
As Atlantic tropical storm activity increased a few years ago, Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University was thrust into the limelight as one of the leading hurricane forecasters in the world.
On Friday, deliciously coincident with the Global Warmingist-in-Chief receiving likely the first of many Nobel Peace Prizes, Dr. Gray spoke to a group of meteorologists and students at the University of North Carolina telling the audience that the theory of manmade climate change is "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works."
Thankfully, that's not all he had to say on the subject as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald Sunday (emphasis added throughout, h/t NBer lunaticcringeradio):
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.
[...]
"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
How marvelous. But there was much more:
Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.
Folks that have been honestly following this debate - yes, it's not close to being over despite what Gore and his deluded sycophants are claiming! - are quite aware of the vast number of scientists who believe the natural warming that began in the '70s peaked in 1998, and that the planet has actually moved into a cooling trend potentially caused by a cyclical decline in solar activity.
Of course, charlatans like Gore and people on the Nobel committee aren't interested in the real science of this issue as they spread hysteria.
Dr. Gray intimated such in his lecture:
During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.
He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.
Hmmm. You mean the actual statistics compiled by one of the nation's foremost experts on the subject don't comply with the hysteria being disseminated by Gore and the media?
Shocking, wouldn't you agree?
The article concluded with a really inconvenient truth the newly crowned Nobel laureate and his disciples in the press will fight tooth and nail to prevent being shared with the general public:
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.
He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
Bravo, Doctor. Bravo!
Post script: From what I can tell, none of the leading mainstream press outlets bothered to report Gray's statements. Think that would have been the case if he had something positive to say about Gore and the global warming myth?
Assuming your answer is similar to mine, this makes media complicit in the brainwashing Gray spoke of, doesn't it?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
How strange...
October 14, 2007 - 11:51 ET by dervishit is that Dr. Gray, from Colorado State University (USA) speaks to a group of meteorologists at the University of North Carolina (USA) and you have to find the article in a newspaper from Australia.
That's what should be shocking.
That was my thought
October 14, 2007 - 12:53 ET by motherbeltThat was my thought too...another NGW (non-global warming) advocate ignored by the MSM.
-
October 14, 2007 - 15:31 ET by dahliatraversIt is, indeed.
Dr. Gray does a wonderful job speaking out. But because of the American msm's one sided reporting and silence on sceptic scientists like him, many, many people still think there is a unanimous scientific consensus about AGW.
Shame on the msm. What happened to the elevation of reason and the search for the truth?
It's going to take a while
October 14, 2007 - 19:37 ET by pbthinkerIt's going to take a while for our media to catch up, they're too busy trying to get the Democrats a Presidency to concentrate on the truth about global warming. We're going to have to depend on the media in Australia and Britain to give us the truth for a while.
Once the 2008 election is over, perhaps the press will get back to reporting the truth.
Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.
Liberalism rules!
October 14, 2007 - 11:55 ET by JDW"We're brainwashing our children"
What is the purpose of education today?
Why did George Washington University decide against disciplinary action when he learned the hate Muslim demonstrates were not conservative?
My children are being brainwashed into global warming in high school. Try reasoning with that crap.
JDW
Sen Clinton: Founder of Media Matters
Noel
October 14, 2007 - 12:17 ET by BlondeAs usual, you present another delicious argument to knock one of the legs out from under Al's AGW stool.
I, however, am at Gore fatigue overload. I am to the point of changing channels whenever I hear that voice. I don't know what's worse...his voice or Hillary's cackle.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde
October 14, 2007 - 12:20 ET byyou do too know which is worse, one causes you to change the channel the other causes you to want to throw things at the tube before changing the channel
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
That's the problem
October 14, 2007 - 19:40 ET by pbthinkerSince, people like Gore, use the old Nazi philosophy that, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth, you have to listen to catch them every time they say it. It's a tough job.
Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.
When your life depends on it
October 14, 2007 - 12:30 ET by Lame CherryPeople should notice when your PAYCHECK or life depends on what your profession is in science or any field instead of GRANTS that an entire different mentality and understanding develops.
Take for example Dr. Gray who proves above all he states. Then take for example a professor at Wisconsin named Galen McKinley who gets study grants there to "study the effects of the Great Lakes on global warming due to gases".
People who get grants will say anything to get the hog trough money and fame as that is how they generate their livelihood. The sky is falling when one needs to get elected to be Al Gore president or the sky is falling when globalists like George Soros are dumping in money to study what they want to find........so the finding will mean the destruction of free economies they intend to plunder and rape.
Dr. Gray is more correct in more ways than one as he shows when a person is actually studying climate that it doesn't take long to equate that huge gas ocean called the atmosphere is sloshing around in solar heating, affected by moisture sweated from the earth and moderated by oceans. People can no more affect the world than one could melt the glaciers with a match at 100 below zero.
When are the Republicans going to start demanding an accounting in Congress of the hundreds of billions being wasted on "global warming" which should be invested IN HOME SHELTERS and FOOD RESERVES.
If the GOP would simply force this money to be dished out in grants to home owners, remember this is hundreds of billions of dollars, the construction, consumption of appliances for shelters and food purchased would create an economic boom........a real one that would generate great livings for American workers.
Very simple economics. Invest in a type of fallout shelter for civil and national defense and the entire economy booms instead of a few hundred liberal professors padding their bank accounts and "select" high tech globalist manufacturers getting their cut.
GOP are you listening........especially Fred Thompson. This is a money issue that American voters can understand.........and gee can you not just hear Galen McKinley crying to the media.....and then the media asking the real questions of IS ANY OF THIS MONEY STOPPING TEMPERATURES RISING FROM THE SUN?
The answer of course is NO and never will be as Dr. Gray explains.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Off Subject a little --- over population
October 14, 2007 - 22:19 ET by DanDanOverpopulation
Here are some numbers
Please give the following some serious consideration----
Take the world population----- 6,593,583,936 people
IN THE ENTIRE WORLD and put them on the Island of
Puerto Rico--- which has an land area of 3559.09 Sq. Miles---- 5280 times 5280 gives you 27,247,800 Sq. Feet in a Sq. Mile times 3559.09 = 99,221,734,656 Sq. feet on the Island
Divide Sq. feet by people and each person in the world
have 15.04 Sq. feet to stand on or about HALF on a 4x8
sheet of plywood-- How go to the map and find Puerto Rico --you may have some trouble, it's down there by Cuba someplace, in fact Cuba is a HUGE when you compare the two.
Now you tell me ---- that anyone that has any ability to
THINK, can really believe the Human race has the power the change the World Climate--we are not that GOOD---If the Earth is warming it is more likely the position of the Planets has something to do with it.
Saturn , Jupiter and Uranus were all in line back in 1998 -- we started to cool again after 1998 but we don't hear about that --- We should all quit drinking our Coke or Pepsi --- what do you think makes the fizz -- CO2 don't ya know --
I used to be a Liberal but I got tired of being wrong --Lee
<td hei
Ah, the facts, Noel - of no interest to the MSM.
October 14, 2007 - 12:37 ET by Gary HallAh, the facts, Noel - of no interest to the MSM.
From an April, 2007 report from Gray and Klotzbach, with a few more details. While the media will pound us with it's "cyclic worthy only" charts from the last cool point in our cycles (1970's) - they continue to share with the public the calming effect of seeing the left side of those charts (that before 1970). "It's a mystery to me."
Table 7: U.S. Landfalling tropical cyclones by intensity during two 50-year periods:
Years Named Hurricanes Intense Global Temp.Inc
Storms Hurricanes degrees C
(Cat 3,4,5)
1900-1949 189 101 39
(50 years)
1956-2005 165 83 34 +0.4
(50 years)
I'll just say, "It ain't so," and perhaps I'll receive a Nobel Kook Prize as well.
Gary remember prior to
October 14, 2007 - 12:57 ET by danboGary remember prior to using satellites, and planes to find hurricanes. The "known" number of hurricanes to make landfall was 75% including 15 years where 100% of known hurricanes made landfall. However since they started using planes and satellites there has been on average 59% of storms making landfall. We missed 15-16% of the hurricanes.
Further in the sky is falling 05 season you had TS Gert. A storm that came ashore in an area with few people. It was never identified via land stations. And was only identified via satellite and fly thoughs.
In 06 you have the un-named storm which was only identified as a review of the data at seasons end.
Part of source.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
danbo - exactly
October 14, 2007 - 13:19 ET by Gary HallHere's another piece of data (fact) from Phil Klotzbach (heck, it was a hurricane conference - lot's of media - and they still decided not to share ''Keep the fear alive."
Seems to me, off the top of my head, that 2006 and 2007 (so far) have left Florida alone, right? So the last data would be for 42 years, and only 4 major hurricans landfalling in Florida.
I'd wager that almost any national MSM jouralist, who has covered these storms in recent years, would look at these numbers and say,"that cannot be true."
More Good Info, Gary
October 14, 2007 - 13:26 ET by BlondeNow, if you would just wave your magic wand around and declare hurricane season over for 2007.
Thank you in advance. :)
P.S. We did have tropical fizzle Ernesto last year in June. It was great...I had the day off.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
waving the wand..
October 14, 2007 - 13:35 ET by Gary HallWaving the wand.. say after me.. "Reducto Cyclonico."
Or, one could simply station Al Gore in Florida permanently. A hurricane would never dare threaten the sanctity of the giver of the what is best for mother earth.
Reducto Cyclonico
October 14, 2007 - 13:40 ET by BlondeReducto Cyclonico, Reducto Cyclonico, Reducto Cyclonico.
(Is this like me saying "I love my job, I love my job, I love my job" at least once a week?).
As to your second suggestion...um....NO. Al Gore already did more damage to Florida in 2000 than Hurricane Andrew. I'm forever relegated to being from lovely liberal Broward County...home of the hanging & pregnant chads, thank you very much.
Why don't we send him to Giaia (sp)?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Hurricane season is about
October 14, 2007 - 14:07 ET by danboHurricane season is about over. if not over. At least for me. We've been down into the low 50's a few times.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Yeah, dan
October 14, 2007 - 14:10 ET by BlondeIssy doomboo (it's done).
It'll be a while before I get low 50's...but I'm looking forward to it. Nice cold fronts & the sailfish tailing down the big ocean swells from the north. Woo hoo!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Can I jump off the back of
October 14, 2007 - 17:19 ET by danboCan I jump off the back of the boat and swim with the sail fish?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Sure, Dan
October 14, 2007 - 17:24 ET by BlondeYou & Guy Harvey.
It'll be great.
I promise not to set the hook if you really, really have to swim fast after the bait! Because you're hungry.
LOL. :D
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Now I may demand that you
October 14, 2007 - 18:45 ET by danboNow I may demand that you toss my swimming buddy back in....LOL
Actually, I've been caught before. Well. Not me. But my dive flag and line.
Pre Ivan. I loved shore diving at the Ft. Pickens jetties. (Pensacola) You could get down to about 50 feet with a short swim. No need for a boat. Soft coral. military artifacts on the bottom. And there were the shore fishermen....
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I know how you feel
October 14, 2007 - 20:31 ET by pbthinkerI know how you feel, Blondie, living in Palm Beach County, where they just can't figure out how to do an election, is pretty tricky. Rob Wexler is trying his best to give this county to the Democrats. He had his personal choice elected as the election supervisor, but apparently he's not too sure of him so, the word is out, he may support someone else for the office.
If Wexler supports them, you can be pretty sure he figures he can manipulate them. He couldn't manipulate Theresa LePore, which is why he pulled all the strings he could to get Anderson elected.
Let's cross our fingers on the hurricane season, just 6 weeks to go, before it's officially over. The AGW fanatics can't figure out why we haven't been hit with a couple of dozen, so far. Those nasty winds, shearing off the tops of those storms, must be an annoying thing for people rooting for doom and disaster.
Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.
Tree rings rather than Hurricanes.
October 14, 2007 - 14:42 ET by danboA bit off subject. Isn't the theory that tree rings increase with size with temperture?
I know the climate temperture history using proxy data used to a great part tree rings till about 1980 then tacked on surface station data.
But if tree rings are supposed to get larger with temperture increases? Judging from the 1st of the Bristlecone samples to come out. Something happened about the mid 90's. (This is slow to open.)
Steve is at it again.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
-
October 14, 2007 - 18:16 ET by dahliatraversActually, you're raising a good point. If they started out measuring temps with tree rings (because they had no other measure), shouldn't they stick to tree rings measurements for the entire data set? Isn't consistency of data collection methods important?
seems to me
October 14, 2007 - 19:42 ET bytree rings would indicate rainfall rather than temperature
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
Which means they're not
October 14, 2007 - 19:57 ET by danboWhich means they're not that good as a proxy for ?????
I didn't create this mess.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
danbo
October 14, 2007 - 20:09 ET bycheck it out simply put scroll down to "what causes variations in tree rings"
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
As a former student of
October 14, 2007 - 20:32 ET by danboAs a former student of archaeology. I have a bit of experience with tree rings. I've always wondered how they isolated the temperture and length of growning season variables,(Not an exact match.) from the other variables that influence tree growth,
Yet we can get a temperture to within 2 digits to the right of the decimal?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
seems fishy
October 14, 2007 - 20:41 ET bybut even so there is a baseline of info that validates the medievel warming period when green land was green. There are no doubt methods to isolate the other factors and arrive at a trend but to an accuracy of .01 degree?
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
-
October 14, 2007 - 22:58 ET by dahliatraversYup, the point is that scientists trying to prove AGW muddied their own data by switching collection methods - even if it was to a more accurate one.
(Hi, Botg!)
" There are no doubt
October 15, 2007 - 04:06 ET by danbo" There are no doubt methods to isolate the other factors "
What are those methods? Unless you know the exact proportions those other variables play. As the amount of rain in a given year, you can't isolate the temperture portion. I doubt we know how much rain fell in 1824 much less 1066.
Tree rings tell us there was a climatic disaster in 535AD. But can we say what the temperture was? I don't think we can.
The MWP is also validated via historical records. We can give an educated "guess" on the temperture based on tree rings, crop patterns, the historical records of the location of glaciers etc. But to say the present world temps are .? degrees warmer than the MWP????
This core is only the first to come out. And the 1st to be updated. But if a pattern develops. And the tree rings don't support a warmer period over the last 10 years. Either Hanson's adjust tempertures aren't real as they're not supported by the proxies. Or we have to be sceptical of any temperture history based on tree rings.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Busted link
October 15, 2007 - 09:31 ET by nofateDanbo, all I got there was a sign up page.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Sorry. You may have to go
October 15, 2007 - 09:40 ET by danboSorry. You may have to go through this page. The link is down the page in update 2 pm second paragraph. "Most recent widths." Opt for original size.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
What does it mean?
October 16, 2007 - 10:02 ET by nofatedanbo: I read the article, then looked at the tree ring scans here and here. You don't need to be a scientist to see that if the scaling is equal, the rings up to the 90's are significantly larger than what came before, even back into the mid 19th century. So, what I'm getting out of this, is that if these bristlecone pine growth rings hold some significance for climate measurements, there is a disconnect from what we are being told, i.e. that higher CO2 levels=higher temps=more bristlecone pine growth, right? The disconnect being that if CO2/temps are so much higher, what's happened since about 1990? The last 10-15 yrs. are pretty darn small in comparison to what came before. My question: what happens if they turn out to be predictors of what's to come? Bundle up, I guess.
Keep the links coming, they are interesting reading.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Tired of scrolling around? Find your comments among the clutter like a laser beam.
This should be fun to
October 16, 2007 - 15:29 ET by danboThis should be fun to watch. This is only one. But they're being processed. If we listen to the warmers the rings should be larger. And they're sugnificantly smaller.
According to giss, Boulder themps are rising a bit.
I doubt they're predictive as they reflect what's already happened. Rather, to me. If a pattern arises we have to look at any climate history derived from these rings with a great deal of scepticism..
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
The beauty of this
October 14, 2007 - 19:43 ET by pbthinkerThe beauty of this season is, if we don't have a major hurricane hit the U.S., it will drive down the average from 2004 and 2005 to more normal levels. Statistics are a terrible thing, to people like Gore and his ilk.
Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.
Statistics
October 15, 2007 - 09:35 ET by JimboYou are right. That’s why he needs to cash in now before the statistics find their natural balance again.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Careful... the number of
October 15, 2007 - 11:05 ET by cleverpigCareful... the number of hurricanes hitting landfall is based on very different factors than the number of hurricanes that form. Landfall records vary wildly with no clear trend, because you can have things like random high pressure fronts that keep them at sea. Number and intensity of hurricanes overall, however, shows clear trends and is currently slightly higher than the cyclic theory predicts.
Let's see. After we
October 15, 2007 - 11:55 ET by danboLet's see. After we started using satelites 59% of hurricance came ashore. Before we started using satelites 75% made landfall.
Since we started using satelites there has never been a season with mone than 80% making landfall. Yet before we started using satelites there are 15 years where every hurricane made landfall.
The satelites must be keeping the hurricanes at sea. We should have started using them sooner.
Brilliant.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
What on earth are you
October 15, 2007 - 13:07 ET by cleverpigWhat on earth are you talking about?
Other than the fact you
October 15, 2007 - 13:20 ET by danboOther than the fact you don't know what you're talking about when you try to split hairs over hurricanes making land fall and total hurricanes.
Other than that. Nothing.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Absolutely, Danbo, put up more satellites....
October 15, 2007 - 13:27 ET by RJ....problem solved.
Obviously, you've tapped into Warmist "logic".... ;^)
Look here...
October 15, 2007 - 15:15 ET by cleverpighttp://www.riskinc.com/Publications/60HUActivityRates_whitepaper.pdf
You don't have to read the article if you don't want to, although it is very interesting. There is a figure a few pages in which shows total hurricanes and hurricanes making landfall since 1950. While total hurricanes shows half of a clear cyclic trend, with peaks in the fifties and now, I defy you to find a trend in the landfall data.
Satellites or no, there is simply much higher variability in whether or not hurricanes hit land, so a couple years of lows aren't going to particularly significant.
"The sky is falling---the
October 15, 2007 - 15:22 ET by Clear thinker"The sky is falling---the sky is falling---it's the end of the world."
Now that that's out of the way, can we please go back to normal daily life?
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Let's see a risk management
October 15, 2007 - 15:28 ET by danboLet's see a risk management report or Chris Landsea....
A risk management report. or a hurricane historian who's been studying hurricanes for decades....
A risk management report or IPCC's chosen hurricane expert until he got fed up with IPCC's politics and resigned.
Chris says youre only looking at part of the story...
"There is an attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
The report essentially
October 15, 2007 - 16:34 ET by cleverpigThe report essentially AGREES with Landsea's contention that hurricanes follow cyclic activity! I think you've made the mistake of assuming, because I'm me, that I must be trying to make some point about this all being due to global warming. I'm not! I'm saying that whether or not you think the current hurricane activity is due to climate change or natural cycles, you have to be careful about drawing any conclusions based on whether or not a hurricane hits land in any given season. It's the same as taking 5 hot days in the summer and saying "See?! The globe must be warming!"
Sorry. Wrong again. This
October 15, 2007 - 16:43 ET by danboSorry. Wrong again. This isn't about cycles. It's about the fact you haven't a clue about the data source you're looking at.
Cycles are a totally different issue.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Okay fine. Explain to me
October 15, 2007 - 16:57 ET by cleverpigOkay fine. Explain to me why there isn't more variability in landfall than in hurricane formation. Or point me to somewhere that Landsea, or anyone for that matter, explains it.
Reread my original post. I
October 15, 2007 - 17:31 ET by danboReread my original post. I got those numbers from Landsea. I've already posted the source. You jumped on someone splitting hairs over landfall storms verses total storms. Landsea addresses that. We have an incomplete data set. Yet some people want to make major statements from a seriously lacking data set. And IMHO it's very dishonest. Likewise to pretend the dataset is complete is dishonest. That's part of why the scientist in me dislikes warmers.
We've got a lot of data but only a portion of it with satellite support. And to compare that portion with missing data to that portion with satellite data is dishonest.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
My point had nothing to do
October 15, 2007 - 20:08 ET by cleverpigMy point had nothing to do with historical data sets, satellites, or conclusions based on historical record. I was objecting to this post:
The beauty of this season is, if we don't have a major hurricane hit the U.S., it will drive down the average from 2004 and 2005 to more normal levels. Statistics are a terrible thing, to people like Gore and his ilk.
which strongly implies that if a hurricane doesn't hit the US this year it will be a blow to the camp that thinks AGW is responsible for recent high hurricane activity.
My point was that you cannot draw conclusions from a single year, or even a couple, in a data set with such high variability. This is something that the scientist in you should also dislike! Perhaps you came in with information about historical record because you misunderstood my point, but what we can conclude from the 50-100 year time series of hurricane activity and damage is an entirely different discussion. I am simply making the point that one season without a major hurricane is not necessarily going to be a "terrible thing" for anybody.
Incidentally, the people who originally predicted higher than average hurricane activity this year were Dr. Gray and his student. They did it here: http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2006/dec2006/
The fact that the current season ended up mild doesn't make his theory wrong, and it doesn't make his opponents' theories wrong.
No S**T Sherlock
October 15, 2007 - 20:15 ET by BlondeOne season without a major hurricane is a very nice thing for those of us who live through it. Yearly. Well, now two years in a row, actually.
The lies that are going on within the media...and the "scientific community" are just that....a bunch of liberal canards to try to scare people.
Don't even go there with me, cleverpig....I am a native Floridian and have lived through this for a very long time. But thanks to Al Bore & his fine lying friends...I'm paying $5 grand a year for windstorm insurance which I DON'T EVEN NEED!
Statistically...it's a bunch of hype. So, my liberal friend, I suggest we just tax you to pay for it for me. How do you like THAT?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I'm all for a tax to help
October 15, 2007 - 20:40 ET by cleverpigI'm all for a tax to help you out if a hurricane hits :)
Fine, dumb-ass swine. Then you pay it.
October 15, 2007 - 20:42 ET by Dave RSend your check today.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
notsocleverpig offers the classic socialist response
October 15, 2007 - 20:46 ET by RJto all problems....
I'm dying here.
October 15, 2007 - 20:55 ET by BlondeWas that for real?
LOL!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Whats the matter, stupid oinker? No balls?
October 15, 2007 - 21:05 ET by Dave RAfter all, you obviously think it is perfectly okay for the government to use its police power to sieze someone's property for the use of others.
What's the matter? Don't you have the courage to defend your clearly Marxist position?
Pig?
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Whoa!
October 15, 2007 - 21:25 ET by cleverpigCalm down. I don't actually sit and stare at Newsbusters hitting the refresh button all day!
The whole point of taxes is that no one person has to pay the entire cost of something. You spread the cost for things that benefit everyone among the entire population. So yes, I would be fine with a tax to support disaster relief. In fact, I'm pretty sure I already pay taxes for help that people receive after natural disasters. I think that's fair. Me paying all of it by sending you a check right now? Not quite as fair :)
And no, actually, I don't have any balls.
WHAT? "The point of taxes is is that no one person has to pay
October 15, 2007 - 21:31 ET by RJthe entire cost of something." WHAT?
No notsocleversocialistpig, the point of taxes is for government to function, not for your socialist utopia of a nanny-state that collects and then assigns citizen's money to whatever risk they deem appropriate.
RJ
October 15, 2007 - 21:47 ET by BlondeSend the paramedics.
I have died from apoplexy here....SOD!
Can you figure out a way for me to send my entire tax burden the cleverist of little piglets? Please?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Tsk. And all this time I
October 15, 2007 - 21:37 ET by Trix RabbitTsk. And all this time I thought the whole point of taxes was so the government can take funds - without my permission - out of my paycheck and then put some of the funds in a sink hole called Social Security and the rest of it in the pockets of those who neither earned it nor deserved it.
Liberal: a power worshipper without power. George Orwell
Porky, Suppose you are hosting a BBQ, and....
October 15, 2007 - 21:39 ET by Dave R...you and the wife have two guests invited over. You have four twelve ounce rib chops (fat bastards, at that) that are close to perfection on the grill. You are standing there, brush in hand, about to sauce those puppies....
Suddenly, your neighbor decides that he needs two of those rib chops more than you do, and attempts to take them from you. When you resist, he calls the cops to come take them away.
What will you do? Give them up?
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
So Dave,
October 15, 2007 - 22:14 ET by BlondeWhat is the answer? Sick the 120 lb mastiff on the userpers? Or beat them with a spatula? Or cap 'em with the 45?
Either way...works for me....but Ms CleverPig is happy to pay taxes for me....how nice!
Regardless...I am terminally hungry...I've not been eating much...work sucks...you're killing me here, Dave.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
B, the .45 works for me. LOL. Sure beats the hell out of a 9mm.
October 15, 2007 - 22:19 ET by Dave RNo strays that way. LOL.
:-)
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
As a stupid drunken
October 16, 2007 - 00:04 ET by cleverpigAs a stupid drunken crackhead, my standard response to such situations is to climb on the roof with my ribs, tell the neighbor to eat my guests, then yell obscentieis at the cops until they knock me off with a firehose.
Clever, funny, that was. Now, answer the question at hand:
October 16, 2007 - 00:17 ET by Dave RWhy is it okay for government to take money away from me by FORCE, against my will, and give it to someone else?
Hell, even my 13 month-old Schnoodle Oliver can answer that question.
Why can't you?
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
I answered your question
October 16, 2007 - 00:23 ET by cleverpigI answered your question further down the page
Cleverpig,
October 16, 2007 - 00:32 ET by Dave RI am far from being "rich" yet, about .50% (as in 1/2) of what I make is being taken away from me (by force) and given to someone else.
By what neuroligical misfire is that considered fair?
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Um, you shouldn't have 50%
October 16, 2007 - 00:56 ET by cleverpigUm, you shouldn't have 50% of your gross pay removed for taxes. Our highest tax bracket is 35%, and that's if you make over 170k a year. Maybe you should go see an accountant!
Clever, ever heard of sales taxes? On every thing I buy?
October 16, 2007 - 01:20 ET by Dave RNot to mention the ad-velorem tax on my cars, federal income taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, user fees, taxes I pay on my electric, gas and phone bills (both cellular, hard line & internet, too), not to mention the taxes I pay at the gas pump (confiscatory, those are). I'm swimming in taxes. Up to my eyeballs, even.
Over half of my income is toast (and so is yours). Trust me.
Which is why my tolerance for new taxes of any kind is zilch. Period.
Screw 'em.
The have-nots, will-nots and never-will do anything for themselves need to get off their lazy fat-asses and get jobs. And damn soon. And let's face it, there are a lot of those people out there who were in that situation LONG before GWB was president (and who will be there long, long after he is gone).
No joke. Else I'm headed for the Cayman's.
Like to see 'em get hold of my wallet there. LOL.
And if Blonde's house should blow down in a hurricane, I'll go down and help re-build it. And I'll be bringing plenty of beer, plus my Webers.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
I'm going to let you have
October 16, 2007 - 01:53 ET by cleverpigI'm going to let you have the last word here, since this is WAY off topic and impossible to read!
I am honestly sorry that you find our system so frustrating. I hope you never have to see the value in it.
You're also paying
October 16, 2007 - 09:29 ET by danboYou're also paying corporate and business taxes on every product or service you buy. Corporations and bussinesses don't really pay taxes. They pass them on to the consumer.
To avoid a back lash from the voters. Government makes businesses the tax collector and then screams about corporate greed.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
And no, actually, I don't have any balls.
October 15, 2007 - 21:59 ET by Dave RDamn, I knew it!
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Shocking
October 15, 2007 - 22:04 ET by UnsaneWhat a shock. A guilt-ridden Leftist wanting to steal from others on the first opportunity.
I live in a city that essentially came to life partly because Galveston went underwater for a day or two in 1900 after going through a hurricane that made Katrina look like an average thunderstorm. You know what I have in case a hurricane hits? Something called insurance that no one but me pays for. Give it a try sometime.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Blonde, No S**T Sherlock???? LOL-I Love it.
October 15, 2007 - 22:09 ET by Dave RWhen I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
hey there cleverpig
October 15, 2007 - 20:17 ET bythe problem is that the data for 100 years does not exist. Before the satellite era many hurricanes that did not make landfall were missed and thus not included.
This has nothing to do with anything but are you on the list? (here is a truly cleverpig)
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
I know. And no, I'm not
October 15, 2007 - 20:40 ET by cleverpigI know.
And no, I'm not quite famous enough yet :)
Oh, you're famous alright, you idiot porcine. Famous for being.
October 15, 2007 - 21:15 ET by Dave R...a flaming idiot.
So, praytell, why is it okay for the government to steal the property that I earned and give it to someone else?
Cat got your tongue? Did you run out of crack and have to go buy some more? Did your keg run dry?
Well? We're waiting......
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Okay
October 15, 2007 - 21:30 ET by cleverpigYou are obviously very angry at me right now, so maybe we should stop this conversation. If a break of thirty minutes between posts is going to send you into name calling then I'm afraid I can't do this. I have other stuff to do on this computer tonight. If you want to calm down and both answer each other when we have the chance, let me know.
Wow
October 15, 2007 - 21:57 ET by BlondeThat's deep.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Guilt
October 15, 2007 - 22:27 ET by UnsaneI think the name "guiltpig" is far more appropriate for you, as you constantly wallow in guilt as pigs wallow in mud. Hell, guilt animates you.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Okay, cleverpig, I shall refrain from name-calling.....
October 15, 2007 - 22:56 ET by Dave RHowever, I would still like to know why it is acceptable to you that the government takes (by force, literally at the point of a gun) part of the money I earn for myself and my family, and then gives it to someone else.
Where I come from, we call that criminal theft. And most people around here who engage in such criminal behaviour don't live very long. I mean, this is East Cobb Co. Georgia.
BTW-We don't even know what "dial 9-1-1" even means. Well, not until it's over, anyway.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
That's the cost of living
October 16, 2007 - 00:16 ET by cleverpigThat's the cost of living in this society. The things you enjoy have costs, you pay for them through your taxes, the government makes you pay. I'm real sorry you don't like it. In an ideal world, the world liberals envision, we'd all be happy to pay a reasonable amount for government services, including military protection, social services, and administration of common law.
Honestly it sounds to me like you aren't very fond of being a citizen of the United States. That's fine by me, there are plenty of places in the world where the government is happy to let people work out their differences themselves, with their guns, and is more than happy to provide no services whatsoever to their citizens. That's just not the system we've chosen in the US. Sorry.
guiltpig
October 16, 2007 - 01:30 ET by UnsaneThat's the cost of living in this society. The things you enjoy have costs, you pay for them through your taxes, the government makes you pay. Really? I pay for EVERYTHING through taxes? You mean that when I bought my truck (for example), I didn't pay the Chrysler Corporation AT ALL?
I'm real sorry you don't like it. In an ideal world, the world liberals envision, we'd all be happy to pay a reasonable amount for government services, including military protection, social services, and administration of common law. Except that Leftists HATE paying a dime for the military. I don't know what business the government has paying for "social services", or, as I would call it, to borrow a line from Milton Friedman, "paying the poor to BE poor". Really. Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that I am to pay for "social services"? "Administration of common law"? What the hell does that mean? And in a Leftists' ideal world, the government can just help itself to as much money as it wants, ESPECIALLY from those who actually produce in society...in which case, Leftists punish and steal from them early and often, because they DARE be successful.
Honestly it sounds to me like you aren't very fond of being a citizen of the United States. Actually, I would argue it's the reverse...that you HATE the fact that the United States isn't a coddling, pampering, babying Nanny State in the finest traditions of the rotting EU. That's fine by me, there are plenty of places in the world where the government is happy to let people work out their differences themselves, with their guns, and is more than happy to provide no services whatsoever to their citizens. So, according to guiltpig, if we aren't a coddling Nanny State that does not COMPLETELY PAMPER and BABY our citizens with "services", we are an anarchic society. Well, at least that's the logic being presented here. Say, guiltpig, if this country is so horrible, why not head to Europe? They could sure use your tax money. That's just not the system we've chosen in the US. Sorry. Hate to break your bleeding heart, guiltpig, but no, the U.S. government is NOT a charity, as much as you badly want it to be so.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
This is way off topic. I'm
October 16, 2007 - 11:01 ET by cleverpigThis is way off topic. I'm happy to keep talking about it elsewhere, and I'm sure it will come up yet again the next time I make comment somewhere!
Whine
October 18, 2007 - 04:29 ET by Unsane"This is way off topic" squeals the one who took things very off topic to begin with!
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
cleverpig, I'm not angry, I just want to know why it is okay for
October 15, 2007 - 23:12 ET by Dave Rpeople with guns to take money away from me, and give it to someone else.
Damned easy question, I think.
After all, that is the whole basis of liberlalism, is it not? I mean, using the government to FORCE others into doing what they would not otherwise do, eh?"
Does that sound like a "free" country to you? It sure doesn't to me.
After all, as a libertarian, I define government as "force."
How do you define government, cleverpig?
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Charity
October 15, 2007 - 23:31 ET by UnsaneBased on her posts, I would say that guiltpig would define government as a very big charity.
I like to define government as a "necessary evil" myself...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane,
October 16, 2007 - 20:46 ET by Dave RLOL-I assume I shall be awaiting an answer from cleverpig until long after hell freezes over.
Just as I suspected.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
I answered your question
October 17, 2007 - 21:39 ET by cleverpigI answered your question elsewhere in this thread. I think the first time you asked it... maybe the third. I forget ;)
Forgive the intrusion---
October 16, 2007 - 01:19 ET by misterbillA brief interjection---
"So, praytell, why is it okay for the government to steal the property that I earned and give it to someone else?"
Answer --Since the Kelo decision by the SCOTUS said so!(or is id scrotum?). Don't you just love them????
PS-- Was at the game--first time in my life I almost fell asleep sitting at an NFL game.
Petrino sucks--Harrington scuks, why I even think Blank sucks!!!
misterbill, I agree. Come back, Michael. All is forgiven. :-)
October 16, 2007 - 20:44 ET by Dave RWhen I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Gee. A century worth of
October 15, 2007 - 15:35 ET by danboGee. A century worth of data is only a couple years trend... Who did you learn math from. Michael Mann...
I'm still contemplating on the broken hockey stick man vrs two men with decades studying hurricanes. that is a tough one.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
What do you mean by "a
October 15, 2007 - 16:36 ET by cleverpigWhat do you mean by "a century of data is a couple years trend?" Are you talking about something in the white paper?
We have over a hundred
October 15, 2007 - 17:37 ET by danboWe have over a hundred years of data not just one or 2. But there are different levels of data and to not acknowledge the difference and take into account the variations in data is less than honest.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I think you misunderstood my
October 15, 2007 - 20:10 ET by cleverpigI think you misunderstood my original point. Using only one or two years of data and saying that would be a "terrible thing" for Gore is exactly what I was onjecting to!
Also trying to nitpick
October 15, 2007 - 21:15 ET by danboAlso trying to nitpick using only total storms verses land fall when a great deal of information is lost. We have a lot of data going back 100 years. But to pretend there were no missed storms while pointing to storms identified only via satellite and fly through data or reviews after the season. And claiming there are more storms and more cat 4/5's when you have data availble that was not available 30 years ago. And pretending this is all a result of AGW is less than honest.
The landfall data though not perfect is probably far more honest than using total storms.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
So basically, you were
October 16, 2007 - 00:28 ET by cleverpigSo basically, you were arguing against a position you think I represent, not what I was actually saying. It's going to be very difficult to have any useful discussions that way!
" Careful... the number of
October 16, 2007 - 09:10 ET by danbo" Careful... the number of hurricanes hitting landfall is based on very different factors than the number of hurricanes that form. Landfall records vary wildly with no clear trend, because you can have things like random high pressure fronts that keep them at sea. Number and intensity of hurricanes overall, however, shows clear trends and is currently slightly higher than the cyclic theory predicts".
You're wording. Not mine.
My post have been to point to your lack of understanding of the database. Yet you tell us there is a "clear trend". Which is funny being you don't know what the data is. You only know part of the data.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Landsea and Gray, from
October 16, 2007 - 11:06 ET by cleverpigLandsea and Gray, from everything I've read, both say there is a clear trend, a cyclic one. That is what I was talking about. I wasn't actually disagreeing with the guy who's studied hurricanes for ten years. You just assumed that I was trying to argue AGW. I wasn't. The fact that the current peak is slightly higher than the last one is where there is debate between the two camps, not over the historical record.
"You just assumed that I
October 16, 2007 - 15:55 ET by danbo"You just assumed that I was trying to argue AGW. I wasn't. "
Again your wording...
"Number and intensity of hurricanes overall, however, shows clear trends and is currently slightly higher than the cyclic theory predicts".
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
You are unable to recognize
October 15, 2007 - 13:54 ET by NL207You are unable to recognize sarcasm and humor associated with this topic?
I recognize that the point
October 15, 2007 - 15:15 ET by cleverpigI recognize that the point was made sarcastically. It was unfortunately still inane.
I thought it was funny and
October 15, 2007 - 15:57 ET by danboI thought it was funny and right on myself. What did you think NL?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I laughed, too, Danbo. notsocleverpig is just ducking
October 15, 2007 - 16:58 ET by RJObviously, she didn't get it the first time, and now she's trying to pretend she knew all along. lol!
Went totally over the
October 15, 2007 - 17:39 ET by danboWent totally over the head.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Learn Your Children Good.
October 14, 2007 - 12:51 ET by CrashAs much as I agree with Dr. Gray - though Gore's film is pure political propaganda - The Department of Education is entirely at fault for showing Al's anti-hero fatalistic snuff film and marching forward with its commitment to underachievers.
HOW ABOUT TEACHING THEM TO READ FIRST!
British High Court judge
October 14, 2007 - 12:53 ET by WisdomNoel, you just reported on the ruling by the British High Court judge Michael Burton on Gore's falsehoods in the film and now you're going to make a big deal out of this? Regardless of what Dr. Gray believes, it should be noted what Mr. Burton said when making his ruling that "An Inconvenient Truth" had nine innaccuracies. These "nine inaccuracies" were big news and widely accepted. Not even that many liberals refuted the findings of the judge that these nine claims by Gore are unproven.
Mr. Burton said even though the film was in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration" that it was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change. He also said that "Climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ('greenhouse gases')."
The judge also agreed that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
So while we're able to realize that Mr. Gore's film is exagerrated, we shouldn't let that distract us from the bigger picture that climate change does exist and we have the power to help reduce it. If we let Gore's alarmist attitude distract us then we're only going to be taking steps backward in preserving Mother Earth's resources.
Wisdom- If we let Gore's
October 14, 2007 - 13:21 ET by MidAmericaWisdom- If we let Gore's alarmist attitude distract us then we're only going to be taking steps backward in preserving Mother Earth's resources.
Well if this planet is our 'Mother Earth' then we are part of a disfunctional family. She is all the time hitting us with floods, earthquakes, bitter cold, scorching heat, killing our crops, dropping rocks on us, destructive winds and oozing hot magma. Instead of being honored guests we are treated like fleas on a dog just trying to avoid being scratched off.
Noel. No one is allowed to
October 14, 2007 - 14:05 ET by danboNoel. No one is allowed to disagree with the high priest of AGG? The grand inquisitor has decreed that heresy will not be tolerated
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
"So while we're able to
October 14, 2007 - 14:36 ET by ckc1227"So while we're able to realize that Mr. Gore's film is exagerrated, we
shouldn't let that distract us from the bigger picture that climate
change does exist and we have the power to help reduce it."
That's the problem with Gore's alarmism. It leads clueless people into believing we can control the climate. It also leads clueless people to conclude that warming that has happened thousands of times throughout the history of the planet to the benefit of its inhabitants is for some reason going to be catastrophic to the most advanced society ever seen 100 years from now, which will ultimately lead to the wasting of limited resources by combatting 1.something we can't stop if it is occuring, and 2. something that would be beneficial to the planet, if it is occuring.
Gore's fear mongering causes folks to view this issue through an emotional lense instead of a practical one. All because of a 1 degree temperature increase over the last 100 years, most of which occured 70 years ago, when CO2 levels were much lower than they are today.
Talk about a suspension of disbelief....
Wisdom...
October 15, 2007 - 11:26 ET by cleverpigThanks for sharing yours!
In an earlier post someone was quoted as objecting to An Inconvenient Truth because it used "visual imagery and gimmickry" to make it's point. It's a MOVIE! God forbid we should allow "visual imagery" in our movies, what will become of the world?!
The fact is that most of the judge's objections were places where the theory Gore was describing is sound, but the evocative images used to make the film more interesting than a science textbook went too far. Everyone agrees that high sea surface temperatures should lead to higher energy hurricanes. That was the point being made in the film while images of Katrina were shown on the screen. Can we say that Katrina happened because of global warming? Absolutely not. So the judge wanted it noted that that should not be a conclusion drawn from the film.
The concerns are valid. But given the number of facts and theories covered in AIT, I'm not at all surprised that the judge found the film "broadly accurate" despite the nine errors. You guys can stick your head in the sand and ignore that fact that the film is mostly right, but I don't think you are doing yourselves any favors.
-
October 15, 2007 - 12:19 ET by dahliatraversIt's not mostly right. It not only got the nine "details" wrong, it got the main premise - that man is causing global warming - wrong.
Not according to your
October 15, 2007 - 13:08 ET by cleverpigNot according to your champion judge in England it didn't!
"champion judge?" That sounds sarcastic & bitter, notsocleverpig
October 15, 2007 - 13:56 ET by RJ..but since you brought him up, he DID challenge the overall accuracy of the film.
First he called it a political film, then he said that it is based "substantially" on scientific research and opinion.
"Political?" "Substantially?" "Opinion?" Sounds like he's saying trust the film at your peril. Sounds like he's calling it propaganda. And Warmists want to use it as a basis for indoctrinating our children and risking our economy?
It is propaganda, which also
October 15, 2007 - 15:22 ET by cleverpigIt is propaganda, which also happens to be "broadly accurate." Scientific research and opinion is exactly what I look for when making decisions-- in a predictive science like climatology, even hard results are basically "opinions" about what scientists think will happen. They are never 100% sure.
that's amazing, notsocleverpig
October 15, 2007 - 16:51 ET by RJSo "close enough" and "a political film" are good enough for you, and everything is "opinions" anyway.
Step right up, ladiez and gents: pick your favorite ideology-driven opinion.....you can't lose....if you're wrong, the world will have the socialism you wanted in the first place...step right up....
I doubt you would feel so blase about the low standards, Miss Piggy, if the same criteria were applied to an ideology you disagree with....
It is a predictive
October 15, 2007 - 17:03 ET by cleverpigIt is a predictive science! Dr. Gray is of the "opinion" that hurricane activity will remain high for another couple of years, then drop, because he thinks the current activity level is a peak in a cycle. That isn't having "low standards," it is just a disagreement on which factors are more important in determining trends. We can do research on past trends, and we can use that to try and predict what we think will happen in the future. Isn't that "scientific research and opinions?"
Wrong again, notsocleverpig
October 15, 2007 - 17:41 ET by RJFirst, let's not forget that we're talking about a political film that is being used for indoctrination purposes. As the judge (and many others, by the way!) said, Algore has misrepresented information for propaganda purposes. Obviously, his standards ARE low....as are those of anyone who accepts the message of his film.
As for "predictive" science, the record isn't at all impressive. Certainly it doesn't have the credibility to take over large pieces of the economies of the western world.
What???
October 15, 2007 - 22:12 ET by UnsaneA "predictive science", huh? Sure it is. As long as you factor out those pesky variables like volcanic eruptions (or a series of them), for starters...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Climatology is a predictive
October 15, 2007 - 21:26 ET by danboClimatology is a predictive science?
What will be the temperture this christmas in Little Rock? Where I'll be. (I don't want to get caught in another ice storm.)
Tougher questions. Which predictive model is able to look backwards and predict the year with out summer? The climate disaster of 535AD?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
-
October 15, 2007 - 23:01 ET by dahliatraversMUST you keep reminding us that AGW computer models do not even "predict" existing conditions??
The movie got the Oscar, the star got the Nobel and the scientist triumphed over George Bush's repression (in between the forty other interviews he gave that month). It's settled. Stop bringing up that pesky science stuff.
I'm sorry. I know I'm
October 16, 2007 - 09:15 ET by danboI'm sorry. I know I'm pesky. I'm one of those unscientific people who believe data is important. And we use the data to try to figure out what's happening. Rather than have a theory, and then go looking for things that prove the theory.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Gore's harmful legacy
October 14, 2007 - 14:45 ET by krismcsherryIf I were a true believer in the crisis of AGW and tipping points, etc., then Bjorn Lomborg's plans to deal with the alleged impending problems would be the way to go--practical implementations to prepare, not ridiculous schemes for carbon trading and the like and forcing underdeveloped countries to remain in the dark ages.
But we don't have practicality, we have Al Gore who does distract many people into buying into his hysteria despite scientific evidence that does not support his claims. We have governments spending millions of taxpayer money and wasting taxpayer-bought time on banning lightbulbs and penalizing people for not recyling (while they raise the rates, all to save "Mother Earth").
Many people do not realize they've bought into the AGW-as-crisis hype without ever thinking it through. Ordinary people who are scared they or their kids won't be able to breathe when they wake up tomorrow morning because disaster is imminent. One gal said to me the earth would be "destroyed" in a few years if we didn't stop global warming. When I questioned her on her knowledge, she knew none of the counterarguments. She'd been completely fed by the MSM. We can attribute this woman's one-sided mindset to her laziness, I suppose, but what about people like Bill O'Reilly who said Friday that he isn't bothered at all by Al Gore's trying to clean up "pollution". The greater issues completely escape him.
It comes down to this: Where and when will it all end? When will energy costs stop rising because rabid environmentalists must have their way? When do we say enough of penalizing our way of life (a life we were born into) while Al Gore gets fatter and wealthier?
The entire belief system of AGW's advocates at this point is short-sighted and reckless. They fail to recognize the negative effects that bad regulations have on the poor, on our economy. They fail to see the long-term consequences. It's awful to think but it must be true: Their greed, fed by the climate change scare juggernaut, is already doing more harm than good. Isn't that nice? The rich get richer.
Go-go Al! You are the symbol for the entire con.
I'm all for preserving this beautiful planet. It takes my breath away to see footage of it from space but I also know that the nutty, extremist human activities intended to "save it" are a waste of time. The earth is strong; it will survive no matter how many SUV's we junk and long after Gore is beneath its crust.
kris
October 14, 2007 - 14:48 ET by BlondeThat sums it up nicely.
As an angler, and a sportswoman, I love the outdoors, and advocate the wise use of our natural resources. But these warmers just want to deny fair use of everything good to all of us.
Well, let me rephrase...they want to deny the use to all of us who are not THEM. It's disgusting.
Fly on Al, in your big jet while you purchase Carbon Credits from yourself.
What kind of an idiot pays an extra "carbon tax" voluntarily when purchasing an airline ticket? Oh...right...the drinkers of the kool-aid.
That's it. I'm done now.
Can we write a law against stupidity? Please?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde
October 14, 2007 - 14:52 ET by krismcsherryCan we write a law against stupidity? Please?
No more laws! ;) Although a guideline for avoiding stupidity would not be a bad thing for politicians.
Sorry, kris
October 14, 2007 - 14:54 ET by BlondeI want stupid people outlawed. Out with the libs. Post haste.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
See, this is the smarter
October 14, 2007 - 15:02 ET by wiwfSee, this is the smarter side of CSU :)
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
But..
October 14, 2007 - 17:07 ET by dervishwhere would you put them all? To steal from Lincoln, "The Lord must really love stupid people, He made so many of them."
Al "The Prophet"
October 14, 2007 - 15:39 ET by DanoOur Prophet and Savior, Al Gore, is the poster child of the "Democratic Socialism" of today.
His creed is "Do as I say, not as I do"
....If I hear we have a
October 14, 2007 - 15:51 ET by bigtimer....If I hear we have a 'planetary emergency' one more time!
-
October 14, 2007 - 15:54 ET by dahliatravers"The planet has a fever."
http://newsbusters.org/node/11599
LOL... Thanks Del....I
October 14, 2007 - 16:01 ET by bigtimerLOL...
Thanks Del....I needed that.
It's starting to look more
October 14, 2007 - 16:05 ET by danboIt's starting to look more like a chill than a fever.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
danbo ....feel that way
October 14, 2007 - 16:11 ET by bigtimerdanbo
....feel that way too....
Does anyone know if Algore
October 14, 2007 - 16:14 ET by ricklailDoes anyone know if Algore has put up a clothesline in the yard of his Nashville mansion? Has he finished installing the solar panels yet? Did anyone notice that he is giving the prize money to the Alliance for Climate Change? It pays out 55% of the money it taeks in for salaries. Guess who is the head of the charity.
Southern by birth, Tarheel by the grace of God!
Hi rick... Since I am
October 14, 2007 - 16:25 ET by bigtimerHi rick...
Since I am lazy today and didn't google the info you gave...
I will guess....hmmmm.... Algore?
Maybe a good mantra for
October 14, 2007 - 17:40 ET by BlazerMaybe a good mantra for this decade to print on a t-shirt would be....
'Al Gore is past being a whore'.
Sailing the Greenpeace ship up his butt, would be like throwing a hot dog up a hallway.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
About 30 year "average temperature"
October 14, 2007 - 20:31 ET by metroxJust wanted to point this out.
Did you know that NOAA is using the period 1971-2000 for their "30 year" temperature averages:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/images/20071009-temperature.png
What's up with that? Why not 1977-2006? Well, could it be that the early 70s saw cooler temps than the late 70s? This alone tends to skew their forecast for the upcoming winter, does it not?
Hmm
meteox, just today one of our local meterologists
October 14, 2007 - 21:37 ET by RJsaid they use the last 30 years to determine their "average local temperatures." He didn't say exactly which 30 years, but my immediate thought was why only 30 years? That's a drop in the bucket. Even 50 or 100 years is miniscule, but it would give a more accurate idea of the true "average."
Yet, these people consider themselves to be "scientific."
Science, we don't need no stinking science...
October 14, 2007 - 22:20 ET by metroxIt is ridiculous and becomes more so when you consider "record" highs, lows, "record low highs" and "record high lows". For these records they go back to what has been recorded since "the beginning of time" or at least they make you think so.
In actuality they do go back through records for all data accured for that particular recording station (could go back 40 years, up to 160 years or so).
So, why not having a running average of that? I suppose it has something to do with statistics and 30 years is a 'fair' sampling period.
Just the same, 1971-2000, that's just wrong, it should be the most immediate trailing 30 year period.
-
October 14, 2007 - 23:01 ET by dahliatraversExactly. This sounds too much like they are cherry picking data.
AL GORE IS RIGHT!
October 14, 2007 - 20:52 ET by tbbaxterBut Al just has to be right, he just has to be. After all, he won the Nobel-frickin' Peace Prize. And they don't just give those things out for losing elections, you know. Or for just being a loser for that matter. Besides, plenty of other deserving people have won the Nobel Peace Prize, like Yassar Arafat and, and, and Jimmy Carter for pete's sake! And who is this Dr. Gray anyway. OK, so he is one of the world's most noted and accurate hurricane specialists and climatologists, and he knows more about global warming than, say, Al Gore. But what has he done lately? If Dr. Gray was as knowledgable as Al Gore, he would have a Nobel Peace Prize AND an Oscar AND an Emmy.
Look, Dr. Gray is obviously
October 15, 2007 - 11:16 ET by cleverpigLook, Dr. Gray is obviously knowledgable. His theory is one of two competing theories, the other being AGW, to explain the current peak of hurricane activity.
However, the reason he is famous is because he is also guilty of the very things you accuse Gore of-- overstating the case, ridiculing those who disagree with him, dismissing alternate views.
The folks who think the current trend can't be fully explained by the AMO (that's the cycle everyone is talking about) absolutely do understand how the atmosphere works. Try reading through this paper if you think the AGW guys are just dumb or simplistic... ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/EOS_mann_emanuel_2006.pdf
If Dr. Gray no longer has to worry about grants, that's great. Good for him. Tenure rocks. But the fact is that through most of his career he probably relied on the same grants as the people he is now disparaging need to do research. I'm sure he would tell you that the source of his money never affected his results, but apparently that's the only reason he can now envision why so many of his colleagues disagree with him.
I've heard his name enough now to know that he, like Gore, is making some money travelling around and speaking out against global warming. I'm not saying that means he is making up his results in order to get junket money, but I'm sure he'd be quick to accuse anyone else doing the same thing for AGW of exactly that kind of deception.
cleverpig - on Dr. Gray. Chart has 2 sides.
October 15, 2007 - 12:54 ET by Gary Hallcleverpig - on Dr. Gray, if I may. Willing to give your point, for the sake of argument, a bit of credence. Let's allow that Dr. Gray is a shrill advocate for the rather widely held view that man's impact in the AGW debate is minimal, at best. Note, that Gray has a number of the world's scientific experts also in his camp. Gore and crew are shrill advocates for the camp that believes that man is responsible for most of the recent warming, and that the earth is doomed.
Look at the network news, the newspapers, the news magazines, the school curriculum - it is awash with a flood of information; news, special reports, documentaries, film, conferences, senate hearings, and almost daily TV and radio interviews with the Gore team.
The Gray team? They don't even get the time of day. At best, the media will ask the question of the Gore team, something like this: "So, what do you think about these naysayers - they get so much money from Exxon to sell their venom?"
Should not the media give these scientists a voice that the reader and viewer can be exposed to?
Here's the Gore message - happily carried for him by the media: "The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years."
That chart has two sides: "The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes was cut in 1/2 in the 30 years preceeding that."
The media, National Geographic, The Weather Station, etc., only show, discuss and talk about the right side of the chart. The left side shows that everything is rather normal. This holds true for the Arctic ice melting - and the Great Northwest passage fear. Did it happen before, rather recently. Yes. Will the media mention that to the public? No.
Is it different now (worse, better?), than before? Don't know. Let's have a discussion. Let's get these scientists up and discussing all of this - it's really very interesting material.
The "journalists" and reporters attend conferences where these experts present their scientific view (different than Gore's), and they pepper the presenters with questions time and time again looking for the answer that they want. One was the year end presentation on the 2005 hurricane season. No matter how many different ways in which the reporters tried to get these experts to blame Katrina and the intense 2005 season on man made global warming, the scientists kept trying to explain to the reporters why they did not believe so, and that there was no evidence to suggest it was so.
So what did these reporters tell the American public? Well, they skipped over the issues that they were asking questions about - did not report the answers to their burning questions. Why? Was not the answers they wanted - they have an agenda. Period.
The public has been stupefied by the MSM, which has no interest in educating this public. They shield Gore and the like from any serious questions or dialog on ongoing disagreements on the record or the science.
The discussion really is focused on media bias - which is what NB is all about.
For the record, it is rather agreed that warming can indeed lead to slightly stronger cyclones - and indeed the AMO cycles follow the cooling/warming cycles (in the Atlantic basin for sure). Just the same, I applied Dr. Chris Landsea's projections - that a degree of ocean warming could increase strength by some percentage - and Hurricane Katrina wind speeds of 135 mph increased to about 135
Bias, but not necessarily political
October 15, 2007 - 13:25 ET by cleverpigI agree with you, but this is not a problem unique to global warming. The dissemination of scientific information rarely happens the way scientists want it to, because you simply can't distill the complex arguments involved in any scientific issue into a form digestible to the general public without losing all of the subtlety and complexity involved. As a scientist, I can't tell you how frustrating it is to read headlines like "Scientists discover the gene for aggression," or to see terms like "Mitochondrial Eve." It isn't a political bias, just an inability to resolve what scientists do with how media presents things. The media is biased towards simplicity.
For a long time, I felt as though the media was erring on the side of being too even handed with discussions about global warming. In an effort to present both sides of the argument, they made it sound like the scientific community was split fifty-fifty on the issue of whether it was happening, and that's just not true. One quote from each was not an accurate representation of what was going on among scientists. Now AGW is generally accepted by the public, and I think we'll probably find that we've swung too far in the other direction, and that the media is ignoring alternate viewpoints.
But I guarantee you that scientists are not. They are having the discussions you want them to have, and they are figuring things out. They are listening to seasonal forecasters like Dr. Gray, including their variables into the models, and seeing what happens. The media isn't going to have any idea what to do with that until the dust has settled, but in the end I think the people publishing papers and presenting them to Congress are taking objections like these very seriously. We'll figure this out eventually, and in the meantime I personally think there's enough evidence to justify action. I know most people here disagree with me though!
Oh my goodness. An article
October 15, 2007 - 13:36 ET by danboOh my goodness. An article by Michael Mann. I'm in awe. The man with the censored file of all the attempts to produce a hockey stick that failed. Until he found a formula that would find one in noise. The man with the truncated data. The man with the broken hockey stick.
Who am I going to listen to. Chis Landsea and William Gray? Who've been studying hurricanes for decades. Or the man with the broken hockey stick? Who will I listen to?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Distraction from real threats...
October 14, 2007 - 21:02 ET by Parker1227...such as global Jihad and Hillary socialism is what Al Gore, exaggerator-in-chief, is all about.
Gore wants revenge for 2000, and knows that national security is the main Democrat weakness - so he creates a false threat, a red herring, with the help of the MSM to distract the voting public.
Does it ever end?
October 14, 2007 - 21:15 ET by BlondeAl Bore...and the endless recounts....never ends for me. I live in the home of the hanging & pregger chads....would you all please spare me this wickedness....sometime in my adult life? I'd appreciate it...forgiveness goes a long way.
And I didn't DO it!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
The Banana Republic of FL
October 14, 2007 - 23:39 ET by UnsaneDuring that time in 2000, I had a friend in FL who would sign his e-mails "from the Banana Republic of FL".
:-)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
What kills me is that the
October 15, 2007 - 09:26 ET by JimboWhat kills me is that the liberals truly believe Al Gore had his Presidency stolen from him in 2000 by the devil incarnate, George Bush. What REALLY kills me is that the liberals still think that the country would have been better off on 9/12/01 had Al been President. BDS is a powerful thing.
COME ON PEOPLE!!!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
That is, if we allow
October 15, 2007 - 10:34 ET by Senior ChiefThat is, if we allow ourselves and our children to be brainwashed. Not in my household. Certainly not Algore!
Global Warming Debate
October 15, 2007 - 11:58 ET byHere is a link telling us more about Professor Gray's position among climate scientists:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
Realclimate has no offical
October 15, 2007 - 12:08 ET by bassndudeRealclimate has no offical status, no professional scientists on staff, it is a commentary site. Read their disclaimer on the site. They have ties with the Guradian, UK, and other left wing sites. They have no official standing. Only opinions. referencing realclimate for climate information is like referencing mediamatters for news.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Source evaluation!!!
October 15, 2007 - 22:09 ET by UnsaneYou mean you evaluated a source??? Who would have thought to do that!
Obviously not the Leftist character you responded to...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Correction ....
October 16, 2007 - 16:04 ET by NL207Among some of the most radical AGW proponents.
Gavin Schmidt is one of the realclimate.org contributors. He is also one of those whose clocks were cleaned at this debate.
It should be no surprise that realclimate doesn't think much of Dr. Gray. They are hardly a balanced view. Try co2science instead. They are much more rational.
Gary Hall
October 15, 2007 - 17:46 ET by SeptemberWell said, well-rounded POV.
We might need to consider
October 15, 2007 - 19:41 ET by danboWe might need to consider this. ( But, I hope not.)
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Does MSNBC Live count? Looks like Gray got some
October 16, 2007 - 13:19 ET by BlindSightcoverage. But Gray`s just a meteorologist, who`s never published his own work on climate, right? And what climate scientists agree with him? He and the other skeptics certainly don`t agree with each other, and Pat Michaels has just thrown in the towel, saying it`s too late to do anything about it.
He`s smart for sure, but if he cares so much, why can`t he be bothered to publish? Tenure IS great, isn`t it?
He doesn`t like the IPCC, but what do Lindzen and Christy say about it?
Sorry, but none of these heroic skeptics is at all inspiring.
You refer to Gore as a "charlatan", but what was it again that the British judge had to say about his film - you know, the parts that you didn`t write about?
Just curious.
... But in the midst of doubt ... I do not doubt that the faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty."
- Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr.
I sincerely hope you are not serious ...
October 16, 2007 - 14:31 ET by NL207"Gray is just a meteorologist." He is a Phd meteorologist. When he was educated in the 1950's, there was no such disicipline as 'climatologist'.
Gray is unpublished? This is factually incorrect. Gray has a lengthy publication history. Exihibits 1 2 3. Dr. James Hansen, a leading AGW proponent is tenured as well. Does your snide attitude apply to him too? Or do you reserve bad manners only for academics you disagree with?
Lindzen and Christy disagree with the IPCC as well. Almost ALL reputable scientists disgree with at least some portion of what the IPCC 4th report says.
You seem to prefer the climatological pronouncements of Al Gore, a politician who is orchestrating a political scare campaign. The propaganda conatined in his movie is shocking in its excesses. I think you will be hard put to find even one reputable scientists who shares 100% of the vision Gore presents therein. I know of no reputable scientific body which endorses the climate future history presented by 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Not even the IPCC, a decidedly political body, supports Gore's claims. e.g. Gore' 7 meter sea level rise. No scientific body predicts such an even in the next century. The IPCC predicts aproximately a 0.4 metter rise, or about 15-18 inches. So why then, does Gore discuss the effects of a 23 foot rise in his movie? Maybe for the scare value?
Charlatan? I could accept that judgement of Gore if he were also not heavily invested in carbon credit trading schemes and other ventures designed to profit from the hysteria he himself is promoting. More like a confidence man, I'd say.
Just curious.
NL Don't warmers say the
October 16, 2007 - 16:01 ET by danboNL Don't warmers say the funniest things.... They can be a hoot.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Gray is an expert on hurricanes, not climate.
October 16, 2007 - 23:45 ET by BlindSight1. That was my point. He is certainly well-respected on hurricanes, but that's about it. Where are his publications on climate? He criticizes in public, but doesn't publish - and many holes have been pointed out in his "warming is natural" thesis:
Celebrated and shunned, CSU's Bill Gray is taking heat in the global-warming debate.
By Alan Prendergast
Published: June 29, 2006
http://www.westword....
Global-warming skeptics continue to punch away
By Joel Achenbach
The Washington Post
Monday, June 05, 2006, 12:00 AM
http://seattletimes....
The Tempest
By Joel Achenbach
Sunday, May 28, 2006;
http://www.washingto...
Global Warming: The Contrarian View
February 29, 2000
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS
http://query.nytimes...
26 April 2006
Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming
http://www.realclima...
2. Linzen doesn't like the SPM, but he says that "The full IPCC report, most of which is written by scientists about specific scientific topics in their areas of expertise, is an admirable description of research activities in climate science." http://meteo.lcd.lu/...
Christy has called the report "a good distillation," and said: "Nobody could ever imagine 2,500 scientists ever agreeing on everything".
Singer calls the full report "a very useful document."
http://www.kristv.co...
3. I recognize that Gore's film is a political piece and has its scientific flaws, but I agree with the British court that “it is substantially founded upon scientific research".
But I don't see that the science itself dictates what policies our societies adopt in the face of it. But like Lindzen, Christy, Michaels, Gray, Lomborg and others, I do think we ought to acknowledge that the climate is changing, start focussing on adpating to it and that a policy discussion is justified.
4. I also see that climate change is a political issue only because no one has any proerty rights relating to the atmosphere - so that markets simply don't take into account externalities relating to GHG emissions - which all scientists acknowledge push the climate in a warming direction. And we also know that the climate system has great inertia and GHGs last a long time. What does economics tell us about what happens to resources where there are no clear or enforceable property rights?
We clearly have reasons to be very concerned, and about a problem that won't remedy itself.
"I do not know what is true. ... But in the midst of doubt ... I do not doubt that the faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty."
- Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr.
Yes, Gray is a Hurricane
October 20, 2007 - 14:08 ET by NL207Yes, Gray is a Hurricane expert. He [refrenced here already] and Chris Landsea both reject the assertion made by Al Gore and many others, some scientists including the IPCC 4th report, which assert that Global Warming is causing increased Hurricane activity. Landsea himself resigned from the IPCC in a dispute over what the IPCC ahad to say about a connection between 'greenhouse gases' and hurricanes.
I'm glad to sea you quote Lindzen out of context in his admiration for the IPCC report. He clearly appreciates the scientific work behind it, but he just as clearly disagrees with its conclusions and its methods. By extension, since Gore's propaganda movie predicts far more serious changes than the IPCC's report, it is a distortion and exageration of it. We can conclude that Richard Lindzen also disagrees with what Al Gore is doing and saying.
Everybody in the debate acknowledges the climate is changing. Indeed, it has been changing for the last 500 million years. The critics of this hysteria merely observe that human induced changes are small, falling well within the limits of short term natural variations, are dwarfed by long term natural variations and even some of the short term ones, such as VEI level 7 and 8 events, and are not shown to be detrimental. In fact, the human effect on climate is so small that it has not even been possible to accurately measure the aggregate natural+human changes until the advent on modern satellite telemetry about 40 years ago. There is still a raging debate about how much is human and how much is natural, since the total change has been about 0.75 K over the last century. This does not comput with the IPCC report predictions of 3.09 K by 2100. Even YOU ought to see something wrong with this.
It is defective logic to classify climate change as a political topic unless the science can clearly show that human action can actually have any measurable effect on it and the effect will be in the net beneficial. So far, science has not been able to demonstrate that humans can have any significant effect on the planet's mean near surface temperature through any actions short of all out nuclear war nor has science demonstrated that the present small climatic variations observed and even those predicted are necessarily detrimental to the planet or life upon it.
The only point I can agree with you on is the issue of property rights versus the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere is not subject to private ownership, the state has a perogative to regulate human emissions which can be shown harmful. So far, nobody has shown that CO2 is harmful in the quanitities being released today.
We have more reason to be afraid of the Government than we have of human generated CO2 emission.
BS
October 16, 2007 - 16:20 ET by Noel SheppardBS,
I had a feeling you were getting information to post here from Media Matters. Or did you read about MSNBC Live's segment at Think Progress?
Frankly, BS, many of your posts lately reek of such liberal websites. In fact, with each passing day, you're starting to sound more and more like a Kossack, and less like what you posted in your profile:
Is this BS, too, BS? :-) ns
Thanks for showing your commitment to accuracy
October 17, 2007 - 00:17 ET by BlindSight"Frankly", doesn't your decision to vent your suspicions about my "sources" rather than acknowledging that what I write is correct show you care more about "winning" than being accurate?
Since you bring it up, in order to make sure I don't fall into a blind and purely partisan mindset (which there seem to be more than enough of these days), I get feeds from a number of positions, including right, left and libertarian - and if you actually trouble yourself to read me carefully, you'll see I fall to the libertarian right.
No, caring about the environment from a libertarian position is NOT "BS" or even leftist - if even conservatives can care about the environment, so why can't libertarians? Nor does being for small government require one to deny that problems exist, but my instinct is that the identification of an environmental issue does not in itself justify a government role to "fix" it.
We libertarians tend to think that most environmental problems stem from a lack of clear and enforceable property rights, so that the best solutions are to better clarify and enforce property rights - and to get the government out of the way, since the government is prone to mismanagement and to providing favors to the most pwoerful rent-seekers. So I am generally in favor of wholesale deregulation and greater reliance on property rights and enforcement of common law rules against trespass.
I also recognize that there are classes of problems that can't be resolved solely domestically and may require the use of government. Unfortunatley, various aspects of climate change fall into that category. Individuals and industry recognize the problem and are already to starting to adapt to changes in the physical and economic environment, but they simply are not in a position to cut global deals with anyone unless there is effective international infrastructure - which will only come about when the major nations involved, like cattlemen on a range, come together to establish common principles and rules.
Until then, it's tragedy of the commons, writ large.
If you don't want a solution, why don't you openly say so, tell people that it's every man for himself until fossil fuels run out and we might as well start getting ready for the ride - which has already started, and which we can't get off or slow down (as those who stand the most to gain from passing off AGW costs to others have been very effective at delaying any efforts to establish feedback mechanisms)?
"I do not know what is true. ... But in the midst of doubt ... I do not doubt that the faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty."
- Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr.
BS
October 17, 2007 - 10:00 ET by Noel SheppardBS,
This is rich. You basically admitted getting information from a Clinton propaganda network and passing it on here as being "information" whilst pointing fingers at moi for casting accuracy aside in the interest of "winning."
Honestly, that's one of the funniest things I've read in weeks, excepting of course the recent Randi Rhodes Ketel One kerfuffle.
That said, BS, sources of information are indeed important. Once I determine a source to be clearly propagandist and/or biased, I discount everything that comes from it. If you don't, that's your choice.
However, I choose NOT to engage people who aren't intelligent enough to recognize when they are being intellectually abused. If I wanted to debate dolts that fall hook, line, and sinker for the detritus at such sites, I would do it there. BUT, I have no interest in doing it here.
Adieu. ns
Our guiding principle is clear.
October 19, 2007 - 03:15 ET by BlindSightActually, I think I said I get information from all over. I think it's useful, though biases have to be discounted of course. But tell we that YOU don't get information from any sources that have a clear ideological bent?
As for this particular case, what's "rich" about presenting facts - regardless of source - that show that Gray's comments got real news coverage? Isn't the irony more in your willingness to dismiss facts that prove you wrong?
Funny, I agree with you completely about the Randi Rhodes kerfuffle. Shows how everyone's ideological biases (and tribal suspicions) get in the way of clear thinking. Dems are obviously NOT immune to the problem.
"Once I determine a source to be clearly propagandist and/or biased, I discount everything that comes from it. If you don't, that's your choice."
Hmmm ... I guess I'll keep reading what you have to say, because warts and all, it still is an interesting take on the real world, and one I consider worth being aware of and perhaps understanding.
"I choose NOT to engage people who aren't intelligent enough to recognize when they are being intellectually abused. If I wanted to debate dolts that fall hook, line, and sinker for the detritus at such sites, I would do it there. BUT, I have no interest in doing it here."
I imagine that you don't see the irony in what you've just said (as to the audience here and your interactions with them), but I expect you are capable of it. It's a classic tribal view: we are good, virtuous, intelligent and well-intended; THEY are evil, stupid, malevolent scum. Tribal views feel good, but they kinda get in the way sometimes, don't they?
But irony aside, are you seriously suggesting that NB presents an impartial view of the world or that intellectual honesty requires ignoring what those with different perspectives have to say? Would you suggest that those on the opposite side of the aisle do the same thing, or are you actually interested in persuading them to share some of your perspective? And if discussions of matters of clearly confirmable FACT do not present a basis for stretching and sharing perspectives, then I am a little discouraged about what hope there is for political discourse.
Yes, I've noticed the rather lame ad hominem and strawman. Not a fine showing, I'd say. But of course, what you do with your time is up to you.
I believe that political discourse is possible AND important, and that neither left nor right is correct. Perhaps this gives you a better idea of where I'm coming from: http://www.lewrockwe.... Except that I don't think that Rockwell's perspective means that we should NOT be concerned about climate change.
Cheers - it's all BS!
"Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people." Pres. George Bush
Well said!
October 19, 2007 - 21:24 ET by cleverpigWell said!
If you enjoy BS
October 19, 2007 - 21:47 ET by RJIf you enjoy BS I suppose you might think that.
Of course, notsocleverpig, you wouldn't be aware that this is a poster who used to be named Dave High. Dave has a history of being frequently and thoroughly fisked, not that it ever penetrated. As a result, we've often made sport of nailing him for his undeserved arrogance.
Please RJ....Tell me it isn't so!
October 19, 2007 - 21:56 ET by BlondeNightnoise....Dave High....back yet again?
We need a better class of troll, here.
By the way, RJ....as I was driving home tonite I saw a license plate that was a custom one (Space Shuttle) and it said "RJ". Thought of you.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Roger outed him a couple of weeks ago, Blonde
October 19, 2007 - 22:05 ET by RJNote the characteristic "cheers" at the end of the post above (we all remember "Regards, Dave High). The arrogance speaks for itself....
RJ, huh? Wasn't me....I swear....
Knew that....RJ
October 19, 2007 - 22:15 ET by BlondeJust thought it was funny.
On a nice Bimmer, too.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Well, duh on me.
October 19, 2007 - 22:19 ET by RJSorry. I shoulda known you'd know, Blonde.
Maybe that RJ was me after all... ;^)
RJ, I busted Dave High nearly a month ago.
October 20, 2007 - 21:55 ET by Dave RLOL-One of the easiest busts I have ever had.
Regards,
Dave R.
I couldn't care less who it
October 20, 2007 - 00:32 ET by cleverpigI couldn't care less who it is, his point was well made.
Sources such as the Seattle Times and the Washington Post are, or are not, reliable regardless of whether he heard about them on a liberal or a conservative website. And honestly, a refusal to educate yourself about opposing points of view, or to engage in discussion with people who disagree with you, is a big part of the reason why people end up feeling bitter and disenfranchised.
You guys spend a lot of time and effort being angry that liberals think differently than you, but you don't seem to put any effort into thinking honestly and open-mindedly about why. I am constantly told on NB how I feel and why, because you assume that having labeled me you know all the inner workings of my mind, but rarely am I asked why I hold the beliefs I do.
Anyway, BS obviously puts a lot of thought into this stuff, despite being conservative... (just poking a little fun!).
}}---> Exactly, Pignoramus
October 20, 2007 - 01:24 ET by Cool ArrowAnd honestly, a refusal to educate yourself about opposing points of view, or to engage in discussion with people who disagree with you, is a big part of the reason why people end up feeling bitter and disenfranchised.
So, this is how you defend such logical insights as: "The science is settled" and "Scientific Consensus" and "Global Warming deniers = Holocaust deniers"?
Wow, such intellectual honesty and openness to discussion on the part of the Left certainly deserves our respect.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
I have never said anything
October 20, 2007 - 21:39 ET by cleverpigI have never said anything about the holocaust, nor have I said the science is settled. I think there is a consensus-- not unanimous, but a consensus-- and that such a thing can exist while we continue to study the climate, continue to pay attention to people who disagree with the prevailing view, and start to take action.
I absolutely think that people who care about global warming and want to make educated choices about it should also take a look at the alternate point of view.
cleverpig
October 20, 2007 - 21:43 ET byit would seem that you support those who use tactics that you disagree with?
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
I would join them if I could, cp
October 20, 2007 - 10:58 ET by BlindSightAt heart us guys are made to be suspicious of outsiders and to band together to defeat them - and millions of years of evolution still have value, even if it messes with our minds.
These people on a gut level believe I`m not one of them, and they`re right. I`m "arrogant" enough to have my own (and much more truly conservative) position, even though I does create diffiluties for me. Unlike these folks (and most liberals, too, I`m afraid) - I`m no fan of big government, but do believe that we have serious systemic environmental problems, due to lack of clear and enforceable property rights abroad or in regional or global resources like the oceans and air - so markets work only to strip out resources, while passing on costs to everyone else.
But because of our tribal nature, these folks just see me as the enemy, and since they really don`t know their history, they assume that I MUST be a liberal - as they really don`t know what libertarians or even "conservatives" are.
Regards,
Mr. Blind
"Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people." Pres. George Bush
actually Dave
October 20, 2007 - 11:12 ET bysome of my best discussions here are with people i disagree with.
Arrogance is an attitude not a disagreement
regards, b
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
I agree; but who is this famous Dave, anyway?
October 22, 2007 - 00:03 ET by BlindSightYes - the most interesting conversations are with people who make you stretch, either to clarify what you think or to understand what they think. For that, someone who you disagree with is usually best, if hostility doesn't get in the way of actually having a discussion, that is.
BTW, I have no idea what anybody means about a guy named Dave. Was he another conservative who you guys decided must be a liberal?
I've made comments upthread and on other posts that I'd be happy to discuss if you are interested.
Sincerely,
The Blind Man
"Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people." Pres. George Bush
Of course you don't care about his background, Miss Piggy,
October 20, 2007 - 11:22 ET by RJMAINLY because he agrees with you...and that's one of the points of Noel's post. BS is known for using "information" from blatantly biased sources and for ignoring information that refutes him. But you say you don't care. Well, welcome to Club BS.
And this is a ridiculous statement: "a refusal to educate yourself about opposing points of view,to engage in discussion with people who disagree with you, is a big part of the reason why people end up feeling bitter and disenfranchised." Come on, you know perfectly well that it's the pro-AGW bunch, from Algore on down, that refuses to become educated on the opposing point of view, that calls them "deniers", that claims "consensus", that refuses to debate, that demands that those who disagree become "decertified", etc, etc.
So, just who is unwilling to educate themselves about the opposing point of view? Demonstrably it's the AGWers.
"Angry?" "Bitter?" No. Just disgusted at the blatant dishonesty.
And I agree that BS "puts a lot of thought into this stuff"....just like Algore does. When you're running or defending a worldwide scam, it does take a lot of thought, Miss Piggy.
I don't understand why the
October 20, 2007 - 21:48 ET by cleverpigI don't understand why the value of the washington post and the seattle times changes based on where you see them linked! You either think they are worth reading or you don't. Refusing to read them because they were shown to you by someone you don't like just seems so childish and weird!
Tsk, tsk, Miss Piggy
October 21, 2007 - 10:13 ET by RJOnce again, you distort. Noel isn't speaking only of the Washington Post and the Seattle Times, but of the obvious focus BS puts on the blatantly ideological organizations....but I think you knew that...
Thanks; what brings you to such an open, reasoning environment?
October 20, 2007 - 10:44 ET by BlindSight"Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people." Pres. George Bush
I don't like complacency.
October 20, 2007 - 21:50 ET by cleverpigI don't like complacency. I'm here to disrupt it, and to have mine disrupted.
:)
funny CP
October 20, 2007 - 21:53 ET byyou seemed rather complacent about the
Folsom Street Fair
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Don't confuse tolerance and
October 21, 2007 - 22:19 ET by cleverpigDon't confuse tolerance and complacency :)
i never do
October 21, 2007 - 22:27 ET by"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Noble sentiments
October 23, 2007 - 02:39 ET by BlindSightBravo on your thick skin.
Is your name Charlotte, by chance?
"Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people." Pres. George Bush
BS---believers vs deniers
October 20, 2007 - 22:10 ET by misterbillScore of the game
Believers 2500 http://www.fumento.com/global.html
Deniers 19000 http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Consensus ?????? If you are a believer 2500 is greater than 19000. If ou are sane and practical 19000 equals more scientists challenge the suppposed consensus than agree with it.
Next step--find out which of these had the higher scores in college give me a break??
Stop spouting the liberal line it is boring.
misterbill
October 20, 2007 - 22:18 ET byhi there mb!
good links and i hear that the NAU threat is being taken more seriously. Some things take time. But lets get away from from worring over fraudulent claims (AGW) and be real about potential threats (NAU)
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Um, picking 2 numbers at
October 20, 2007 - 23:38 ET by cleverpigUm, picking 2 numbers at random and then pointing out that one is bigger than the other does not prove a point.
2,500 is the number of actual climate scientists who work on IPCC reports. It is not the number of people who support AGW theory. 19,000 is the number of random people with at least a bachelor's degree in english who think we shouldn't sign the Kyoto protocol in 2001.
Whoopee.
cleverpig
October 21, 2007 - 09:33 ET bywrote: 19,000 is the number of random people with at least a bachelor's degree in english while the link clearly defines: Qualification to be a signatory requires that the individual have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD. Those with MS or PhD degrees are so designated. Those with BS degrees are undesignated or sometimes designated as MD if appropriate. what's up with the blatant distortion, CP? You must be complacent in your research!
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
2500 is NOT the number of
October 22, 2007 - 01:37 ET by NL2072500 is NOT the number of actual "climate scientists" working at the IPCC.
Simply looking at the authors section of the IPCC AR4 annex, we see that no more than 600 individuals actually contributed any unique material to the 4th IPCC Assessment.
Assuming all 600 are both actual scientists AND pro-anthropogrnic global warmers, which is most unlikely, that source yields only 600 'votes' for your consensus.
"Working on" includes
October 22, 2007 - 17:55 ET by cleverpig"Working on" includes reviewing, whatever. It's their number, not mine. Anyway, my point was that it is a stupid number to use as "the total of people who support AGW." I'm glad we agree!
misterbill, thanks for your comment
October 23, 2007 - 02:24 ET by BlindSight1. I am curious if you can identify WHAT in my post that you responded to was "liberal"?
2. As to raw numbers of "scientists", I would note first that science is NOT a popularity poll. Second, scientists do not determine policy - our elected officials do. Third, the OISM poll was about whether Kyoto was a sensible policy - now moot, though not particularly a forte of most scientists. Finally, I find it puzzling that you prefer "deniers" to "skeptics".
"Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people." Pres. George Bush