Thursday, June 16, 2011

Global Warming Fails Again

Global warming is a politically-created myth. It relies on climate models that are so inaccurate they couldn’t predict an increase in room temperature if you started a fire. What’s more, warming enthusiasts have shut down all inquiry that might improve the science because those inquiries keep disproving the underlying theory. Now we have perhaps the biggest laugher yet to blast a glaring hole in their theory: the very trees are against them.

Ok, let’s start with some grade-school logic, the kind global warming enthusiasts can’t do. What do trees and plants need to grow? Yes, soil, water and. . . carbon dioxide. Trees, flowers and grass absorb carbon dioxide from the air. The more they get, the more they grow. The more they grow, the more carbon dioxide they absorb out of the air. Thus, logic tells us that an increase in carbon will be largely offset by plant life growth.

Sounds simple, right? The problem is that’s heresy.

Global warming enthusiasts don’t want to hear this because it undermines their theory that carbon dioxide is a useless industrial pollutant that will sit in the atmosphere forever causing the earth to warm up over centuries. Indeed, they’ve even put out “studies” (read= guess work opinion pieces) like one by the University of Minnesota in 2006, which claimed that “atmospheric carbon dioxide levels may rise even faster than anticipated, because ecosystems likely will not store as much carbon as had been predicted”! Oh my! Note, by the way, the hedging throughout this sentence. There is no science here, just speculation that reality might not be reality and thus we should destroy the world economy now to stop the release of carbon dioxide. . . evil, evil, pointless carbon dioxide.

Well, on June 5th of this year, experts from Finland and the United States were shocked. . . shocked to learn that reality works like everyone other than global warming enthusiasts knew it would. This report found to the enthusiasts’ horror that rising carbon dioxide levels caused forest density to increase: “Global warming, blamed by the U.N. panel of climate experts mainly on human use of fossil fuels, might itself be improving growth conditions for trees in some regions.” That’s right, trees are getting fatter. And the consequence of this is. . . well. . . um. . . it’s “offsetting climate change.” In other words, it’s keeping global warming from happening.

Yep. Everything the enthusiasts predicted is once again proving false and everything we realists said would happen is happening. The earth remains in balance as always.

Of course, this isn’t what global warming enthusiasts want to believe, so we’ll see if they accept this or if they choose instead the burn the heretics at the carbon-free stake?

Interestingly, this follows some other recent revelations. For example:

● In 2008-2010, global temperatures dropped sharply enough to cancel out the entire supposed net rise in the 20th century. This is important because global warming theory relies on cumulative increases. Thus, their whole theory has fallen apart. . . again. Enthusiasts tried to blame this on the "unexpected" solar cycle -- an eleven year pattern that has repeated itself consistently throughout history and seems to coincide with scaremongering about new global ice ages or new global warming. Enthusiasts also complained that the oceans reacted in an "unexpected" manner by doing what they've always done rather than changing as the climate models suggested. And now the dirty trees have done the "unexpected" by doing what they've always done and refusing to conform to the models. Are you seeing a pattern? It seems that every time the Earth does what it's always done, it's "unexpected."

● In 2008, hundreds of actual scientists heaped scorn on the supposed “scientific consensus” reached by the enthusiasts, a collection of psychologists, gynecologists and other assorted experts with no knowledge of climate science.

● What’s more this most recent report notes that the evil United States, which we know is dominated by people who just like killing trees for no reason except pure spite, has experienced a surge in forest density. Between 1953 and 2007, forest volume in capitalist America grew by 51%. That's right, the whole time they were putting out PSAs and experts were appearing before Congress decrying “deforestation,” forest volume was increasing by half. And not only were there new trees, but existing trees were growing, something we were told wouldn’t be happening -- indeed, the last decade was all about growth, not replanting.
These are hard times for Chicken Little.

79 comments:

AndrewPrice said...

In case ANYONE missed it, Weiner has resigned.

Now let's hope Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, and dozens more corrupt dems follow his lead.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: You mean the sky isn't falling? That's a big relief. Now what am I supposed to do with all those trees on my property that are sucking up my precious carbon dioxide?

AndrewPrice said...

Chop them down with extreme prejudice Lawhawk.... they are standing in the way of theological-Science.

DUQ said...

Andrew, Thanks for the Weiner update! I heard it already, but I like hearing about it over and over.

On the global warming garbage, I'm amazed "reputable scientists" (put that in quotes) would ignore the effects of the trees and the sun when calculating global warming. These people are amazingly twisted aren't they?

rlaWTX said...

normally, I would rejoice in the news that the enviro-weenies have had their weenie-dom proven yet again.

However, this week, I am beginning to believe in Texas Warming, if not global warming. We are having record high temps (107, 108, etc) and triple digits are forecast through next week. That's hot, folks! When you add in our rainlessness, it's tinderbox dry 'round here... But at least I know that it's not CO2's fault! ;)

rlaWTX said...

oh, I figured it out!! we don't have trees to suck up the CO2! I could write a book and go on a speaking tour!!

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, Anytime on the updates. Since we don't have a news section it's worth giving major updates sometimes.

Yeah, these global warming models are pretty insane. But that's the point. To make their data fit the results they want, they need to take out all the things that would interfere with their model. Then they fudge the rest. It's a total scam.

Jocelyn said...

Well, I would like to know where our Global Warming is in Southern California. It was raining/sprinkling on and off this morning. I would like that sun please.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Texas Warming I believe! LOL!

We have dry and hot in Colorado right now too and it seems to be related to this La Nina (sp?) phenominum in the Pacific where the moisture gets shifted away from us. It seems to be a multi-year cycle.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Maybe you shouldn't have cut down all the trees? ;-)

Seriously, isn't Texas always hot? I was under the impression parts of it were unbearable -- like Houston.

BevfromNYC said...

rlaWTX - It could be that 50% of Texas has been burnt to a crisp too. I learned that when there is are gigantic forest fires that cover half the state, it can get really, really hot.

I blame global warming/climate change on massive volcanic eruptions caused by earthquakes and, of course, Anthony Weiner.

AndrewPrice said...

Jocelyn, I think they've largely given up on warming because of those darn waves and that big yellow thing in the sky that seems to be going into a slow-down mode.

In fact, the other day, I heard the first speculation that we might be looking at a coming mini-ice age because the sun is going dormant for the next eleven years.

** rolls eyes **

If climate science were a business, they would have been bankrupted a long time ago. They really need to drop the politics and improve their science based on facts and actual data and then come tell us what they've found.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Climate change (which has been happening since the day the planet formed) is the result of volcanic activity which shoots out hot magma and trillions of tons of dust and chemicals from the earth's crust and solar activity. Our contribution is non-existent... unless you could Wiener.

In fact, I wasn't going to say anything, but if we want to stop global warming, we should throw Weiner into a volcano! :-)


(P.S. Yes, burning half your state will increase heat and pollution very much. We're actually getting smog up here from Arizona right now, which is trapping heat too.)

Jocelyn said...

Andrew - I read an article today about those sun spots leaving and that we will go through a mini Ice Age like in the 17th century too. I guess that falls into their "climate change" argument. You know, the natural occurance of the changing of the climate and all.

And I think it's too logical for the enviornmentalist to use real science and real math, it's just too much fun to make up stuff.

BevfromNYC said...

Oh, btw, do you think Michelle knows about these overweight trees? Is it an epidemic yet? Maybe she can set a nutriional pie chart and exercise program for them.

AndrewPrice said...

Jocelyn, Yep. The sun is the biggest influence on our temperatures. And when the sun puts out less heat, things get cooler here. It's amazing how simple that is. But the problem is that it doesn't lead to recommendations that we abandon capitalism and go to socialism -- which is the point behind global warming "science."

In fact, I'm amazed how often they claim to find some evidence of warming and then they say to "fix" it, we need to shut down industry, eliminate cars, expand healthcare to everyone and ban guns. Huh?

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, LOL!

I don't know if she knows, but someone should tell her. Clearly, these trees need to be told what they can and can't eat and how often they should exercise. And she's just the person to stand in the middle of the forest and scream at the trees about their weight problem! ;-)

Anonymous said...

Hey maybe she could get lost in the forest while she's at it too!

TJ

DUQ said...

Andrew and Bev, I love the image of fat trees and I would love to see if we could get Michelle O. to fall for it! :D

AndrewPrice said...

TJ, Now that is good thinking! LOL! Let's just make sure she doesn't leave any sort of Big Mac-bread trail!

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, It does seem kind of funny if you think about it. . . trees with carbon-dioxide bellies. LOL!

I'm sure we could trick Lady O into falling for it. Liberals will fall for any cause if you present it right. In fact, Penn and Teller got people to sign a petition to ban H20!

T-Rav said...

21 comments in 47 minutes? Holy crap! Did someone take speed or something?

Ed said...

Andrew, This is hilarious news. I can't believe they didn't realize that trees would absorb carbon dioxide. Unbelievable.

Ed said...

Also, I love the out of the box thinking:

1. Tossing Weiner into a volcano! Awesome.

2. Sending Michelle into the woods to get lost. Even better!

I love Commentarama! Lol!

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, It's the idea of seeing Michelle lost in the woods . . . lecturing the trees. That brings people out! LOL!

T-Rav said...

Okay, now that I got over my surprise and actually read the post, this is truly a shocking bit of information about the trees. Hey AGW proponents, here's another mind-blowing revelation: a warmer climate is better if you want life to flourish than a colder climate! Who'da thunk it?

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I don't think they thought trees wouldn't absorb carbon, but I think they thought the trees wouldn't absorb enough carbon to matter. Which means they ignored something the rest of us learned in grade school about trees.

Tennessee Jed said...

I tend to be a skeptic of global warming since I feel scientists have tended to go the way of journalists. That is, they have become agenda driven rather than objective seekers of the truth. I personally blame Jabba the Gore for politicizing something that shouldn't be politicized, although recognize it was probably inevitable since it could be such a valuable tool to distort public policy.

A lot of the science makes my eyes glaze over. In deference to 100% fairness, here is a faux link to what appears to be a "lib" site on climate change;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

You might just find it a hoot to check out, but this just goes to show how hard the battle is being played.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I'm sensing a change to the Republican Platform coming -- (1) the Weiner Toss Amendment and (2) the Lunatic in the Woods Amendment. :-)

T-Rav said...

Andrew, that'd do it. As would the idea of tossing Weiner into a volcano. And probably also making a bunch of juvenile gutter jokes in the process.

By the way, I watched the video of Weiner announcing his resignation, and...it was not as somber as he probably hoped. Let's just say one or two of Howard Stern's people got into the crowd, and hilarity ensued.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, That's the shocking thing. Everyone knows that when you increase the things that cause plant life to grow, it will grow. That's why they use greenhouses to grow certain things.

Yet, somehow, these supposed scientists tried to deny these basic facts and then find themselves amazed that greenhouse conditions would lead to increase plant life and that increased plant life would absorb more plant food.

The lack of logic is truly astounding. And it tells you everything you need to know about their models.

T-Rav said...

More seriously, this just goes to show how we know far too little about our own planet to be making outlandish claims such as these. Even if it were true that global temperatures have been consistently going up, and that there's anything more than a mere correlation to suggest higher CO2 levels are to blame, we still have no basis for saying Scenario X would result from this. Take clouds as an example. Some scientists have said rising temperatures would cause clouds to be evaporated faster, allowing for even more heating of the surface; in other words, a positive feedback cycle. But others have said faster evaporation would result in more cloud formation, which would then block a lot more sunlight and cause a negative feedback cycle. Even if we accept the AGW premises, we just don't know nearly enough about our atmosphere, the water cycle, etc. to say one thing is going to happen and not another.

T-Rav said...

And also, as far as the trees absorbing CO2 thing goes: AGW proponents may be overlooking something even more important. In the oceans there are a lot of microscopic plant organisms, called phytoplankton. I know this, because I once saw a Magic School Bus video about the food chain. I think I was seven. Anyway, being plants, they also absorb carbon dioxide, and even though they're small, they're also very numerous, which means they play a big part in this whole thing. If the "scientists" haven't accounted for what the freaking trees would do in their models, I wonder whether they've thought about this plankton thing at all. I'm thinking not.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed,

I am a firm believer in science. If the science showed that we were doing something bad, then I would be more than willing to look at solutions. The problem is, as you note, that the science has been politicized. They've come up with an answer that they want to reach and now they are busy creating bad studies and suppressing evidence so that they can reach that result.

That makes it very hard to believe anything they come up with -- especially when something as simple as this gets exposed. How could they really think that greenhouse conditions would not result in increased growth?

What's more, when they do come up with "solutions" those solutions have little or nothing to do with the problem. Instead, global warming has become a catchall for leftist policies. I'm not kidding when I said that someone said we need to expand healthcare and ban guns to reduce global warming. That's pure politics.

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out: LINK

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, That's kind of just deserts. He's been a real jerk about this, going so far as to slander his critics and attack the media and call the cops on them. So it's great to see that he didn't even get to go down with any dignity.

On the volcano, I can see the headlines now: "Weiner Roasted." ;-)

BevfromNYC said...

T-Rav and Andrew - The joke is that "climate change" science is not about the climate change. It is about finding a renewable source of energy. And the person who is at the forefront of investing in that new discovery, will be the richest person on earth. Why do you think that Al Gore has invested his life savings in this? You notice that since the phony data emails came out, Al's been keeping a low profile.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, Those are valid points. As I explained to Jed, IF the science were showing that we are hurting the planet (or that we need to do something to help the planet) then I'd be all for it. But the science doesn't show that.

The science is so primitive that it literally cannot be considered science at this point. In fact, the models are so basic and so wrong that all they really do is reach the result the scientist wants. It would be like me programming a computer to give me the number 5 every time I ask for a number and then me running around warning people about the preponderance of the number 5.

If they have any integrity at all, they would stop issuing grand proclamations and would instead work on understanding the actual science -- not the politicized science, not the falsified data, and nothing based on assumptions. Just take the hard data and get to work on it. That's how science works.

And at the same time, they need to get out of the political debates. They need to stop advocating and instead start studying. All they're doing right now is disgracing themselves. Conservative already see that. More and more moderates see it. Soon everyone will see it. And what could be a valuable scientific field of study will blow up.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, On the plankton, you will be happy to know that they have to conflicting views. First, they argue that the plankton will not absorb the carbon because the oceans will warm which will make it impossible for the plankton to get to the carbon (of course, plankton is most abundant in warmer waters. . . but don't tell the "scientists" that, it might break their hearts).

Secondly, they argue that the plankton will indeed eat the carbon and will grow and grow and grow like a plague until they choke off the ocean and the ocean dies like it did 35 million years ago during the first great warming period. Fyi, the ocean in question was also a very shallow ocean (a few feet) world wide and much saltier.... but again, don't tell the scientists that, they don't want to know.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's true, Algore sees this as an economic issue -- so does Warren Buffett and they want the government to mandate their methods for fixing this "problem" because it will make them obscenely rich.

But even beyond the push for renewable energy, "climate science" has become a catchall for various leftist groups who think they can use it to push their agendas. The big push right now is money and technology transfers to the third world to "fight poverty" because people in poverty "will be affected the worst from climate change."

Others who jumped onto the exploitation bandwagon include the abortion lobby, socialists, race hate groups, and even feminists -- who claim that advancing female literacy will make countries more likely to fight global warming. Saying "and out cause will solve global warming" has become a knee jerk claim for most leftist groups.

The whole "science" has been corrupted by these people.

wahsatchmo said...

Tennessee Jed -

I'd checked out that link a while back when I was first trying to get my head around the science behind anthropogenic climate change, and it sounded reasonable at first. That is, until I ran into their circular arguments. Once I hit that the core of climate science is: "Our models reflect our understanding of climate science and our models show anthropogenic warming is occurring," (I paraphrase) I realized that the science had stopped some time ago.

It's as Andrew says, the models are extraordinarily primitive, especially when you consider the hours devoted to their meaningless complexity.

Every model referenced by the IPCC has fudge factors for water vapor feedback. When backtested, the models should show significantly more warming than historical temperatures actually show. Rather than rethink the theory behind the models, they threw in another fudge factor for cooling from aerosols. This factor is whatever the modeler wants it to be to horse their model's results in line with temperature. This is despite the fact that aerosols do not affect temperature on anything more than a local scale, and in nowhere near the amount required to bring the model's past temperatures in line with historical temperatures. But they include a huge past cooling factor anyway so that their models look like they have precision.

The models are nothing more than a visualization of climate science theories, with no correlation to true experimentation. True experimentation hasn't occurred in climate science for years, and until it happens, the null hypothesis (anthropogenic global climate "change" is not occurring on a significant scale) is as or more valid than the AGW proponents' theory.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew, further to your point. in the late 50's and early '60s' Scientists sounded the alarm that we were poisoning our air and water supplies with dangerous industrial chemicals and garbage. We responded with the "Ecology Movement" and now our air and water are cleaner than they have been in several generation. BUT they had tangible proof - rivers that caught fire and choking smog. Today, the whales are thriving, rivers are flowing with fish and there are beavers returning to places they haven't been in 100 years.

Hot weather in the summer and cold weather in the winter are not tangible proof.

AndrewPrice said...

wahsatchmo, I agree 100%. The models are meant to make the public think that there is science behind the guess work, but there isn't. The models are just graphical representations of the formulas put together by the "scientists," and those formulas are opinion, not science. They ignore logic, they ignore historical experience, they ignore a million factors they haven't even begun to consider, and then they include the fudge factors to make the result spit out by the model fit the theory. That's not science, that's advocacy.

Think of it this way. If I told you that your car gets 4000 miles to the gallon if I include a fudge factor of 3970 mpg, you wouldn't think much of my model. But that's what these climate models are doing. Then they turn around and use the 4000 figure to demand massive policy changes.

If they ever want any credibility, they need to stop all of this garbage and start using real scientific rigor, where you can plug in data and come to a result that is verifiable.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's a good point too. But they rely on evidence like warm summer weather to scare people because they have nothing else. If they could tell us "the atmosphere is 5 degrees hotter" or "the ocean is now 5% saltier," then they would tell us that. But they don't have that kind of proof. So instead, they show us warm summer weather and claim that it's evidence of warming or they show us a melting glacier (but ignore the expanding glacier next door).

When someone presents fake evidence, that's the clearest sign that they don't have a legitimate case.

P.S. On the chemicals in water, they are now trying to add a whole new layer of regulation to further reduce these chemicals, even though they are far, far below levels where most can even be found at this point -- much less hurt humans.

ScottDS said...

Every time I think of Mr. Weiner (which isn't that often!), I'm reminded of this Homer Simpson line when Bart joins the Junior Campers:

"Well, if it isn't the leader of the wiener patrol, boning up on his nerd lessons."

As for global warming, I describe myself as an agnostic on the subject. However, I'm a bit more skeptical when it comes to claims that humans have NO impact.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, ironically, I think even "The Day After Tomorrow" inadvertently hit this theme of unpredictability. For anyone who drank a lot of bleach after that movie and killed that part of their memory, it's about global warming shutting down the ocean currents, especially the Gulf Stream, and causing the Northern Hemisphere to be thrown into a new Ice Age. Outlandish as the movie made it, that's actually a theory advocated by a number of scientists; supposedly fresh water from the melting ice caps would disrupt the Gulf Stream, which is responsible for keeping Western Europe relatively mild, etc etc. (It would of course take years in real life, not days.) But many who believe in global warming doubt such a scenario would occur, arguing a bunch of stuff I'm unfamiliar with. Point is, even the AGW crowd admits that it could have effects totally different from what you'd expect, and predicting this stuff is extremely difficult at best. That probably was not the message they wanted viewers of the movie to come away with.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Quite frankly, this wouldn't be half the story it was if Weiner hadn't built his career on GOP-bashing and demagoguery at every turn. For those who derive pleasure from such things...okay, for me, Rangel's resignation wouldn't have been half as sweet as this.

Here's a video of how the announcement went down, for those who haven't seen it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/06/16/weiner_cheered_and_heckled_at_presser_announcing_his_resignation.html

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, I wonder if that line has crossed Weiner's mind lately? LOL!

On global warming, you've got it backwards. The onus is on the party advancing a theory to prove it, i.e. you can't just assume it must be true until disproven. That's bad logic and bad science.

Further, I don't think anyone rational would claim that humans have no effect on the environment. You can see the effect when cities heat up because of concrete or how Arizona got more humid because people imported all those trees and started watering them. But there is no evidence that humans have had any meaningful effect on the global climate.

Indeed, consider this fact. The worst thing we could do would be to set off all of our nukes at once right? That would destroy the planet right? Actually, an equal amount of energy (and all that goes with it -- magma, chemicals, dust, etc.) is released by the earth every day in a series of ocean volcanoes without any negative effects on the global environment. If that's true, then how much harm do you really think cars or factories are causing?

Even the warming enthusiasts admit that man only accounts for at most 2.7% of all greenhouse gases. That's within the measurement margin of error for the amount of greenhouse gases produced by the earth each year. To assume that this means we are affecting the climate is the height of bad science.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, That's why it's "climate change" now rather than global warming. In the 1970s it was the "next ice age." But once the sun changed its cycle, the earth warmed again. Suddenly it became "global warming." But then the warming suddenly went away when they started tracking it more honestly -- a whole book could be written on the thing they've done to fake the data. With the earth suddenly cooling (and none of their predictions coming true), they had to rethink their sales pitch. So they renamed "global warming" as "climate change" so that it could now be "proven" byt warming, cooling, nothing changing, more rain, less rain, a plague of bears, etc. In other words, they've turned it into a generic theory that can be proven by anything that happens or even nothing at all.

That's what makes this so pathetic. Rather than fixing the science, they just expand the propaganda.

Patti said...

if all i had to do is say i believe in global warming to turn down the texas heat, I WOULD! where is our promised ice-age, gosh darn it.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, The nastier they are, the sweeter the fall. And Weiner really has been a nasty one. But then, frankly, arrogance and trouble tend to go hand in hand.


(I had to fix your link, I hope this is the one you intended: LINK)

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, I'm kind of hoping for an ice age too. I hate the heat!

T-Rav said...

Andrew, yep that's the one. Frankly, though, I don't think anything can top the press conference last week, when someone shouted at the retreating rep at the end, "Were you fully erect, Congressman?" Thus do two and a half weeks of weirdness and all-around smut come to an end.

wahsatchmo said...

ScottDS -

I can appreciate your point, and I apologize for piling on, but I don't know of any legitimate skeptical scientist that is claiming that humans do not have an effect on the environment. The core of the debate is whether catastrophic climate change is occurring, and whether that change is anthropogenic in nature.

AGW proponents like to frame the debate as all or nothing, but that is disingenuous and meant to provoke religious fervor more than spark debate.

From my perspective, I find it difficult to embrace AGW theory because a core component is that water vapor represents a runaway positive feedback in an otherwise stable natural system. Runaway positive feedbacks in nature are very rare (nuclear fusion is one, but it stops when all the fuel is consumed); entropy and decay are the norm for the universe. Proponents of AGW are making a huge leap when they posit that the man-made production of carbon dioxide results in a slow-motion runaway positive feedback loop, especially without any experimental evidence to back it up. It's similar to claiming that we humans have accidentally made a perpetual motion machine.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Yeah, that was a truly an inspired moment for our republic! LOL!

You know, there was a time when people would quietly disappear from public life when they get caught in these kinds of scandals, but not anymore. Ug.

AndrewPrice said...

wahsatchmo, That is a very good comparison between global warming theory and a perpetual motion machine as the claim is similar.

What I find ridiculous too is the claim that cumulative changes in temperature matter. That's a silly way around the lack of warming and the realization that they are at worst talking about a couple degrees -- which would be good for the earth, not bad.

So instead, they came up with this idea that you could keep adding the increases each year to get some sort of cumulative change. But try heating a roast that way or freezing ice. That's where entropy and decay come in -- the universe always tends toward the removal of energy, it does not store it to be added together in the future. And any theory that relies on the idea that energy will just sit there waiting until the next year to be added to is a theory that is inconsistent with all of the known universe.

BevfromNYC said...

Yeah, what Wahsatchmo and Andrew said...

Tennessee Jed said...

whasatchmo - absolutely about that link. I wasn't so much trying to say their facts were any good. Rather, I tried to, in good conscience, look up something objective . . .it is one of the first places that comes up in a google search on the subject . . . and what do you know, it is a clearly politicized agenda site. I thought the folks here might get a good laugh.

Cheryl said...

No fair Bev! I read Commentarama every day and never have a single intelligent thing to add to what you brainiacs over here have to say. If it was as easy as just saying "ditto", well then I would throw in my two cents more often. :)

AndrewPrice said...

Cheryl, Feel free to throw in your two cents any time! We're always interested in hearing from anyone! :-)


Bev & Cheryl, One of the things I love about how Commentarama has grown is that we've got a really bright and thoughtful audience who always contribute great thoughts and original thoughts. wahsatchmo's perpetual motion machine analogy is a great example of that -- that's something I honestly have never heard before, but it makes absolute sense now that he's said it. I love the fact that someone here can always be counted on to come up with these kinds of thoughts!

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I just checked out the link and you're right, "unbiased" is not the word that comes to mind. But that's not uncommon. It would be interesting to see a truly fair site, but I'm not sure there is such a thing -- plus a truly unbiased site would be accused of heresy and conservative bias by the enthusiasts. So maybe there's no point after all?

** sighs **

T-Rav said...

Cheryl, for what it's worth, I never feel like what I say amounts to more than a hill of beans. Seriously, you can usually be more informative and constructive than you think you can.

Oh, and I'll second everyone else in saying wahsatchmo's perpetual motion machine analogy pretty well nails the kookery these scientists are engaging in.

wahsatchmo said...

Jed -

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you supported that site in anyway - I knew you were having a laugh at it and inviting us to do the same.

I'm glad you brought that site up, because I've seen it referenced at least a couple times as an "intelligent critique of the skeptical position", which it is anything but.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, Hill of beans? My don't you think a lot of yourself! Just kidding.....

Everybody here has contributed great ideas at one time or another.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I wouldn't look too good as a blowhard, would I? (snort)

By the way, to explode another environmentalist claim, turns out the IPCC's statement that it would be possible for the world to get 80percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050, is probably not true. Beyond common sense talking, it also appears that the IPCC official who made this claim is also a Greenpeace activist and propagandist. This probably counts as a "conflict of interest." Oh, and there was also no oversight of the report he was writing. Yeahhh....

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Nobody look good as a blowhard. Some people think they do, but they don't.

The IPCC report is a total disgrace from start to finish. Interestingly, Germany, which actually wants to achieve that 80% number (and is stupid enough to try) not thinks they won't get beyond 20% -- and that includes a lot of assumptions that won't happen.

I read the 80% figure like the "we'll run out of space to put our garbage by 19__" claim. It's totally made up by someone who wanted to force people to become environmentalists and it has no basis in reality or science.

AndrewPrice said...

By the way, T_Rav, I've been working on the Commentarama Reading List. I'm having some problems with the bottom end of the list though. But hopefully, I'll have something ready in a week. If you have any suggestions, let me know.

Koshcay said...

Here is what I worry about, soon we will see a pattern of increase warming again because it always does that and we have been cooling since 1998. I guarantee that the Gorians will start running around again pointing to the temperatures saying "see, see, here it comes the end of the world!". The guys predicting the rapture date have more legitimacy.

Koshcat said...

Koshcay? Dang typos

AndrewPrice said...

Koshkat, Typos beset us all!

It's funny you should mention the rapture because that's exactly what I was thinking about -- the way they pick a date, then cherry pick signs from the headlines, then they hedge (it's coming, but it might not), then they blow it.... but their theory doesn't die, it just transforms: "Oh, I forgot to carry the one, the new date is ___."

And people keep believing them!

It's the same thing with climate science. They come up with a theory that is basically fantasy and fits their needs rather than reality. Then they look for facts to validate their theory and they ignore all contrary evidence. Finally, when it doesn't happen, they shift their theory and find excuses. And yet, people continue to believe them.

In any other profession, this kind of track record gets your fired and banned. But here it gets you appointed to a UN committee.

And you're right, once it warms up they will scream "this just proves that it was always warming!" Because they will never give up.

BevfromNYC said...

Cheryl - How do you think I survive around here? "Ditto" is my secret weapon...

T-Rav said...

Will do, Andrew. Can't wait to see what you've got.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's cheating! LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, Most of the list is ready, but it's amazing how hard it is to find conservative books after the obvious ones. Hmmm. Sounds like a definite market opportunity!

CrispyRice said...

Ummm, ditto?

:D

Actually, on topic, though, just this morning our radio guy (Quinn & Rose) interviewed the author of a book called _It's the S-U-N, Not Your S-U-V_. LOL! He made points about how the climatologists have changed data, ie omitting rural data in favor of urban data to achieve higher temps in the years they want. He also has a website with some quick and easy information.

http://itsthesunnotyoursuv.com/

Disclaimer - I haven't read this, just heard about it this morning.

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, LOL! Umm ditto!

Ignoring the sun and its effects in environmental discussions is absurd, but that's what the environmentalists do... they believe the absurd to make their theories work.

Here's your link: LINK.

StanH said...

But Andrew, the Goreacle said we’re doomed. It’s impossible to plan anything in this country…sheesh.

When liberal lunacy, is exposed to reason and thought, their hooey vaporizes like a sale fart in a brisk wind. Good read!

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Stan! Yeah, logic is not something liberals like to talk about because nothing they believe can past even basic logic, much less the more complex scientific stuff. This is no exception.

Anonymous said...

Great article. Canada just seems to accept the whole global warming charade without ever thinking about it. Hopefully, that will start to change as these things become better known.

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, Good luck with that. Canada like much of the rest of the West seems determined to go forward with this no matter what.

Post a Comment