Think Progress Doubles Down On AGW Caused Tornadoes

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Think Progress Doubles Down On AGW Caused Tornadoes

Written By : William Teach

Their first stupid article wasn’t enough, so, like any good unhinged Leftist climate moron, they double down with

Top Climate Scientist On The Monster Tornadoes: ‘It Is Irresponsible Not To Mention Climate Change’

Who are those top climate scientists? Michael Mann (with his discredited hockey stick), Gavin Schmidt, and Kevin Trenbarth. Let’s see what Kevin had to say

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). …

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Oh, wait, sorry, that was from one of Kevin’s Climategate emails, as Powerline points out.

TP has this from Michael Mann

The fact remains that there is 4 percent more water vapor–and associated additional moist energy–available both to power individual storms and to produce intense rainfall from them. Climate change is present in every single meteorological event, in that these events are occurring within a baseline atmospheric environment that has shifted in favor of more intense weather events.

And Gavin Schmidt

It is a truism to say that everything has been affected by climate change so far and therefore this latest outbreak must in some sense have been affected, but attribution is hard and the further down the chain the causality is supposed to go, the harder this is. For heat waves it is easier, for statistics on precipitation intensity it easier – there are multiple levels of good modelling, theory and observations to back it up. But we have much less to go on with tornadoes.

Interesting. I say interesting because all the little climate morons keep telling us that we should only listen to climate scientists. In fact, we were told not to talk to someone who isn’t a climate scientist at last weekends PowerShift 2011 summit. Mann and Schmidt do not have higher education degrees in climatology or meteorology. Trenbarth has a degree in meteorology, so, we should listen to him when he says he has no clue what’s going on.

The folks at Watts Up With That? are livid over the TP post. Anthony Watts says his original article had no headline, because it would have used naughty words solely. Watts also mentions the folly of linking tornadoes to anthropogenic global warming. And both posts use that science thing. Watts also has a degree in meteorology. I’ll listen to him.

Anonymous

“Who are those top climate scientists?”

Safe to say they ain’t you.

Obama just divulged his birth certificate. Can you at least divulge your educational background and the degrees that enable you to talk about climate change or anything scientific?
Anonymous

“Who are those top climate scientists?”

Safe to say they ain’t you.

Obama just divulged his birth certificate. Can you at least divulge your educational background and the degrees that enable you to talk about climate change or anything scientific?

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Mine are the same as Al Gore’s.
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Mine are the same as Al Gore’s.

Anonymous

So another politician divulges his short-comings on climate change or as you prefer, warming. How interesting. So anytime it snows in May it is proof that climate warming is a hoax, is that right?
Anonymous

So another politician divulges his short-comings on climate change or as you prefer, warming. How interesting. So anytime it snows in May it is proof that climate warming is a hoax, is that right?
Anonymous

Really? Political science, or history or whatever he majored in? Now I understand why you bash global warming.
I hope that you understand that Kevin was referring to the lack of instrument capability, NOT the lack of global warming, in his e-mail to Mann. Since then the scientists have been able to determine that indeed the earth is warming from the limited satellite instrument data. Even Sally Baliunas retracted a previous claim and ADMITTED that satellite, data confirmed global warming (but not the cause).
Anonymous

Really? Political science, or history or whatever he majored in? Now I understand why you bash global warming.
I hope that you understand that Kevin was referring to the lack of instrument capability, NOT the lack of global warming, in his e-mail to Mann. Since then the scientists have been able to determine that indeed the earth is warming from the limited satellite instrument data. Even Sally Baliunas retracted a previous claim and ADMITTED that satellite, data confirmed global warming (but not the cause).

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Fiza, I do not dispute the primarily natural warming: that happens. It happened when the Earth came out of the Little Ice Age. I dispute the notion that all the observed warming, which Kevin had been unable to find despite what the “science” said should happen”, is caused mostly or solely by Mankind.

Anonymous

Really? Political science, or history or whatever he majored in? Now I understand why you bash global warming.
I hope that you understand that Kevin was referring to the lack of instrument capability, NOT the lack of global warming, in his e-mail to Mann. Since then the scientists have been able to determine that indeed the earth is warming from the limited satellite instrument data. Even Sally Baliunas retracted a previous claim and ADMITTED that satellite, data confirmed global warming (but not the cause).

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Mine are the same as Al Gore’s.
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Mine are the same as Al Gore’s.
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Mine are the same as Al Gore’s.
Anonymous

I believe that Teach said previously that he studied Ocean Sciences at ECU (East Carolina Univ, known as the Pirates in sports – I guess that is why he adopted the pirate name William Teach).
When Teach knocks global warming, he never gives any references, i.e., papers published in scientific journals. I think his main source is Watts, and the other hacks out there. See my post above.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Nope. Different degree
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Nope. Different degree
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Nope. Different degree
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Also, I do give references. But, mostly I focus on the politics of AGW, because that is what this issue mostly is.

Anonymous

I believe that Teach said previously that he studied Ocean Sciences at ECU (East Carolina Univ, known as the Pirates in sports – I guess that is why he adopted the pirate name William Teach).
When Teach knocks global warming, he never gives any references, i.e., papers published in scientific journals. I think his main source is Watts, and the other hacks out there. See my post above.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I’d like to say that when he says “lack of warming” he means “cooling” but can’t bring himself to say it.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I’d like to say that when he says “lack of warming” he means “cooling” but can’t bring himself to say it.
Pingback: Oceanside Car Accidents Caused by High-Risk Intersections : CAR ACCIDENTS IN US
Anonymous

“Who are those top climate scientists? Michael Mann (with his discredited hockey stick), ”

How can you make such an outrageous and misleading statements about Mann’s hockey stick? Discredited by whom? Conservative scientific illiterates? As I previously stated in replies to your past threads, Mann’s results have been backed up by at least a dozen independent published studies, some using different methods (that is, not tree rings) of developing proxy data. The results of two of these studies were published in the fall of 2010. I am not going to repeat the liks to deaf ears here.
Mann is now continuously hounded for “hiding the decline” in temperature based on an e-mail. If his critics even read his papers, they would see that Mann hid NOTHING! He explained what he did and even used a different color plot where he supposedly hid the decline and substituted actual measured temperatures for proxy data. It doesen’t even take a scientific backround to understand that.
Was Mann’s first 1998 paper perfect? No, he didn’t use enough samples, and a Canadian critic found an error in Mann’s software, which he (Mann) released to the world. The error, althoug highly broadcast by the conservative hacks, had little effect on Mann’s results. Mann’s follow on papers used far more tree ring samples.

The men who have been thouroughly discredited in the literature.are the “climate research experts” like Watts, Lord Moncton, Breitbart, Sen. Imhofe, Hannity, and the rest of the gang. Professor Abrams, an engineering professor specializing in fluid mechanics with a casual intrest in climate science attended a lecture in Lord Moncton’s traveling anti global warming medicine show and totally destroyed his crap (lecture) in a youtube presentation.

Yes there are a small minority of bonafide climate researchers (Scaffee, West, Baliunas, Soon, Spencer, Muller, a couple of Canadians, and a dozen or so others who disagree with man -caused global warming and actually publish their results in scientific journals. That is to be expected in any field.
Who are your gospels in climate science Teach? I hope it ain’t Watts of Imhofe.
Anonymous

“Who are those top climate scientists? Michael Mann (with his discredited hockey stick), ”

How can you make such an outrageous and misleading statements about Mann’s hockey stick? Discredited by whom? Conservative scientific illiterates? As I previously stated in replies to your past threads, Mann’s results have been backed up by at least a dozen independent published studies, some using different methods (that is, not tree rings) of developing proxy data. The results of two of these studies were published in the fall of 2010. I am not going to repeat the liks to deaf ears here.
Mann is now continuously hounded for “hiding the decline” in temperature based on an e-mail. If his critics even read his papers, they would see that Mann hid NOTHING! He explained what he did and even used a different color plot where he supposedly hid the decline and substituted actual measured temperatures for proxy data. It doesen’t even take a scientific backround to understand that.
Was Mann’s first 1998 paper perfect? No, he didn’t use enough samples, and a Canadian critic found an error in Mann’s software, which he (Mann) released to the world. The error, althoug highly broadcast by the conservative hacks, had little effect on Mann’s results. Mann’s follow on papers used far more tree ring samples.

The men who have been thouroughly discredited in the literature.are the “climate research experts” like Watts, Lord Moncton, Breitbart, Sen. Imhofe, Hannity, and the rest of the gang. Professor Abrams, an engineering professor specializing in fluid mechanics with a casual intrest in climate science attended a lecture in Lord Moncton’s traveling anti global warming medicine show and totally destroyed his crap (lecture) in a youtube presentation.

Yes there are a small minority of bonafide climate researchers (Scaffee, West, Baliunas, Soon, Spencer, Muller, a couple of Canadians, and a dozen or so others who disagree with man -caused global warming and actually publish their results in scientific journals. That is to be expected in any field.
Who are your gospels in climate science Teach? I hope it ain’t Watts of Imhofe.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

One more time: leaving out the Medieval and Roman Warming periods deliberately to fake a flat line, then showing a massive increase in warming that isn’t represented by the best data, and then compounding that fraud by extending it beyond the point it was written in a manner that reality has not borne out all constitutes a deliberate, unscientific fraud.

There is absolutely no way to avoid that conclusion, if you have any integrity when it comes to science and the actual real world data.

And simply rejecting scientists because you dislike what they have to say is pathetic, even for you.

Anonymous

Read my reply to your first reply. Again, do you actually believe that Mann and the 12+ other research papers backing up his work, with some using completely different methods, “faked” a flat line? If you said that their work was in error, or something of that order, I would have a little more respect for you, but “faked”! No, you truly are goofy. You wouldn’t know scientific fraud if it hit you in the head, based on your “goofy” statements. I bet you never read a single published paper on climate research, or in any science/engineering field for that matter. It is obvious that all you read is the crap put out by Watts and his ilk.
Anonymous

Read my reply to your first reply. Again, do you actually believe that Mann and the 12+ other research papers backing up his work, with some using completely different methods, “faked” a flat line? If you said that their work was in error, or something of that order, I would have a little more respect for you, but “faked”! No, you truly are goofy. You wouldn’t know scientific fraud if it hit you in the head, based on your “goofy” statements. I bet you never read a single published paper on climate research, or in any science/engineering field for that matter. It is obvious that all you read is the crap put out by Watts and his ilk.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Next time you “reply” try to actually address the three points brought up instead of saying “go to RealClimate and anyone who disagrees sucks so they shouldn’t be listened to.”

I understand if you lack the scientific acumen to attempt a real reply but if that’s so maybe you should stop and think a while before posting again on the subject.

Anonymous

Again, in case you didn’t get it, Mann’s results have been backed up by 12+ independent studies. I have given links to them at various times. Care to refute them? Some used totally different methodology, that is, they didn’t even use tree rings to develop proxy temperature data.You can’t because your sources only dump on Mann, with the same critique over and over, whether it has been refuted or not. They don’t want to inform you that Mann has been backed up or are too stupid to figure it out (like Watts). Since you seem to be so sure that Mann is a fraud, why don’t you point out in, for example, Mann’s 2008 paper, where and how he cooked the data or results. Again, I bet you didn’t even read the paper. If you want to criticize Mann, at least read his paper. I know Mann’s use of the method of principal analysis is difficult to understand, but you can at least read the conclusions. If you read the paper (and the 2008 paper) you would see that Mann’s specifically points out that the tree ring based temperature dips starting in 1960, so he replaces it with actual data USING A DIFFERENT COLOR at that point. Yet Watts and others continue to claim that Mann hid the decline. Yes, Mann did stretch the proxy data a bit due to lack of sufficient tree ring samples. In his 2008 paper, Mann uses far more tree ring data, with similar results. Care to refute that?
Was it you who claimed that realclimate & skeptical science were biased? How about a link to an unbiased site? You can’t!
Anonymous

Again, in case you didn’t get it, Mann’s results have been backed up by 12+ independent studies. I have given links to them at various times. Care to refute them? Some used totally different methodology, that is, they didn’t even use tree rings to develop proxy temperature data.You can’t because your sources only dump on Mann, with the same critique over and over, whether it has been refuted or not. They don’t want to inform you that Mann has been backed up or are too stupid to figure it out (like Watts). Since you seem to be so sure that Mann is a fraud, why don’t you point out in, for example, Mann’s 2008 paper, where and how he cooked the data or results. Again, I bet you didn’t even read the paper. If you want to criticize Mann, at least read his paper. I know Mann’s use of the method of principal analysis is difficult to understand, but you can at least read the conclusions. If you read the paper (and the 2008 paper) you would see that Mann’s specifically points out that the tree ring based temperature dips starting in 1960, so he replaces it with actual data USING A DIFFERENT COLOR at that point. Yet Watts and others continue to claim that Mann hid the decline. Yes, Mann did stretch the proxy data a bit due to lack of sufficient tree ring samples. In his 2008 paper, Mann uses far more tree ring data, with similar results. Care to refute that?
Was it you who claimed that realclimate & skeptical science were biased? How about a link to an unbiased site? You can’t!

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

One more time: leaving out the Medieval and Roman Warming periods deliberately to fake a flat line, then showing a massive increase in warming that isn’t represented by the best data, and then compounding that fraud by extending it beyond the point it was written in a manner that reality has not borne out all constitutes a deliberate, unscientific fraud.

There is absolutely no way to avoid that conclusion, if you have any integrity when it comes to science and the actual real world data.

And simply rejecting scientists because you dislike what they have to say is pathetic, even for you.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

One more time: leaving out the Medieval and Roman Warming periods deliberately to fake a flat line, then showing a massive increase in warming that isn’t represented by the best data, and then compounding that fraud by extending it beyond the point it was written in a manner that reality has not borne out all constitutes a deliberate, unscientific fraud.

There is absolutely no way to avoid that conclusion, if you have any integrity when it comes to science and the actual real world data.

And simply rejecting scientists because you dislike what they have to say is pathetic, even for you.

Anonymous

The globe gives ye proof, yet ye ignore it.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

The globe may, as it has when it was cooler for over 5 centuries, warm for a few, cooler for about 500, warmer for a few, and so on, as the climate flips back and forth for the previous 7,000 years, then had warmed dramatically for 13,000 following the last glacial period.
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

The globe may, as it has when it was cooler for over 5 centuries, warm for a few, cooler for about 500, warmer for a few, and so on, as the climate flips back and forth for the previous 7,000 years, then had warmed dramatically for 13,000 following the last glacial period.
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

The globe may, as it has when it was cooler for over 5 centuries, warm for a few, cooler for about 500, warmer for a few, and so on, as the climate flips back and forth for the previous 7,000 years, then had warmed dramatically for 13,000 following the last glacial period.
Anonymous

We just have to like be in tune with gaia man and she can tell you that she’s like totally suffering man.
Anonymous

We just have to like be in tune with gaia man and she can tell you that she’s like totally suffering man.
Anonymous

We just have to like be in tune with gaia man and she can tell you that she’s like totally suffering man.

Anonymous

The globe gives ye proof, yet ye ignore it.
Anonymous

“Mann and Schmidt do not have higher education degrees in climatology or meteorology …”

Teach, many of the climate researchers have PhD’s in Physics with specialties in areas like atmospheric physics, fluid mechanics, astrophysics, solar physics, cosmology, particle physics (Muller is one), etc. Two of the leading critics (perhaps the leading critics) of global warming are Sally Baliunas and Willie Soon. Who are they? Astrophysicists at Harvard! They don’t even deny global warming. They just attribute it to solar varability. Judy Lean, a solar physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory disagrees with Baliunas and Soon. Why, the sun has been cooling very slightly over the last 30+ yrs of NASA satellite data.
Check out Scafee’s backround. He is a physicist at Duke His work has been praised by all of the anti global warming types. RWN even had a thread on his results awhile ago and Hannity loves him. Watts has praised his work. The funny thing is that Scaffe doesn’t even deny global warming. He, like Baliunas and Soon, attribute the warming due to solar vatiability.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

They don’t even deny global warming. They just attribute it to solar varability.

Correct, that’s what has happened, as is obvious by the evidence and actual science. If you cook the books enough like Michael “Piltdown” Mann, you can fake evidence up that seems to make it look human caused and even pretend the warming didn’t stop and reverse about a decade ago, but hey.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

They don’t even deny global warming. They just attribute it to solar varability.

Correct, that’s what has happened, as is obvious by the evidence and actual science. If you cook the books enough like Michael “Piltdown” Mann, you can fake evidence up that seems to make it look human caused and even pretend the warming didn’t stop and reverse about a decade ago, but hey.

Anonymous

“Correct, that’s what has happened, as is obvious by the evidence and actual science”

How do you know? Where is your “evidence and actual science”? The references I gave (papers by Baliunas & Soon and Scafee & West have been torn apart & diccredited by many of their peers.

Solar activity has died down since 1940. You can find NASA satellite plots showing solar intensity in w/m**2 for 30+ yrs and there is very little variation in intensity, with the trend being slightly down. I prefer to accept Dr. Lean’s (a solar physicist) conclusions that solar variability has very small effect , if any, on the recent observed global warming. Yes, I know, NASA is a fraud and their scientists and those independent groups that analyzed the same raw data cooked the books. Right? If that is really your conclusion, you really are goofy.

Sorry, but the majority of the evolutionary biologists were not “faked out” by the Piltdown man. Your comparison of Michael Mann to the Piltdown man is truly “goofy” and not even funny.
Since you think Mann is a fraud, have you even looked at the 12+ published papers backing up his results? Are they all frauds too?

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Hey, you can ignore the evidence and the science all you want, but the facts are not in your favor. That’s up to you but spare the world your nonsense.

Just for the love of God stop pretending that idiotic hockey stick graph is anything but trash, for your own sake.

Anonymous

So if we all start driving electric cars we can stop global warming by preventing solar variability?

Do you see why you aren’t taken seriously on this?

Stick to protesting and street performances, leave the science and politics to the adults.
Anonymous

So if we all start driving electric cars we can stop global warming by preventing solar variability?

Do you see why you aren’t taken seriously on this?

Stick to protesting and street performances, leave the science and politics to the adults.
Anonymous

So if we all start driving electric cars we can stop global warming by preventing solar variability?

Do you see why you aren’t taken seriously on this?

Stick to protesting and street performances, leave the science and politics to the adults.

Anonymous

“Mann and Schmidt do not have higher education degrees in climatology or meteorology …”

Teach, many of the climate researchers have PhD’s in Physics with specialties in areas like atmospheric physics, fluid mechanics, astrophysics, solar physics, cosmology, particle physics (Muller is one), etc. Two of the leading critics (perhaps the leading critics) of global warming are Sally Baliunas and Willie Soon. Who are they? Astrophysicists at Harvard! They don’t even deny global warming. They just attribute it to solar varability. Judy Lean, a solar physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory disagrees with Baliunas and Soon. Why, the sun has been cooling very slightly over the last 30+ yrs of NASA satellite data.
Check out Scafee’s backround. He is a physicist at Duke His work has been praised by all of the anti global warming types. RWN even had a thread on his results awhile ago and Hannity loves him. Watts has praised his work. The funny thing is that Scaffe doesn’t even deny global warming. He, like Baliunas and Soon, attribute the warming due to solar vatiability.
Pingback: Threads The Past
Anonymous

One would assume that NOAA and NASA would have made their raw data available to independent researchers, but no,those agencies have resisted Freedom of Information Act requests for the original, raw data. But the “science” is “settled”.

Anonymous

Who told you that, Watts? The raw NASA solar intensity data (30+ yrs of it) is free and available for you to analyze. I suspect it wouldn’t do you much good. Scafee mentioned in his paper that he used the raw data.
Hansen publised a report describing his climate model in depth. Mann put out the software used out on the web for all to use or critique. Scafee (one of the heroes of the anti global warming crowd) developed proxy date using sunspot recordings by astronomers from 1600 AD on and NASA solar intensity data. Others have not been able to repeat his results. One critiq pointed out that Scafee used an ill conditionedequation to compute a transfer function. Scafee has yet to give out his software to his peers. He says that they don’t understant his use of wavelet theory. Care to help us out and inform us on wavelets and how he used them. You can read his paper on the web. Just Google Scafee and West for a link.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Some day you’ll learn to get past the kneejerk hate of Watts and stop assuming anything he does is wrong and mistaken. Facts are facts no matter who presents them, and you want to believe only alarmists and totally reject skeptics, no matter what the facts are.

That’s not science, its religious zealotry.

Anonymous

Fiza -”Check out Scafee’s background. He’s a physicist at Duke….” Check out EGore’s background- He’s a, what, failed divinity student?

Anonymous

Gore didn’t develop the global warming theory and he didn’t publish any papers in refereed journals. The work Gore refers to was done by climate scientists, most of whom have PhD’s in physics like Scafee. So what is your problem?

How about all your global warming critics, for example, Watts, Sen. Imhofe, George Will, Hannity, Breitbart, Lord Moncton, and the rest of the gang. What are their qualifications now? Oh. Watts is a former weatherman who has been made a fool of by climate scientists. Watts didn’t even know what the heat of fusion was in one of his claims.
Anonymous

Gore didn’t develop the global warming theory and he didn’t publish any papers in refereed journals. The work Gore refers to was done by climate scientists, most of whom have PhD’s in physics like Scafee. So what is your problem?

How about all your global warming critics, for example, Watts, Sen. Imhofe, George Will, Hannity, Breitbart, Lord Moncton, and the rest of the gang. What are their qualifications now? Oh. Watts is a former weatherman who has been made a fool of by climate scientists. Watts didn’t even know what the heat of fusion was in one of his claims.

Anonymous

Fiza- “He, like Baliunas and Soon, attribute the warming due to solar vatiability.” If only there were some natural mechanism for explaining the warming and cooling of the earth. It would have to be unreasonably large, however- on the scale of our own sun.
Pingback: Think Progress Doubles Down On AGW Caused Tornadoes | News Patriot

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN