Hilarious “Scientific” Support Of AGW In SF Chronicle Earns Beatdown

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Hilarious “Scientific” Support Of AGW In SF Chronicle Earns Beatdown

Written By : William Teach

Here’s one from a few days ago I ran across, which already has garnered over 840 comments, most of them seemingly taking the writer, Peter Gleick, to task for his climahysterical article. Let’s see, shall we?

Here is the best argument against global warming:

. . . .

Oh, right. There isn’t one.

There is no good argument against global warming. In all the brouhaha about tiny errors recently found in the massive IPCC report, the posturing by global climate deniers, including some elected officials, leaked emails, and media reports, here is one fact that seems to have been overlooked:

First, it is not an argument against global warming. It is against man caused (anthropogenic, man induced, whatever you want to term it) global warming, or, as you folks call it, climate change, since you, in such a self-described scientific manner, link everything into it. Hot, cold, wet, dry, snow, tornadoes, hurricanes or lack thereof, frogs dying, species being found, allergies, etc and so on. Second, it is not incumbant on us “deniers” to prove our theory, based on 4 billion years of history. You have to prove yours.

Third, those “tiny” errors are not actually tiny. Many of them are primary points within the UN IPCC, used to “prove” their whole position.

Those who deny that humans are causing unprecedented climate change have never, ever produced an alternative scientific argument that comes close to explaining the evidence we see around the world that the climate is changing.

I’ll leave that to the professionals at this moment, but, I did notice something, Pete. Do you mind if I call you Pete? Nowhere in you article do you provide a scientific argument that explains how the current warming period is caused “most likely,” to us the IPCC vernacular, by Mankind. Sucks to be you. Oh, hey, can you explain the “no statistical warming over the last 15 years,” or that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, as told by Phil Jones? How about all the “missing” data? Or that temperature upticks precede CO2? Or…..well, we all know the reality Can we move Peter from stage 1 of the 5 stages of grief?

Here is the way scientists think science works: Ideas and theories are proposed to explain the scientific principles we understand, the evidence we see all around us, and the mathematical models we use to test theories. Alternative theories compete.

Uh huh

Gore, the self-anointed climate change alarmist-in-chief, told supporters on a March 15 conference call that severe weather in certain regions of the country could be attributed to carbon in the atmosphere – including the recent rash of rainy weather.

There’s your “scientific” theory, Pete. If everything can be blamed on global warming, it is no longer science, it is tautology.

Scientists are used to debating facts with each other, with the best evidence and theory winning. Well, this is a bar fight, where the facts are irrelevant, and apparently, the rules and tools of science are too. But who wins bar fights? As the Simpsons cartoon so brilliantly showed, bullies. Not always the guy who is right.

Al Gore is not a scientist, Pete. Nor is Barack Obama, nor are the Democrats (and Lindsay Graham) who are pushing this. Nor are a good chunk of those who wrote the IPCC. Hmmph. Strange, huh?

Anyhow, check out the comments. Great stuff.

Jack Schite

There’s plenty of scientific evidence to support the idea that global warming

All we are asking the deniers is to present evidence to the contrary, because that’s the way science works.

I wouldn’t exect anti intellectualism that is the republican party to understand. Maybe you need to pray on it.
StanInTexas

There’s plenty of scientific evidence to support the idea that global warming
Posted by Jack Schite 2010-03-16 09:17:53

Funny, we keep asking for it, but you and your ilk never provide it. All you do is bitch and moan.

So prove it, Jack.
MediumHeadBoy

anti intellectualism

Just a reminder, folks, that Off considers liar/idiot/hypocrite Algore to be an “intellectual.” So be proud of your “anti-intellectualism!”
William Teach

Where is it, Jack? Post it. Provide the specific, uncontravertable link between Man’s release of greenhouse gases and the current warming trend, which is less than the Medieval Warm Period.
Mike_M

“All we are asking the deniers is to present evidence to the contrary, because that’s the way science works.”

Science would b*tch slap you across the face if it was here right now.

The Scientific Method is proving a hypothesis through observation and experimentation. All it would take to confirm AGW is one scientist presenting proof. Then there would be no argument.

There is no need to disprove AGW because it has never been proven to begin with. When people talk of “consensus”, they mean politics. Fitting then that the spokesman for AGW isn’t a scientist, but a politician.
Smithwick

“Those who deny that humans are causing unprecedented climate change have never, ever produced an alternative scientific argument that comes close to explaining the evidence we see around the world that the climate is changing.”
+
“All we are asking the deniers is to present evidence to the contrary, because that’s the way science works.”

Funny you should say that because it displays a clear lack of understanding of the scientific process. It is up to the scientists proposing a new theory to provide evidence backing it, not up to everyone else to disprove it. Think of it like a court case; the state (climate scientists) has to make their case against you (the rest of us/reality). The defendant may chose to present an opposing case but that is not essential as they are assumed to be right unless proven otherwise.

So far the climate shamans have failed to prove their case and even now many are beginning to recant.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

There’s plenty of scientific evidence to support the idea that global warming

Well except for the fact that global temps have been steady or falling since 1998, as evidenced by satellite readings of atmospheric temps.

There is plenty of scientific evidence that E=MC^2, but it’s still a theory as proof has been elusive, still doesn’t make it a FACT.

All we are asking the deniers is to present evidence to the contrary, because that’s the way science works.

You have to prove your provide scientifically valid and repeatable experiments before GW even becomes a valid theory, let alone any one providing regular and provable counter facts. Like the Mideval(sp) Warm Period being warmer than it has in the last 300 yrs, or that the jurrasic was much hotter than either.

I wouldn’t exect anti intellectualism that is the republican party to understand. Maybe you need to pray on it.
Posted by Jack Schite
2010-03-16 09:17:53

I’ll just call this what it is: a pathetic attempt to insult the actual intelligence of MILLIONS of people worldwide including many climate scientists, who don’t buy into the SCAM that is MMGW/AGW/Climate Change.
http://conservativebootcamp.com martinhale

Where is it, Jack? Post it. Provide the specific, uncontravertable link between Man’s release of greenhouse gases and the current warming trend, which is less than the Medieval Warm Period.

Posted by William Teach
2010-03-16 09:38:43

You beat me to it, William. The one sure way to shut JS up is to ask he to produce evidence for his claims. At that point he packs up his toys and goes elsewhere to inflict his hate-filled agitprop.
Rappin’

SLAP! I’m guessing the leather hood amplified the sound. Use your next McPaycheck for a gag. Now, back to your trunk Jackie, before mommy gets really mad and smashes your keyboard.
http://quantum-kitty.blogspot.com/ simulacre

surprising fiza didn’t rear his silly head in this thread…of course he’s been so thoroughly defeated by reality, one can’t expect him to show up and argue his case!
StanInTexas

surprising fiza didn’t rear his silly head in this thread…of course he’s been so thoroughly defeated by reality, one can’t expect him to show up and argue his case!
Posted by simulacre 2010-03-16 12:48:24

Never stopped him before, Sim.

But he cannot expect to be everywhere. If he is posting his stupidity here, who will be abusing the illegal aliens he and his company hire?

A man’s got to have his priorities!
http://quantum-kitty.blogspot.com/ simulacre

LOL true that, Stan!
vegeta

bthewolf, you have been misinformed. The global cooling since 1998 is a myth that has been quite debunked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

Likewise, the Medieval warm period is a debunked myth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU
Smithwick

Well that settles it. If youtube is on board it’s all over for the deniers.

It was long ago established that scientific facts would be derived from ratings on popular sites like youtube.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

AGW hysterics are like flat earthers these days, denying the facts in front of them and crying conspiracy when anyone debunks them.

And vegeta is first among them.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

Posted by vegeta
2010-03-16 13:38:17

So two videos using BAD data from one of the many climahysteric cheifs debunks REALITY!!! In the medieval warm period Greenland was lush and green and grapes grew in areas around Eastern Canada that today cannot support them because it’s too COLD. This is evidenced by accepted documentation from the Vikings who landed there.

And if you accept anything from the first video at face value while understanding that the weather reporting stations across the world have been systemically SHUT DOWN, then you are both a fool and religous fanatic, but most definitley NOT a scientist.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

Man made global warming is myth. Vegeta is probably Vega’s kid trying to follow in daddy’s much slapped footsteps.
fiza

“It was long ago established that scientific facts would be derived from ratings on popular sites like youtube.
Posted by Smithwick”
2010-03-16 14:30:35

Wow, what a jump to conclusions. Check out Dr. Judy Lean’s lecture on youtube. Who is Dr. Lean? She published a paper where she concludes that fluctuations in solar intensity had a MINIMAL contribution to our undisputed global warming trend. Her conclusions counter those claimed by Scafetta and West. I am sure you are familiar with Dr. Scafetta, who became the hero of the AGW sceptics after he published one of the rare anti AGW papers in a peer reviewed journal. Even Scafetta does not dispute global warming. What he does dispute is that the warming is 100% man caused.
You can, of course read Dr. Lean’s paper on the www. Of course you will claim that Dr. Lean, a solar physicist at NRL faked her results just to get more NASA funding.
PS, learn about science Smithwick before you open your mouth!
http://conservativebootcamp.com martinhale

“PS, learn about science Smithwick before you open your mouth!”

Actually, fiza, that’s good advice – advice you should heed yourself. You pull one paper out as evidence and then act as though the whole subject was settled. Is that your Al Gore impression? If it is, are you fat like him? Can you do his sing-song-ey voice? Are you as much of a craven money-grubber as he is? Enquiring minds, etc…

If you really understood the process of science, as you imply that you do, you’d also understand that it’s through the accumulated mass of evidence from multiple papers testing all of the variables related to a hypothesis that hypotheses are elevated in status to theory. It is rarely the result of just one paper. Most often, the process of science is that multiple papers produce competing ideas, which in turn spark innovative experimental designs from other scientists, which in turn inspire yet others to try their ideas. It’s through that cumulative process that the truth starts to emerge. But please, continue to cling to the single-paper theory. It’s a charming throwback to the 1800′s.
Smithwick

fiza: I suspect I’m in a far better position than you are to be commenting on this.

But either way time will tell and right now it’s not looking good for the AGW-cult. The days when you could simply scream “we have a consensus” and effectively silence all debate and end justified criticism of your “research” are over. People are rightly becoming more skeptical of the official church doctrine. Your side overreached; too many lies, too many scandals, too many visions of the apocalypse (we’re all supposed to have died off years ago if you were to actually believe any of what these witch doctors predicted). And like all overly aggressive PR campaigns this one is starting to cave in on itself.

I imagine very shortly it will be difficult to find someone willing to publicly acknowledge that they were an AGW fanatic. It’ll be like the people who swore Y2K would kill us all (or SARS or swine flu or whatever). They existed but you can’t find any who will publicly admit to being one of them anymore. Not that I expect any to recant and apologize (not their style, too honorable), merely to pretend they were misquoted.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

PS, learn about science Smithwick before you open your mouth!
Posted by fiza
2010-03-16 23:38:25

This coming from the person who has in the past claimed that warming would cause a feedback loop and that’d eventually fry us. But you never acknowledged or accepted the fact that a feedback loop can ONLY occur in a closed sysem, and the planet earth is NOT a CLOSED system.

You have also failed to supply any scientific PROOF that CO2 has a measuarble effect on GW.

That’s all on top of the EVIDENCE that sun spots have all but disapeared, and we have been a slightly cooler period that relates almost exactly to that change!!!
fiza

“You pull one paper out as evidence and then act as though the whole subject was settled.”

Posted by martinhale
2010-03-17 06:34:50

I guess you can’t read! I specifically pulled Judy Lean’s paper out because one of her presentations was posted on youtube. This counters Smithwick’s claim that “Well that settles it. If youtube is on board it’s all over for the deniers”. Maybe you think that Judy Lean’s research is garbage because she works for NRL and her work was funded by NASA.
StanInTexas

This counters Smithwick’s claim that “Well that settles it. If youtube is on board it’s all over for the deniers”.
Posted by fiza 2010-03-17 12:03:48

You pulled this ONE paper out of your ass to disprove SARCASM?

Wadda Maroon!
fiza

“This coming from the person who has in the past claimed that warming would cause a feedback loop and that’d eventually fry us. But you never acknowledged or accepted the fact that a feedback loop can ONLY occur in a closed sysem, and the planet earth is NOT a CLOSED system.”

“That’s all on top of the EVIDENCE that sun spots have all but disapeared, and we have been a slightly cooler period that relates almost exactly to that change!!!”

Posted by bthewolf
2010-03-17 11:51:37
When did I claim that “feedback” would fry us?

Obviously you know nothing about feedback “control” systems. Every feedback system has what we call “external disturbances” or “external inputs” Is for, example, an aircraft autopilot which controls heading, altitude, pitch, roll, airspeed, AOA, or some other state a closed system? No, of course not! If you have any knowledge of science at all, you tell us why.

I guess you didn’t read Judy Lean’s most recent paper, either. Her reseach indicats that “in spite of the very slight reduction of the sun’s intensity due to the near disappearance of suns spots, the earth continues to warm when it should have cooled. So something is countering the expected cooling. You figure out what that “something” is!
fiza

“Well except for the fact that global temps have been steady or falling since 1998, as evidenced by satellite readings of atmospheric temps.”

Posted by bthewolf
2010-03-16 10:34:20

Wrong! I don’t know what plots you are looking at. Sure, 1998 was a record hot year. I know this is way, way, over your head, but scientists use a numerical “trick” called a “moving average” to smooth out unusual “outliers” in order to determine the long term trends or cycles in a data series.

Of coursre the AGW deniers always start their plots at 1998 to distort the long term trend.

I don’t have the link right now, but have you seen Hansen’s new plots thru 2009? The 2009 temps in the southern hemi were a record high, and except for December, the temps were pretty high in most of the northerm hemi too. Now I know you think Hansen is a liar, but everything he publishes is scrutinized by the AWG deniers with any kind of a science backround.
Smithwick

“Of coursre the AGW deniers always start their plots at 1998 to distort the long term trend”

As opposed to starting them in the 1970s, following a period of global cooling as the cultists do?

This is literally the hottest year on record and the greatest rate of temperature increase as well if we ignore days that were hotter and increases that were faster prior to the industrial revolution.

Also the stock market is at its highest point and has experienced nothing but growth if we only track back to the latest crash.
Smithwick

“I don’t have the link right now, but have you seen Hansen’s new plots thru 2009? The 2009 temps in the southern hemi were a record high, and except for December, the temps were pretty high in most of the northerm hemi too. Now I know you think Hansen is a liar, but everything he publishes is scrutinized by the AWG deniers with any kind of a science backround. ”

Also, you realize that it doesn’t really help your case to repeat numbers that show the trend you like when the numbers themselves are what is in question? Like an olympic runner being caught doping referencing his great time in defense. Yes by that metric you won, but that isn’t what is being scrutinized.

The “adjustments” on many of those points are completely indefensible. They started being adjusted almost entirely to be warmer about the time scientists wanted to claim the world was experiencing unprecedented warming.
fiza

“The “adjustments” on many of those points are completely indefensible. They started being adjusted almost entirely to be warmer about the time scientists wanted to claim the world was experiencing unprecedented warming.”
Posted by Smithwick
2010-03-17 13:30:16

What are you talking about? Hansen’s (and others) plots start in the late 1800′s, using various (5 yr, 11 yr) moving averages.

Hey, science expert, do you still stand by your statement:

“But you never acknowledged or accepted the fact that a feedback loop can ONLY occur in a closed sysem”

after my aircraft control system? Even a simple electronic amplifier with feedback around it is not a closed system. It is a “closed loop” system. You figure out what the external inputs from the environment might be, you so-called expert. You got “closed loop” mixed up with “closed system”.

I am not a climate or geo physicist, and I fully admit that I have to rely on the work of specialists in the field, e.g., researchers like Drs. Lean, Hansen, Mann, and maybe a thousand others in the field.

I know a heck of a lot more about feedback control than you ever will, but I still have to rely on on the results of the feedback models developed by the experts, the atmospheric physicists. Why? Because I don’t know climate model dynamics, like I do for an aircraft, missile, or an amplifier, or any number of physical systems.

How many links do you want to reports and papers in the literature supporting AGW? You know how to use Google.

How many legitimate papers and studies can you find in the literature indicating otherwise? Not many!

To summarize, do we know everything about AGW and the future and distant past climate? No, but that is what climate research is all about. The hypothesis is solid. We KNOW that CO2 is a signfiicant, but not a dominant greenhouse gas. It contributes approximately 25% to the greenhouse effect. We also KNOW that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased considerably during the industrial revolution and is continuing to increase at about 2% per year. Will the temperature increase at 2% of 25% per yr, and will we fry because of positive fdbk? No, the dynamics are a lot more complicated than that.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

The further you push back the record, the less impressive the brief warming in the early and late 20th century looks, particularly compared to the Medieval and Roman Warming periods.

The fact that the solar activity exactly corresponds to the increase in temperature – and the much-later lagged C02 increases – seems sort of obvious to me. Especially since previous warming periods are stated by climate scientists to be caused by solar activity and the increase of CO2 found them due to release of the gas from the sea which acts as a huge battery.

Even the incredibly discredited and idiotic Hadley CRU including Michael “Piltdown” Mann admitted that the rural areas didn’t show warming as the urban areas did.

And if you look at the map of the temperature stations (helpful URL so you can see here: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_j24uCNMZoG8/S5562quBMRI/AAAAAAAAKm0/XidJK5T1wqQ/s1600-h/ISH-station-map-1986-thru-2009-6-hrly-450×270.jpg ) you can plainly see that the data gathering is clustered in limited areas, showing warming only in some zones – warming even the most strident alarmist scientists admit has ended.

But you know, that doesn’t advance the leftist agenda so lets just ignore all that.