warming is in fact an illusion. The remaining half a degree Celcius of warming is almost statistically insignificant. It barely register above the level as statistical noise. Yes, the trend is positive (warm), but just.
I don't understand what you mean by constant or variable, as the UHI is simply a statistical anomaly created by a)site issues, b)the closing of so many rural stations, and c)suburban and urban sprawl.
This isn't deniers stuff; Dr Christy with NASA, statistican Jeff ID, as well as climate scientists Hans von Storch (Max Planck Institute), and statisticians Ross McKitrick, and Steve McIntyre have all done the same analysis. All of thier data and formulas are open for outside autitors.
DVD to iPod Converter | 2.3.10 @ 9:12AM
Man on the street
Dollface| 1.9.10 @ 4:43PM
Having just endured a recent spell of sub-zero weather, I'm in favor of global warming. If my un-scientific reading of the earth's cycles are correct, we should see some significant global warming in the next several months.
unamuno42| 1.10.10 @ 11:07PM
I like when global warming comes every year because the flowers bloom and I fall in love all over again.
ann| 1.9.10 @ 6:27PM
Is the opposite of a "deniar" a "believer"? And since when has science become a religion? (And why does one have to keep asking this question?)
Here's a praise for skepticism.
Anna Keppa| 1.9.10 @ 6:34PM
"So the only way to deny global warning is to say that the data is flawed? Using that logic, I think I'm going to challenge my wife's W-2 in terms of income reported.... "
OK, Bob: cut the crap with strawman arguments. WHO says the "only way" to deny global warming is to point at the laughably flawed data, and the criminal fraud used to massage it into shape? Just tell us what the Other Evidence is. Experiments? HAH. Computer Models that ignore water vapor and cannot verify past changes? Observations that the climate is "changing" --- as if it never has before? Unless and until you guys have hard evidence that climate is changing at an unprecedented rate, AND that humans are inducing that change, you got nuthin. I suspect you are a math innumerate, otherwise you would understand how ludicrous it is to argue that the 5% human contribution to CO2, which itself is only 0.04% of atmospheric gases, can change the climate of the entire planet.
Neamiah Podsnap| 1.9.10 @ 7:54PM
Actually, Bob. I posted a link to the data early on- and to Roy Spencer's UAH data at that , but Chesser just can't handle the inconvenient sight of the trend continuing upward in the dead of winter , and seems to have removed it .
Hence this post from a relatively anodyne email address- Good thing Chesser doesn't work for the University of East Anglia, or he'd be in the Tower of London for his censorious naughtyness.
Truth to Power| 1.10.10 @ 12:41PM
Another idiot troll weighs in. Try "Oscillate This" if want to see that data again. Next time you should leave bread crumbs. It might keep you from making stupid accusations. There is a good response to it by the way. You may find it inconvenient for your religious beliefs. It is a perfect example of how leading scientists seem to cherry pick data. That would get you fired where I work. By the way cherry picking data was very evident in the emails you mentioned. That is why they hide their data from the likes of Steve McIntyre. If you were a legitimate enterprise you'd want him on your side. He would keep you from making a lot of dumb mistakes. If on the other hand you're a con man then you don't want him near your data. They don't want him near their data.
Patriot| 1.9.10 @ 8:03PM
The Left's rank hypocrisy on display for all to see--once again.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 1.9.10 @ 8:15PM
I’ve just spent the last 21 days or so, traveling up and down the East Coast (5,800 miles), while on leave from the Army, after spending a year in Iraq before that. So I was driving my big old Lincoln Town Car, with its small “drinking” problem (she burns a little oil you see, and only gets 19 MPG), up and down I-95 spewing CO2 into the air, everywhere I went.
And I’ve come to a scientific conclusion, I don’t think CO2 causes Global Warming at all. Because the more I drove these past few weeks, the colder it seemed to get everywhere I went, even in normally sunny warm Florida. Now I might sound a little paranoid, but I really started to get the feeling, that the cold weather was actually following me, no matter how fast I drove to outpace it (85-90 MPH?).
So there you go, CO2 doesn’t cause Global Warming, or Climate Change, it actually does the opposite, it causes cold weather and lots of snow. I proved this scientifically!! So to reverse this disturbing cold trend we’ve been suffering through recently, I swear, I’m not going to drive my Lincoln for the next few weeks, until it gets warm enough again around here, for me to get in a few rounds of winter golf (45 degrees or above).
So to everybody out there in America, I’m very sorry for bringing about this cold spell, for such selfish reasons, like wanting to visit with my family after being in Iraq for a year. My bad!! I swear to you all, that I’ll try to be a better person in 2010. Let's Go Yankees!!
SoCon| 1.9.10 @ 8:56PM
Welcome home soldier! Hope you're having a great time visiting with your family and friends.
Oh, thanks for your service!
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 1.9.10 @ 9:46PM
Thanks SoCon!! It’s great to be back, except for the all these Liberals here, and the weather too, it’s really very cold in America than it is in Iraq (what a shock!!). I think the weather is the only thing I miss about being over there, it’s just so much warmer in Iraq. But I don’t miss all that sand blowing into my face, I’ll tell you that much!! I can handle the Liberals in comparison to that damn sand.
SoCon| 1.9.10 @ 11:50PM
You should come out to SoCal--it's been about 77 during the day! Take care of yourself, it looks like weather conditions have been pretty rough back there. I wouldn't even know how to drive in that weather.
Ignore the liberals--they don't matter anyway. Ha!
Allen Johnson| 1.10.10 @ 1:05AM
Would someone explain why all "unfettered capitalism" proponents deny global climate change? Seriously, is there a link between economic theory and climate theory.
Thank you in advance for your comments....
Patriot| 1.10.10 @ 1:28AM
No one denies global climate change; weather changes all of the time. We're just a little skeptical about "man-made" global change--we have an aversion to 'scientists' cooking the books and throwing away unfavorable data.
Healthy skepticism is a good thing, don't you think: Or do you have a problem with independent thinkers?
Patriot| 1.10.10 @ 1:30AM
oops!! ....."man-made" global climate change
Bugsy| 1.10.10 @ 6:59AM
My goodness Bob....You say Denier as if it is some sort of "shaming device", how impartial of you. So tell me genius, denier of what?...a THEORY!
You LibTards have not proven your case by a long shot, my guess is that your to busy "hideing that decline". Your so-called scientist are the same brain trust who screamed about global cooling in the 70s'.
Mark Well| 1.10.10 @ 7:50AM
Actually Bob, you are the idiot.
Bob| 1.10.10 @ 8:16AM
JP, for an analysis of the UHI effect and cool islands, see this reference:
J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl (2001). "A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change". Journal of Geophysical Research 106: 239–247. doi:10.1029/2001JD000354.
I would also cite this study:
T. C. Peterson (2003). "Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found". Journal of Climate 16: 2941–2959. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)0162.0.CO;2. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wm.....urban.pdf.
And to argue the veracity of trend data:
IPCC (2001). "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Chapter 2.2 How Much is the World Warming?". http://www.grida.no/climate/ip......htm#2221.
As a mathematician, and not a meteorologist, I am personally more convinced by the trend data argument which I know, by looking at the data, is certainly true.
Bugsy| 1.10.10 @ 10:01AM
Gee Whiz Bob, citing a highly politicised organization like the UN is not helpful to the case you are trying to make. Follow the money Bob, that is what this whole charade(..AGW) is about!
Why don't you try and "Zoom Out" on the time line of temperatures and realize that .5 degrees is certainly within normal variation for a planet with a climate system in close proximity to that big 'ol bright thing in the sky...I think it is called "The Sun" which you AGW nutjobs have excluded from any of your assumtions. The maunder minimum that we are in right now will soon make hysterical predictions like you clowns like to scream about look silly.
Climate Clowns...and the Science of IF !!
That's you Bob
Bob| 1.10.10 @ 10:29AM
Gee, I should have looked at the bible rather than data analysis and scientific studies for my answer to global warming. Bugsy, thank you for your prime example of how the extreme right lacks reason.
If you've read the studies, you'd see that the number is closer to 1.5 degrees. But then again, you need to be able to read and have some intellect to do that. Hmmm.....
And if you could read, you'd see that my reasoned position is that global warming does exist but how much of that is man-made is in question. But you extremists eschew reason and logic so you are quick to take all or none positions. Unfortunately for you, few things in this life are absolute. Reason and intellectual curiosity allows us to take conflicting data and develop positions.
But people like you would look out of your front window and claim the world is flat....
Bugsy| 1.10.10 @ 10:40AM
Bob, it was the scientific brain trust of the day that claimed the world was flat...that would be you. It is the AGW crowd of which you belong that are the extremist.
Tell me loser, what did I say that refereced the Bible, don't throw your straw-man arguments around, it only makes you look stupid...Hmmmm.
BTW, you are the religious nutbag and AGW is your religion complete with a High priest(..Al Gore).
AGW/Environmentalisim has all the hallmarks of all the major religions on this planet.
Bob| 1.10.10 @ 2:00PM
Actually, Bugsy, you are wrong. The scientific brain trust agreed that the world was spherical almost universally. The difference between the people who make scientific breakthroughs and you is that they depend on the science and utilize reason, whereas you simply deny the factual data.
As for the rabid environmentalists and global warming fanatics, they have much in common with you as their opinions are not based on factual information. Extremists, like you, on either side try to oversimplify information because their brains cannot comprehend any sophisticated analysis.
Have a great day....
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 1.10.10 @ 2:26PM
Bob, comparing AGW "deniers" to people who think the World is flat?, come on now, this isn't 1492, and you're not Christopher Columbus. And people who don't believe in AGW, are not in the same mind set as the Catholic Church was back then, so don't make the comparison, you sound silly doing that.
Oh yeah, and BoB?, we're so sorry, that we're not a genius like yourself, and cannot read, or comprehend anything, without looking out our window, and waiting for the Pope, to tell us what to believe.
Oh yeah, and Bob?, one more thing, is it possible for a "flat-Earther", like myself, to someday join this Brain Trust, if I promise to study real hard?
Bugsy| 1.10.10 @ 3:06PM
Bob,
You are a Liar, your problem is that just because you say that doesn't make it so. Go here to educate yourself...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth.
You can readily see that it was the so
called "intelligensa" of the day that was spouting that theory, same as you AGW nutbags are saying about your extremeist views on climate change.
Bob, your a nitwit...give it up!
The problem with atheist like your self is that your very existance proves the existance of GOD, I mean, after all, if there was no GOD we wouldn't have atheist. I am not aligned politically or religiously
Helper| 1.11.10 @ 1:27AM
Bugsy,
Just wanted to correct your link (doesn't work because of the period at the end)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Bugsy| 1.11.10 @ 3:43AM
Thanks Helper
Bugsy| 1.10.10 @ 3:14PM
One more thing Bob...factual data? I downloaded the CRU emails and the raw data that they didn't delete and have read about 3/4 of them and I can tell you with absolute certainty that these clowns were not operating on fact. They were engaged in conspiracy to hide facts.
The WWW is a wonderful resource and in case it hasn't dawned on you yet is that there is always someone who is smarter than you or anyone you know. Academia no longer has a lock on knowledge.
Bugsy| 1.10.10 @ 3:26PM
sophisticated analysis...from you and your ilk?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Helper| 1.11.10 @ 1:33AM
Bob,
Your neck must be incredibly strong... It would have to be to hold up a head as big as yours.
Patriot| 1.11.10 @ 10:36PM
Too bad Bob's huge head is empty. When you hold your ear to his--all you hear is the sound of the ocean.
Victory67| 2.14.10 @ 9:43PM
Gee, how did you get all that analyses out of Bugsy's first post? Like you have analyzed climate science?
JP| 1.10.10 @ 5:21PM
Bob,
Here is what the nation's premiere statistician, Dr Wegman of George Mason University has to say about climate researchers in general and paleo-climate researchers in particular:
"It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent."
The quote was taken from his National Academy of Science report in 2007.
pallet racking | 1.10.10 @ 9:39AM
http://www.t-racking.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com
Dean| 1.10.10 @ 2:16PM
From Newsweek's now infamous article on global cooling in 1975:
"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."
Thirty-five years ago scientists were almost "unanimous" in their belief the earth was cooling. Now they are almost "unanimous" in their belief the earth is warming.
How could one not be skeptical if the so-called unanimity of scientists can't keep to one theory?
Bugsy| 1.10.10 @ 3:20PM
Good job Dean
They have been wrong 3 out of 4 times, the current one being the fourth. In the 30s' it was global warming.
I don't want to confuse Bob with facts though!
SoCon| 1.10.10 @ 3:48PM
Next, Bob the 'RINO'--who voted for Obama--will find a way to blame all of this on Sarah Palin because she's not intellectual enough.
Bob has a terminal case of Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Neamiah Podsnap| 1.10.10 @ 4:08PM
That's powerful untruthy, Truth to Power
The data comes from Steve's sidekick, Roy Spencer .
alin | 1.10.10 @ 9:23PM
I don't have any questions about the amount of global warming that has existed. However, the relationship between the significant rise of CO2 and global warming is still an unproven theory in my analyses. I don't know how much of global warming is caused by man even though I accept the temperat
nike outleture increases. Furthermore, even though we've had a decade of temperature declines, I havadidas outlete seen these declines before, once in the early 1900's and once in the mid-1900's. Otherwise, the climb has been fairly consistent.
jim | 1.10.10 @ 9:24PM
Next, Bob the 'RINO'--who voted for Obama--will find a way to blame all of this on Sarah Palin because she's not intellectual enough.
all star shoes
nike shoes outlet
Bob has a terminal case of Palin Derangement Syndrome.
lain | 1.10.10 @ 9:25PM
adidas shoes outlet
adidas outlet
Pingback| 1.11.10 @ 3:21AM
Intramurals sports are warming up for the winter – Sports | Sports Leisure Knowledge links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Brian| 1.11.10 @ 10:22AM
I wish there was such thing as global warming, and we could warm up the earth with CO2 emissions. Global warming would be a good thing, true slightly higher seas maybe (Some evidence shows that the earth self regulates and the sea levels might actual decrease because of increased precipitation.). More rainfall (good), current cooler climates will have more plants and critters (more things survive in tropical temp and cold temps), hey maybe the amount of desserts will decrease do to a major increase in rain.
I really cannot see why global warming is bad? We argue is there global warming, is it cause by CO2, can we recued the CO2 thereby stop global warming? No one bothers to ask if it is bad, the science on how it would be horrible is such junk science they should loss tenure the professional out spout off the nonsense.
Our arguments are backwards, first show global warming would be significantly harmful. Then determine if there is global warming, then determine why it is happening, then determine if humans can change the trend, then determine if the cost of changing the trend is worth the cost of the warming. But then again the only reason global warming argument is so popular is as a excuses for Marxist or Pagan ideology wrapped in the clothing of Science. Science was used as an argument to prove racial superiority, slaver, genocide, forced sterilization, treating humans as animals. So what else is new?
Bugsy| 1.12.10 @ 3:52AM
Hey everybody, go to the website below and read that article, and while your there get yourself a copy of the PDF file at the bottom of that page. It is good reading and sheds a truthful light on the fraud of AGW. Spread the Info far and wide!
http://www.thecrponline.com//e.....Of-Hot-Air
What clowns like Bob hope you don't discover is that what AGW alarmist(..like him) propose of what the effects of CO2 is supposed to be doing to our biosphere is physically impossible...it violates Newtons second law of thermodynamics.
Yet Bob claims to be sophisticated and educated...sure, whatever Bob!
Pingback| 1.14.10 @ 11:50AM
The Daily Bayonet » Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Jan. 14th 2010 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
obloodyhell| 1.22.10 @ 10:18PM
> Everything points to global warming. Hot weather, rainy weather, stormy weather, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes -- are all evidence of global warming.
You forgot athlete's foot. If you have more athlete's foot this year than you did last, that's directly caused by AGW, too. If not, well, that's just coincidence. Wait 'til next year. Sooner or later, something will increase, and that thing will be something caused by AGW.
"We Promise!"
-- AGW Media Report from Important Scientist Being Interviewed
Jolly One| 1.24.10 @ 3:15AM
LMAO!! Scott Brown's election was also caused by AGW--just wait until November, libtards!!
Yeehaw!