The Myth of "Settled Science"

[Clocker]

Moonbat alert. The following may be hazardous to your health. It is about an column written by Charles Krauthammer and published by the National Review. Most moonbats will already be foaming at the mouth just based on the previous sentence. Please take your meds and proceed at your own risk.

I repeat: I’m not a global-warming believer. I’m not a global-warming denier. I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30, or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist-in-chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less).

Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast-cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo, or surgery.

So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?

They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: “You sit in front of a computer screen for ten years and you start to think of your model as being real.” Not surprisingly, these models have been “consistently and spectacularly wrong” in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists Richard McNider and John Christy — and always, amazingly, in the same direction.



The rest of the article is HERE (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371639/myth-settled-science-charles-krauthammer). Any moonbats still reading should self-medicate before proceeding further.

[NJ Stinks]

I guess Krauthammer was desperate to find something to knock Obama about and his deadline was approaching. :sleeping:

[Clocker]

I guess someone unable to critique the content of the article stooped to a personal attack on the author. Never could have seen that coming. :rolleyes:

[redshift1]

I guess someone unable to critique the content of the article stooped to a personal attack on the author. Never could have seen that coming. :rolleyes:

It should be critiqued, as an advertisement.

.

[davew]

I think 0bama was referring to the night and day cycles and yearly seasons
(spring, summer, fall, winter)


although probably just the first one.

[fast4522]

There is nothing scientific at all about the way they go about their science. They will not talk about the airline industry and its deposits and effects because it counters the harmful rays from the sun. In short the negative deposits from the carbon fuels we burn on earth and the negative deposits from aircraft that fly much higher don't mix because they are at different levels. The amount of commercial aircraft canvasing the jet airways is staggering and it too leaves a band of deposits that is blocking the bad effects of the sun. In any of the mambo jumbo global warming study's is there mention of any effect of airline travel, commercial aircraft, any jet aircraft emissions anyplace ? NO, because it is the sacred cow that no government wants to affect with negative talk. Anytime you exclude data, your study becomes a joke, and those who listen to you are nothing but fools.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLIJc7YE_jw

[hcap]

Das Krauthammer ist kein Klimawissenschaftler. Er erinnert mich an Franz Liebkind in Mel Brooks' der Erzeuger nicht viele Menschen wissen es, aber der Führer hat eine super Tänzerin.**
Since I am a Climate Nazi, I unfortunately reverted back to my native tongue and political roots when I read Mr Krauthammer article. Could hardly control myself. I mean he spilledd the beans on the secretive Nazi plot to infiltrate the free world and destroy western civilization as we know it.

I mean it was a low blow to all of us who have strived for all these years to clandestinely manipulate modern scientific thought. He uncovered our dastardly plot for all free men to see. Sort of like that famous play write Franz Liebkind of ther Producers fame. Now that I have recovered my senses and adopted gutter language of English let me translate.

Translation:

**Mr Krauthammer is not a climate scientist. He reminds me of Franz Liebkind in Mel Brooks' the Producers ...."Not many people know it, but the Fuhrer was a terrific dancer."



Remember guys, the consensus was he WAS NOT a terrific dancer
.

[fast4522]

You sure got some sick shit going on Hcap, what is that some kind of reverse bait for your less than intelligent comeback?

Krauthammer states what we all know, your data is bullshit. What you believe we all could care less about, so have a nice day at the races.

[hcap]

You sure got some sick shit going on Hcap, what is that some kind of reverse bait for your less than intelligent comeback?

Krauthammer states what we all know, your data is bullshit. What you believe we all could care less about, so have a nice day at the races.Sorry gotta take this call from my good buddy Helmut.

[Tom]

Based on the last 4 days temperatures, it should be around 214 by Friday.

[hcap]

Based on the last 4 days temperatures, it should be around 214 by Friday.I think Das Kraut will joining with Clocker to open a weather forecasting website. Why don't you ask them? Evidently they are as qualified as even .................................you, to do this professionally

To be called "The Unsettled Daily Forecast"

Or "Take Your Best Shot"

Or " It's Been Hotter, It's been Colder"

[Tom]

The bottom line is nothing is going stop what is happening, whatever it is.
It is nature.
And it is political.
And major countries will not participate.

Just Chicken Little responses.

Move on, and move inland. :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

Inland?

Recently in the other idiotic thread on climate change, you gents had conniptions accusing Kerry of using stupid language comparing AGW with WMDs, You do know of course that Kerry was in Indonesia. Population 237,424,363. Consisting of thousands of close to sea level islands.

Where will they go?

[tucker6]

Inland?

Recently in the other idiotic thread on climate change, you gents had conniptions accusing Kerry of using stupid language comparing AGW with WMDs, You do know of course that Kerry was in Indonesia. Population 237,424,363. Consisting of thousands of close to sea level islands.

Where will they go?
Nowhere HCAP. They don't need to go anywhere as the ocean are rising at the rate of 9 inches per century. That's considering all the warmth that has already been put into the system according to your math. Since we are now flat lining on temps, the rate of increase has slowed, and if we hit a cold bump in the road as I foresee, oceans may not rise at all at some point in this century. Those are the facts HCAP no matter who you attack or graph you post.

And just for your information, I have both lived in Indonesia AND started an internet weather company. :)

http://www.stormvistawxmodels.com/

[Tom]

Where will they go?

Off hand, I'll say underwater.
Now, seeing how you know for sure they are going away, what would you call someone who stays there?

Uh, let me suggest........MORON?

Hey, you do know that the continents are moving, right?
Maybe they could just hop onto one as they go by.

[hcap]

Nowhere HCAP. They don't need to go anywhere as the ocean are rising at the rate of 9 inches per century. That's considering all the warmth that has already been put into the system according to your math. Since we are now flat lining on temps, the rate of increase has slowed, and if we hit a cold bump in the road as I foresee, oceans may not rise at all at some point in this century. Those are the facts HCAP no matter who you attack or graph you post.

And just for your information, I have both lived in Indonesia AND started an internet weather company. :)

http://www.stormvistawxmodels.com/No info on your site.

Meanwhile

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

Scientific research indicates sea levels worldwide have been rising at a rate of 0.14 inches (3.5 millimeters) per year since the early 1990s. The trend, linked to global warming, puts thousands of coastal cities, like Venice, Italy, (seen here during a historic flood in 2008), and even whole islands at risk of being claimed by the ocean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Current sea level rise is about 3 mm/year worldwide. According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "this is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years", and the rate may be increasing.[2] This rise in sea levels around the world potentially affects human populations in coastal and island regions[3] and natural environments like marine ecosystems.[4]

Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in), 1.46 mm (0.057 in) per year.[5] From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[6] a faster rate of increase than previously estimated.[7]

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

.................................................. ...............

Hey tucker are you a climatologist?

[fast4522]

well then, sounds like they will adapt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUWyODR1_sA

[hcap]

Off hand, I'll say underwater.
Now, seeing how you know for sure they are going away, what would you call someone who stays there?

Uh, let me suggest........MORON?

Hey, you do know that the continents are moving, right?
Maybe they could just hop onto one as they go by.Things are happening much faster than they did just previous to recent AGW

Even these 250 million morons living in Indonesia realize continental drift takes place over eons, and is a very long term process.

The only thing slower than continental drift is most conservative thought processes, and your attempts at common sense :lol:

[Sapio]

No info on your site.

Meanwhile

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

Scientific research indicates sea levels worldwide have been rising at a rate of 0.14 inches (3.5 millimeters) per year since the early 1990s. The trend, linked to global warming, puts thousands of coastal cities, like Venice, Italy, (seen here during a historic flood in 2008), and even whole islands at risk of being claimed by the ocean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Current sea level rise is about 3 mm/year worldwide. According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "this is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years", and the rate may be increasing.[2] This rise in sea levels around the world potentially affects human populations in coastal and island regions[3] and natural environments like marine ecosystems.[4]

Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in), 1.46 mm (0.057 in) per year.[5] From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[6] a faster rate of increase than previously estimated.[7]

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

.................................................. ...............

Hey tucker are you a climatologist?

The sea level rising rate can be correlated to increasing population... nothing a few big time wars wouldn't solve.

Thomas Sapio

[Clocker]

The only thing slower than continental drift is most conservative thought processes, and your attempts at common sense :lol:

You have your stereotypes back-asswards.

Krauthammer's Law (2002):

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

[Clocker]

The sea level rising rate can be correlated to increasing population... nothing a few big time wars wouldn't solve.

Thomas Sapio

I think you may have something there. The seas aren't rising, the land is sinking into the sea under the increasing weight of people and their stuff. :p

[fast4522]

English Standard Version

And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”

[hcap]

You have your stereotypes back-asswards.

Krauthammer's Law (2002):I will give you points for stirring up enough garbage to completely muddy up the issues. ( at least among andd for PA cons).

But all of this was dealt with on All the global warming threads on this site. Probably close to 10--- full blown same old, same old stuff. Das Kraut Er ist nicht ein Klimatologe macht sich ans Werk nur sehr schwach aufgeschlossen**

**Das Kraut, he is not a climatologist just rather feeble minded

Excuse my true 3rd Reich Nazi sympathies. Can't help but propagandizing every chance I get :eek:

[fast4522]

So call in the Calvary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-QQI6lb_Hg

[hcap]

The sea level rising rate can be correlated to increasing population... nothing a few big time wars wouldn't solve.

Thomas SapioHave you thought of discussing that seriously with Tom? Actually Indonesia has quite a few Muslims. Most "ragheads" own plenty of stinkin' WMDs threatening our way of life and western values anywho. :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

No info on your site.

Meanwhile

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

Scientific research indicates sea levels worldwide have been rising at a rate of 0.14 inches (3.5 millimeters) per year since the early 1990s. The trend, linked to global warming, puts thousands of coastal cities, like Venice, Italy, (seen here during a historic flood in 2008), and even whole islands at risk of being claimed by the ocean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Current sea level rise is about 3 mm/year worldwide. According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "this is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years", and the rate may be increasing.[2] This rise in sea levels around the world potentially affects human populations in coastal and island regions[3] and natural environments like marine ecosystems.[4]

Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in), 1.46 mm (0.057 in) per year.[5] From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[6] a faster rate of increase than previously estimated.[7]

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

.................................................. ...............

Hey tucker are you a climatologist?
There is so much going wrong in this post that I don't have time today to straighten you out. I will try to do so tomorrow afternoon. Rushed for time, and this needs 30 minutes that I don't have. No I am not a climatologist. I am a capitalist. My site isn't giving out free info. Gotta pay for it. It is for the serious hobbyist or a business that depends on weather forecasts. Has nothing to do with climatology.

[tucker6]

I think you may have something there. The seas aren't rising, the land is sinking into the sea under the increasing weight of people and their stuff. :p
I know you were kiddingly making another point, but in fact many islands that 'may' have future issues with sea level are actually sinking rather than the ocean rising.

[hcap]

English Standard Version

And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”Hey, don't forget Noah

[hcap]

I know you were kiddingly making another point, but in fact many islands that 'may' have future issues with sea level are actually sinking rather than the ocean rising.How many?

[rastajenk]

Which will cause more suffering: slowly rising seas, or rapidly increasing energy costs due to bureaucratic-imposed scarcity and rationing, which will obviously impact poorer people and poorer nations much more than rich people and rich nations? Do the poor have a choice in this matter, or should they just shut up and take it?

[fast4522]

Indonesia will be humping right along long after your gone, guaranteed.

[hcap]

Which will cause more suffering: slowly rising seas, or rapidly increasing energy costs due to bureaucratic-imposed scarcity and rationing, which will obviously impact poorer people and poorer nations much more than rich people and rich nations? Do the poor have a choice in this matter, or should they just shut up and take it?You gotta be kidding

[rastajenk]

Not really. I ask you this every couple years or so: what is the ensuing public policy, even if everyone agreed that warming, change, whatever is caused by humans? If we are supposed to cut back on fossil fuels for our energy needs, what will be the effects on economies, national securities, standards of livings, etc.? Who sets the caps, and who gets to trade?

[Clocker]

I know you were kiddingly making another point, but in fact many islands that 'may' have future issues with sea level are actually sinking rather than the ocean rising.

No point, just kidding. :p

Although I was reminded of the Democratic Congressman who was worried about Guam tipping over under the weight of US military bases.

[Clocker]

If we are supposed to cut back on fossil fuels for our energy needs, what will be the effects on economies, national securities, standards of livings, etc.?

A government that is oblivious to saddling future generations with trillions of dollars of debt obviously cares not a wit about their standard of living.

[hcap]

Not really. I ask you this every couple years or so: what is the ensuing public policy, even if everyone agreed that warming, change, whatever is caused by humans? If we are supposed to cut back on fossil fuels for our energy needs, what will be the effects on economies, national securities, standards of livings, etc.? Who sets the caps, and who gets to trade?I listed a broad range of actions and policies that can be taken on the "Melting Antartica" thread after PA asked me the very same thing.

[fast4522]

A government that is oblivious to saddling future generations with trillions of dollars of debt obviously cares not a wit about their standard of living.

Amend that.

[hcap]

Send no greenbacks to Canada.
More Tea Please! .Too many will probably cause Canada to sink :lol:

[Clocker]

Indonesia will be humping right along long after your gone, guaranteed.

Think of all the investment opportunities for ocean front high rise properties. :cool:

[hcap]

Think of all the investment opportunities for ocean front high rise properties. :cool:I think you just answered part of rastajenks question

"what will be the effects on economies?"

[fast4522]

I think you just answered part of rastajenks question

"what will be the effects on economies?"

Well, looks like taxes will be under water. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Clocker]

Well, looks like taxes will be under water.

Not the kind of investment opportunity where you want to get in on the ground floor.

[Tom]

I know you were kiddingly making another point, but in fact many islands that 'may' have future issues with sea level are actually sinking rather than the ocean rising.
Some democrat idiot was concerned that some of them might flip over! :lol: :lol: :lol: This is the party of science! :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

Das Kraut mentioned mammograms in his article and how they were misunderstood by the medical "consensus"Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast-cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo, or surgery.
Well how right is he? He is a doctor and it would seem it is right up his alley. Not quite. The issue is not settled one way or the other.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/mammogram-study_b_4825480.html

There is a long history of research on the topic, and conclusions have been anything but consistent. Some studies suggest clear potential benefit for women who would not otherwise be screened. But, of course, women who would not be screened are apt to differ in a variety of ways from those who would -- including, perhaps, their access to, and the quality of, primary medical care. Unbundling such influences is nearly impossible.

And......
http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BreastCancer/44317

However the so-called consensus did not shut down new studies. There ARE FEW conspiracies by the doctors "consensus," not to allow others to KEEP studying. OF COURSE WE DID HAVE PROBLEMS WITH COMMERCIAL INTERESTS TO KEEP SMOKING ALIVE, EVEN THOUGH IT ACTUALLY KILLED US TO SMOKE. Of curse drug companies influence opinions an manipulate some doctors.

However Peer Reviewed studies are being written all the time both in medicine and climatology. Results evolve and change over the course of time, and so although there is no conspiratorial lock out of dissenters to any great degree, there is the "price of admission" into the debate. Review by ones' peers. No, climate skeptics are not discriminated against but NOT part of the real debate because they publish so few acceptable papers that pass through the process and get published. Their science is just mostly piss poor.

Btw, I found this video that uses mammography as a study for risk taking. Applicable in general/jFzahAm3qFQ?

[Clocker]

Das Kraut...

"Kraut" is a derogatory term for Germans, based on a dietary staple. It is equivalent to calling a Mexican a "beaner".

But then, I may not be up on "consensus" political correctness, an area which we all know is staked out by the libs.

...mentioned mammograms in his article and how they were misunderstood by the medical "consensus"Well how right is he? He is a doctor and it would seem it is right up his alley. Not quite. The issue is not settled one way or the other.

You have just validated his basic premise. He said that the consensus science on mammograms was brought into question by recent research. He did not say that such research replaced it as a new consensus. He said that "mammograms may have no effect on breast-cancer deaths". "May" implies an unsettled conclusion, which is to say, a lack of consensus. So your statement that "the issue is not settled" restates the good doctor's initial assertion: there is no consensus science.

[rastajenk]

And as soon as there is, it's no longer science, it's some kind of faith.

[Clocker]

And as soon as there is, it's no longer science, it's some kind of faith.

It is ironic that those espousing consensus science and Keynesian economics on the left can't see that they are just as dogmatic as the fundamentalist Christians on the right. Never give an inch!

[hcap]

"Kraut" is a derogatory term for Germans, based on a dietary staple. It is equivalent to calling a Mexican a "beaner".

But then, I may not be up on "consensus" political correctness, an area which we all know is staked out by the libs..he mentioned mammograms in his article and how they were misunderstood by the medical "consensus "Well how right is he? He is a doctor and it would seem it is right up his alley. Not quite. The issue is not settled one way or the other You have just validated his basic premise. He said that the consensus science on mammograms was brought into question by recent research. He did not say that such research replaced it as a new consensus. He said that "mammograms may have no effect on breast-cancer deaths". "May" implies an unsettled conclusion, which is to say, a lack of consensus. So your statement that "the issue is not settled" restates the good doctor's initial assertion: there is no consensus science.I thought you knew that some schmuck on the right, I believe Roy Spencer. announced anyone who called deniers deniers, were the equivalent of Nazis. Thought that SCHMUCK deserved some recognition. Luckily Das Kraut was available for schmuck stand in duty. BTW, according to PA and his rules, if and as long as some old time tv series NYP Blue repeated such infractions, that language was allowed. Schmuck is quite similar to bitch or POS that is used all the time here. Of course I will not mention our all time no-no even if it is abbreviated. :rolleyes:

I have validated MY premise not Das Krauts. The article in the Huff Post indicated it WAS NOT SETTLED before the new study and Das Kraut indicated that it was SETTLED until this study came along.
It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer
Wrongo!. You should not assume Das Kraut spoke the truth just because he is Das Kraut. And I have learned from previous debates you are a flat out liar. So my use of schmuck is an expression of anger towards you and Spencer. If you are going to lie be more sophisticated about it. Call me a Nazi if you like, but once again misrepresenting in plain sight what is out there for all to see is kinda weak. Third time you have done it. :mad:

[Clocker]

Thought that SCHMUCK deserved some recognition. Luckily Das Kraut was available for schmuck stand in duty. BTW, according to PA and his rules, if and as long as some old time tv series NYP Blue repeated such infractions, that language was allowed. Schmuck is quite similar to bitch or POS that is used all the time here. Of course I will not mention our all time no-no even if it is abbreviated. :rolleyes:

Help needed. One hundred inner-web bucks reward for a translation of the above to English. Preference given to avoidance of racial slurs like "kraut".

[hcap]

http://www.ohnemist.de/wp-content/gallery/bayerisch-kraut/dynamic/bayerisch-kraut-12-nggid0224-ngg0dyn-400x280x100-00f0w010c010r110f110r010t010.jpg =
http://www.sadlyno.com/wordpress/uploads/2007/08/krauthammerdesksmall.jpg

[HUSKER55]

well that explains everything

[tucker6]

Some democrat idiot was concerned that some of them might flip over! :lol: :lol: :lol: This is the party of science! :lol: :lol:
even worse, some of HCAP's Alarmist friends have produced "peer reviewed" science which suggest that the Greenland ice cap may one day slide into the sea due to melting from AGW. The hypothesis is that the melted water would lubricate the whole ice mass from underneath? Really???? The Greenland ice cap is essentially in a bowl and is miles thick. And Greenland has been much, MUCH warmer in the past. The paper was based off one small region of the ice cap moving faster than the others. If you read the paper, all other non-AGW possibilities were excluded BEFORE the scientific research and evaluation was started. It seems that reality is not best friends to these eco nuts. This is a prime example of HCAP's use of the "scientific method" lingo. That is, find a possible anomalous situation somewhere and then find a potential reason why AGW is involved. If the facts cannot be twisted to support the hypothesis, then torture the facts as necessary until they confess to being caused by AGW. Simple science when you think about it.

[tucker6]

It is ironic that those espousing consensus science and Keynesian economics on the left can't see that they are just as dogmatic as the fundamentalist Christians on the right. Never give an inch!
best post in this thread. If only the left had mirrors to view when describing what ails us.

[Tom]

Simple science when you think about it.

So why don't the simpletons get it? :rolleyes:

[hcap]

even worse, some of HCAP's Alarmist friends have produced "peer reviewed" science which suggest that the Greenland ice cap may one day slide into the sea due to melting from AGW. The hypothesis is that the melted water would lubricate the whole ice mass from underneath? Really???? The Greenland ice cap is essentially in a bowl and is miles thick. And Greenland has been much, MUCH warmer in the past. The paper was based off one small region of the ice cap moving faster than the others. If you read the paper, all other non-AGW possibilities were excluded BEFORE the scientific research and evaluation was started. It seems that reality is not best friends to these eco nuts. This is a prime example of HCAP's use of the "scientific method" lingo. That is, find a possible anomalous situation somewhere and then find a potential reason why AGW is involved. If the facts cannot be twisted to support the hypothesis, then torture the facts as necessary until they confess to being caused by AGW. Simple science when you think about it.Ok, let's see the the Alarmist article from my Alarmist friends.

[hcap]

best post in this thread. If only the left had mirrors to view when describing what ails us.Really? You gents realize generalities are a dime a dozen. I could also say similar nonsense about the so-called "free market" idolaters and environmental disasters. Except in that case, it is not far from the truth.

[hcap]

So why don't the simpletons get it? :rolleyes:Because they sweep it under the rug repeatingv mindlessly regurgitated pablum like "it's been colder, it's been hotter" :rolleyes:



.

[DJofSD]

"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." - André Gide

[tucker6]

Ok, let's see the the Alarmist article from my Alarmist friends.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/27/why-the-greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheets-are-not-collapsing/

From the article:

Global warming alarmists have suggested that the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica may collapse, causing disastrous sea level rise. This idea is based on the concept of an ice sheet sliding down an inclined plane on a base lubricated by meltwater, which is itself increasing because of global warming.

In reality the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets occupy deep basins, and cannot slide down a plane. Furthermore glacial flow depends on stress (including the important yield stress) as well as temperature, and much of the ice sheets are well below melting point.

In these days of alarmist warnings about climate warming, the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have an important role. Many papers have described their melting at the present times, and dire predictions of many metres of sea level rise are common. Christoffersen and Hambrey published a typical paper on the Greenland ice sheet in Geology Today in May, 2006.

****************

There's your answer boy scout. Look up the paper yourself. Are you denying that such stupidity and garbage can pass peer review?? You still trust peer review as the absolute arbiter of righteousness on climate science???

[hcap]

Not really. The so-called alarmists are not as certain as you guys claim. There ARE other papers that do not claim complete collapse. Besides the paper Watts cites is from 8/09. And the only paper that you cite from 2006 are not the consensus by any means.

More recent stuff...

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/greenlands-ice-surprisingly-stable-antarcticas-the-opposite-15500

Greenland’s Ice Sheet More Stable Than Once Believed: January 23rd, 2013

"The enormous sheets of ice that lie atop Greenland may not be as prone to catastrophic melting as many scientists thought, even if the planet continues to warm and temperatures remain high for hundreds of years. But while that may sound like good news, new evidence also suggests that parts of the even vaster ice sheets that lie atop Antarctica could be more unstable than once believed"

And...

http://www.livescience.com/41916-antarctica-ice-shelf-future-collapse.html

December 12, 2013
" SAN FRANCISCO — Antarctica's crumbling Larsen B Ice Shelf is poised to finally finish its collapse, a researcher said Tuesday (Dec. 10) here at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

The Scar Inlet Ice Shelf will likely fall apart during the next warm summer, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. Scar Inlet's ice is the largest remnant of the vast Larsen B shelf still attached to the Antarctic Peninsula. (Another small fragment, the Seal Nunataks, clings on as well.) In the Southern Hemisphere's summer of 2002, about 1,250 square miles (3,250 square kilometers) of the enormous Larsen B Ice Shelf splintered into hundreds of icebergs. Scar Inlet is about two-thirds the size of the ice lost from Larsen B.

And your favorite....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/stable-greenland-ice-sheet.htm

August 2013
"Irrespective of what it means to claim the ice sheet ‘survived’ (a rather unqualified claim since survival could be taken to mean that 99% or 1% of the ice was left), it is generally recognised that a complete melt-down of the Greenland ice sheet is far less likely than partial melting. The time-scales over which such a dramatic and complete failure could occur must also be reckoned in centuries rather than decades. Given how much uncertainty surrounds even the accurate measurement of negative mass balance (how much the ice is reducing per year), projections on the century scale are too speculative to be helpful when considering the current problem, which is sea level rise."

[tucker6]

HCAP,

I guarantee you that the liberal press published a news blurb on that 2006 paper and not any blurbs on the papers that discount that claim. It happens time and again. At some point, it smacks of agenda and anti-science.

[hcap]

HCAP,

I guarantee you that the liberal press published a news blurb on that 2006 paper and not any blurbs on the papers that discount that claim. It happens time and again. At some point, it smacks of agenda and anti-science.
I indicated the so-called alarmist eco-freaks were not so alarming or freaky as portrayed. Now you are deflecting to once again claim the media is in the vast international, socialist, Fat Al Gore's conspiracy pockets.

Can't win no matter what :eek:

[tucker6]

I indicated the so-called alarmist eco-freaks were not so alarming or freaky as portrayed. Now you are deflecting to once again claim the media is in the vast international, socialist, Fat Al Gore's conspiracy pockets.

Can't win no matter what :eek:
sometimes conspiracy theories are correct.

[hcap]

sometimes conspiracy theories are correct.And you may not be paranoid if they are really out to get ya :jump:

[fast4522]

The lefts modus operandi has always been that if you tell the same lie over and over some people will believe it. Do not expect Hcap to abandon this tactic, or any of the left wing folks here. They are all shape shifters who have zero integrity. With that being said just audit some of Mosty's, Goren's, and Hcap's posts because it is like they all drink from the same tainted water.

[hcap]

The rights modus operandi has always been that if you tell the same lie over and over some people will believe it. Do not expect Fast to abandon this tactic, or any of the right wing folks here. They are all shape shifters who have zero integrity. With that being said just audit some of JR's, Clocker's, and Fast's posts because it is like they all drink from the same tainted water.FTFY.

Honestly fast, insult by rote, is a dime a dozen. And equally as stupid.

Be creative and hunt around for better material

[fast4522]

Without copy and paste you would be absolutely next to nothing, I am not hunting around looking for straws as in your case. Enjoy the races.

[hcap]

Without copy and paste you would be absolutely next to nothing, I am not hunting around looking for straws as in your case. Enjoy the races.
I guess when I copy and paste stuff about your meager tuba playing abilities, ----the same old tune payed as repetitiously as possible with absolutely NO redeeming value---begins to bother you as much as your idiotic incomprehensible posts about commies and socialists and the left blah, blah, blah annoy me, you have nothing of any relevance or content to say.

/gz50-g9wHNE?

Now if you study

/REryOT53ORU?

[fast4522]

Hey Hcap, your brother from another mother to warm your heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSDajRqLA_8

[hcap]

Hey Hcap, your brother from another mother to warm your heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSDajRqLA_8
Cruiz is a snooze

[hcap]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/20/global_warming_old_arctic_ice_is_melting_away.html

Old Arctic Ice Is Disappearing and Taking the Rest of the Ice With It

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released a video that shows compellingly just how bad things are getting at the top of the world. The animation displays Arctic ice over time not just by how much area it covers, but also by age, with white being the oldest ice (nine years or older):

It’s not hard to see that over the past few years, the oldest ice has melted away, and over time the ice gets younger. That’s not good: Older ice is thicker and tends to hang around longer; young ice is generally thinner and melts away every summer. That means that the year-round amount of ice is dropping, and dropping rapidly. As the Arctic warms, its ability not just to form ice but to keep it wanes.
Advertisement

It’s not just area, either, it’s volume. Yes, the ice is covering less area of the sea, but it’s also thinning. That means it will melt even faster in the summer. This is very bad, because as far as we can tell this is a runaway process. Ice is white and reflective, while the water under it is darker. When the ice goes away it exposes the darker water which absorbs sunlight more efficiently, raising the temperature further. That’s one of the reasons we’re seeing the ice dwindling in the Arctic with alarming rapidity.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/20/arcticiceloss_age.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg

Watch the animation.




.

[tucker6]

of course that never happened before right?? The Arctic doesn't have cycles right?? All very normal, and NOAA knows it. I wonder why they don't mention those things. Any ideas on that HCAP??

[TJDave]

Old Arctic Ice Is Disappearing and Taking the Rest of the Ice With It



I have always wanted to sail the Northwest Passage.

[hcap]

of course that never happened before right?? The Arctic doesn't have cycles right?? All very normal, and NOAA knows it. I wonder why they don't mention those things. Any ideas on that HCAP??
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.short

Abstract

The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm

While it's true that natural variations of the climate have caused significant changes in Arctic ice extent in the past, it's important to note that such changes are not airtight arguments against anthropogenic global warming causing today's loss of ice. After all, events of the past do not describe newly identified influences by human culture on today's climate. Indeed, comparisons between past and present Arctic climate reveal different reasons for yesterday's and today's Arctic sea ice changes and strongly suggest that today's changes are largely anthropogenic ( Overpeck et al ). Meanwhile, analysis of several hundred indicators of past Arctic sea ice extent tells us that recent losses appear to have no parallel in records going back many thousands of years ( Polyak et al ).

The past 200 years offers an example of how natural and anthropogenic influences on Arctic sea ice can be distinguished. The Arctic appears to have undergone an unusually cool period in the early 19th century, certainly natural, with recovery to more normal conditions extending into the 20th century leading to the warming we see today. Referring to the graph above, we can see that after the earlier cool period sea ice extent in the Arctic appears to have largely stabilized, later to begin a steady decline in chorus with other emerging observations of global warming such as increasing air and ocean temperatures. This decline in ice extent is happening even though the causes for natural recovery from the unusual cold of the 19th century are no longer in play, while research strongly suggests these recent reductions in Arctic sea ice are caused by a new, anthropogenic mechanism ( Johannessen et al ).
Although natural factors have always influenced the state of Arctic sea ice, research strongly suggests that today's decline is driven by the novel influence of anthropogenic CO2 we've added to the atmosphere and thus is unique in Earth's history.

/Y3dYhC_AlYw?

[dartman51]

Translation:

**Mr Krauthammer is not a climate scientist. He reminds me of Franz Liebkind in Mel Brooks' the Producers ...."Not many people know it, but the Fuhrer was a terrific dancer."



Remember guys, the consensus was he WAS NOT a terrific dancer
.


Is Al Gore a climate scientist? Is Obama a climate scientist? Funny how you believe everything they about the subject. :eek:

[hcap]

Is Al Gore a climate scientist? Is Obama a climate scientist? Funny how you believe everything they about the subject. :eek:Responsible 3rd party laymen tend to rationally understand who the experts are. Das Kraut was citing erroneous speculations that there is no consensus. He is dead wrong. As was his flawed comparison to mammography.

Science not as simplistic as he claimed.

[Tom]

Nice dodge of the facts, there, hcapper.
Al gore, he's the one who says the center of the Earth is millions of degrees, right? And Obama, he;s the one who says GW is affecting all 57 states, right?
:lol::lol::lol:

Love, Ben

(Colder and Warmer)

[tucker6]

The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.

While it's true that natural variations of the climate have caused significant changes in Arctic ice extent in the past, it's important to note that such changes are not airtight arguments against anthropogenic global warming causing today's loss of ice. After all, events of the past do not describe newly identified influences by human culture on today's climate. Indeed, comparisons between past and present Arctic climate reveal different reasons for yesterday's and today's Arctic sea ice changes and strongly suggest that today's changes are largely anthropogenic ( Overpeck et al ). Meanwhile, analysis of several hundred indicators of past Arctic sea ice extent tells us that recent losses appear to have no parallel in records going back many thousands of years ( Polyak et al ).

The past 200 years offers an example of how natural and anthropogenic influences on Arctic sea ice can be distinguished. The Arctic appears to have undergone an unusually cool period in the early 19th century, certainly natural, with recovery to more normal conditions extending into the 20th century leading to the warming we see today. Referring to the graph above, we can see that after the earlier cool period sea ice extent in the Arctic appears to have largely stabilized, later to begin a steady decline in chorus with other emerging observations of global warming such as increasing air and ocean temperatures. This decline in ice extent is happening even though the causes for natural recovery from the unusual cold of the 19th century are no longer in play, while research strongly suggests these recent reductions in Arctic sea ice are caused by a new, anthropogenic mechanism ( Johannessen et al ).
Although natural factors have always influenced the state of Arctic sea ice, research strongly suggests that today's decline is driven by the novel influence of anthropogenic CO2 we've added to the atmosphere and thus is unique in Earth's history.

"We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years... A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend"

garbage in, garbage out. That paper was complete junk. Complete junk science. The essence of that paper is that they tweaked and tweaked a model until it reproduced a reasonable facsimile of poorly constructed proxies, and then claimed they had discovered something. Are you serious?? :lol:

I don't insult you HCAP. Why do you choose to insult yourself? You're better than this drivel. You actually believe the things you post?

[hcap]

Nice dodge of the facts, there, hcapper.
Al gore, he's the one who says the center of the Earth is millions of degrees, right? And Obama, he;s the one who says GW is affecting all 57 states, right?Third party types are allowed errors as first party types. However first party types are subject to peer review in order to be taken seriously. Deniers fail those tests

Problem is those third party types that rely on peerless, reviewless first party climate denier types, are clueless and half-witless :lol:

[Clocker]

[QUOTE=tucker6]"We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records

Can we get a peer-reviewed consensus here that this means they made up the data?

[hcap]

The Community Climate System Model

http://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/

http://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org:8080/bitstream/handle/1912/4176/jcli3761%252E1.pdf?sequence=1

The Community Climate System Model (CCSM) is a
coupled model for simulating past, present, and future
climates. In its present form, CCSM consists of four
components for the atmosphere, ocean, sea ice, and
land surface linked through a coupler that exchanges
fluxes and state information among these components.
It is developed and used by an international community
of students and scientists from universities, national
aboratories, and other institutions.

https://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/models

The Community Earth System Model (CESM) is a fully-coupled, global climate model that provides state-of-the-art computer simulations of the Earth's past, present, and future climate states.

CESM is sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Administration of the CESM is maintained by the Climate and Global Dynamics Division (CGD) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
What version of the model should I use?

For a scientifically supported target component set and resolution, please refer to the Scientifically Validated Configurations for that target configuration. For component sets and resolutions that are not scientifically validated in any supported release (e.g. cesm1.0.z and cesm1.1.z), CSEG strongly urges you to use the latest model release (in this case cesm1.2.z).

.................................................. ................

A lot more reliable than Watts Up with Dat. :lol:
Wouldn't you say?

Certainly a lot more reliable that Clocker :rolleyes:

[hcap]

[QUOTE=tucker6]"We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records

Can we get a peer-reviewed consensus here that this means they made up the data?Hey genius go read up on what proxy means. Even better drop Das Kraut a line.

[tucker6]

[QUOTE=Clocker]Hey genius go read up on what proxy means. Even better drop Das Kraut a line.
but climate "scientists" continually and knowingly misuse data. For example, tree ring data. There are at least 8 reasons why tree grow rings in the widths that they do. From too much canopy shade to disease to lack of water to pestilence to temperature to soil quality, etc, etc, etc. Why then do climate "scientists" insist that tree rings are an absolute fit for temperature proxy??? There is so much wrong with nearly every climate science proxy I have ever seen that it almost seems like a concerted effort to mislead.

[hcap]

[QUOTE=hcap]
but climate "scientists" continually and knowingly misuse data. For example, tree ring data. There are at least 8 reasons why tree grow rings in the widths that they do. From too much canopy shade to disease to lack of water to pestilence to temperature to soil quality, etc, etc, etc. Why then do climate "scientists" insist that tree rings are an absolute fit for temperature proxy??? There is so much wrong with nearly every climate science proxy I have ever seen that it almost seems like a concerted effort to mislead.You do know we have already discussed this. And the problem pf "convergence" Of course other factors are considered. It is not as though dendrologists are Anthony Watts type TV weathermen without a clue. Or AMATUER

http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/treerings_introduction.html

Tree Rings

The width of tree rings varies with, among other things, temperature. They can be used to estimate temperature for times before thermometers were in widespread use. When cross sections are taken of trees there is a pattern of annular rings. The width of these rings is, in part, a function of temperature.

Other things which can affect ring width are:

The age of the tree. The rate of growth varies through the life of the tree.
Weather. In addition to temperature, ring growth is also affected by precipitation and to a lesser extent by wind speed and sunshine.
Previous years. If a tree has grown vigorously in one year it is likely to grow vigorously in following years and vice versa.
Atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is necessary to growth and increased levels of carbon dioxide can lead to enhanced growth.
Competition. Other trees nearby or other plants can rob a particular tree of nutrients or light.
Parasites. Infestation by insects or fungi can slow the growth of the tree.

To overcome the above, for temperature reconstruction the sites to be analysed are chosen so that these other factors have limited importance. For example trees might be chosen in areas where rainfall was plentiful so that water stress does not affect growth.

Even in well chosen sites it has to be recognised that ring width is not a uniform function of temperature but is biased toward the temperatures during the growing period. This is sometimes dealt with by analysing early and late growth separately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendroclimatology

Limitations

Along with the advantages of dendroclimatology are some limitations: confounding factors, geographic coverage, annular resolution, and collection difficulties. The field has developed various methods to partially adjust for these challenges.

And once again your favorite....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm

[hcap]

Hey genius go read up on what proxy means. Even better drop Das Kraut a line.
but climate "scientists" continually and knowingly misuse data. For example, tree ring data. There are at least 8 reasons why tree grow rings in the widths that they do. From too much canopy shade to disease to lack of water to pestilence to temperature to soil quality, etc, etc, etc. Why then do climate "scientists" insist that tree rings are an absolute fit for temperature proxy??? There is so much wrong with nearly every climate science proxy I have ever seen that it almost seems like a concerted effort to mislead.You do know we have already discussed this. And the problem of "convergence" Of course other factors are considered. It is not as though professional dendrologists are simply Anthony Watts type TV weathermen, without a clue. They are well aware of the realities and limitations. Perfect, no, but even with SOME errors in the proxy data, proxies from various fields agree quite well. Dendrochronology may not be the premier proxy study but it adds to the overall picture

http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/treerings_introduction.html

Tree Rings

The width of tree rings varies with, among other things, temperature. They can be used to estimate temperature for times before thermometers were in widespread use. When cross sections are taken of trees there is a pattern of annular rings. The width of these rings is, in part, a function of temperature.

Other things which can affect ring width are:

The age of the tree. The rate of growth varies through the life of the tree.
Weather. In addition to temperature, ring growth is also affected by precipitation and to a lesser extent by wind speed and sunshine.
Previous years. If a tree has grown vigorously in one year it is likely to grow vigorously in following years and vice versa.
Atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is necessary to growth and increased levels of carbon dioxide can lead to enhanced growth.
Competition. Other trees nearby or other plants can rob a particular tree of nutrients or light.
Parasites. Infestation by insects or fungi can slow the growth of the tree.

To overcome the above, for temperature reconstruction the sites to be analysed are chosen so that these other factors have limited importance. For example trees might be chosen in areas where rainfall was plentiful so that water stress does not affect growth.

Even in well chosen sites it has to be recognised that ring width is not a uniform function of temperature but is biased toward the temperatures during the growing period. This is sometimes dealt with by analysing early and late growth separately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendroclimatology

Limitations

Along with the advantages of dendroclimatology are some limitations: confounding factors, geographic coverage, annular resolution, and collection difficulties. The field has developed various methods to partially adjust for these challenges.

And once again your favorite....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm

What the science says...
The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

[hcap]

Look specifically at the southern hemisphere. Remember GLOBAL warming is about the globe not Atlanta or New York. In any case my apologies in advance to all of us who froze our butts off HERE :lol:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/24/january_2014_was_the_fourth_warmest_january_on_rec ord.html

Don't Let the Snow Fool You. January Wasn't Cold at All.

The climate numbers are in from January and, on a global perspective, it actually wasn’t that cold at all. In fact, for the 347th month in a row, planet Earth was downright toasty.

Yep, the last month in which Earth’s average temperature was below the 20th-century average was during the Reagan administration. February 1985, to be exact: “I Want to Know What Love Is” by Foreigner was the No. 1 song in the country. Sally Field had just been nominated for best actress for Places in the Heart. The author of this piece celebrated his fourth birthday party. That’s a long time for a planet to run a fever.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/24/FT-140224-January%202014.gif.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.gif

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/24/FT-140224-Southern%20hemisphere.png.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.png



.

[rastajenk]

That’s a long time for a planet to run a fever..

It could be a short spike in earth history terms. Or, since it's measured in degrees of one or two, not much of a fever at all.

[hcap]

We have been through this many times before.

I will stand on what I have said earlier.

Probably 100 times or more already.

[rastajenk]

Just now saw this (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/21/7_foods_that_were_supposed_to_be_incredibly_unheal thy_%E2%80%94%C2%A0but_are_actually_anything_but_p artner/) via Instapundit. Settled food science ain't so settled!

[hcap]

Just now saw this (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/21/7_foods_that_were_supposed_to_be_incredibly_unheal thy_%E2%80%94%C2%A0but_are_actually_anything_but_p artner/) via Instapundit. Settled food science ain't so settled!Sol did anyone stop doing research because of the Fat Al Gore International Socialist Conspiracy to control our diets?

[fast4522]

More junk food for the brain dead who are at the end of their personal life span, there will be no change to the amount of carbons we release into the atmosphere. Wasted keystrokes of a fool who thinks his post will live on long after he has expired. All cheep talk that will in the end amount to absolutely nothing of this country's or any country's needs to burn fossil fuels. There is nothing that will curb the thirst of this country for crude oil, without a new fuel to replace it all nonsense is just too gay.

[hcap]

May I ask you who are you referring to when you say "are at the end of their personal life span" ? Many PA off topic readers are aging, and seniors in general are no more likely to be wrong on global issues than the young.

In fact I would bet more seniors are climate deniers than young. So what is your beef? Or is this just another boring atonal off-key tuba medley? :D

[fast4522]

Hey, you think I play the tuba and I think you play the organ.
In any event have a nice day at the races, hit the big one.

[hcap]

You have not answered my question. What is wrong with seniors?

Btw, I think you play your same old same old the tuba tunes badly.
Nothing wrong with the tuba per se as I posted youtube the "Skinny Dixieland" tuba player proves.

So what is your beef about certain old timers who are at the "end of their personal life span"?

[hcap]

More on Das Kraut

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/whore-calling-charles-krauthammer-vs-science-military-health-and-insurance-experts/

Whore-calling Charles Krauthammer vs. Science, Military, Health, and Insurance experts


Charles Krauthammer calls the President of the United States a whore and its science experts propagandists. We can choose to listen to this unprofessional diatribe and not worry about climate change or we can choose to listen to the 98% of the word’s climate experts who tell us that humans are dangerously warming the planet by dumping billions of tons of heat-trapping gases into the air each year.

We can listen to a man who calls the President a whore, or we can listen to the conclusions of the United States National Academy of Sciences and every international academy of science who agrees that humans are dangerously warming the planet.

We can listen to a man who calls the President a whore, or we can listen to the United States Military and Intelligence community who warn that climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions.

We can listen to a man who calls the President a whore, or we can listen to health officials who warn us that climate change could be the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.

We can listen to a man who calls the President a whore, or we can listen to insurers who manage trillions of dollars when they tell us that climate change is one of the greatest strategic risks currently facing the property/casualty insurance industry.

So who are you going to listen to?

More about Das Kraut

http://science.time.com/2014/02/23/krauthammer-climate-change-caveman/

I don’t believe Krauthammer needs any schooling in how the scientific method works; I believe he knows. But when it comes to climate change, he affects a disingenuous, Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer naiveté. I’m just a caveman. These computer models confuse and frighten me. Except that, like the caveman of the legendary Saturday Night Live sketch, he’s not a bit confused. It’s simply ideologically convenient to act that way. He surely knows how the arc of scientific progress plays out—typically beginning with a big brainstorm followed by a billion different squalls and cross-currents over the years that challenge and elevate and improve the original insight but don’t overturn it.

[tucker6]

regarding the scientific method, Sir Charles does just fine. Maybe you're the one with problems understanding the concept.

[hcap]

regarding the scientific method, Sir Charles does just fine. Maybe you're the one with problems understanding the concept.I have no doubt he is brighter than he appears to be. The article speaking to his grasp of the scientific method indicates it is ideologically convenient for him to play to the troops and preach to the choir.

[tucker6]

do you believe climate scientists follow the 'method' religiously? Sharing data so results can be reproduced for example.

[hcap]

No one follows their philosophy religiously all the time and 100%. Not even Religion. However there are advantages to having ones speculations reviewed by ones peers.

[davew]

Australia has decided it is settled and doesn't need to research it anymore...

http://mashable.com/2016/02/04/csiro-job-losses-australia/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29

maybe they all could get jobs in USA - never can have enough good climate scientists...

[classhandicapper]

Australia has decided it is settled and doesn't need to research it anymore...

http://mashable.com/2016/02/04/csiro-job-losses-australia/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29

maybe they all could get jobs in USA - never can have enough good climate scientists...

I'm more interested in the response of the potentially unemployed scientists than I am in their research.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

... Now that I have recovered my senses and adopted gutter language of English let me translate.

Translation:

**Mr Krauthammer is not a climate scientist. He reminds me of Franz Liebkind in Mel Brooks' the Producers ...."Not many people know it, but the Fuhrer was a terrific dancer."



Remember guys, the consensus was he WAS NOT a terrific dancer
.

Glad this thread got bumped. The irony here is rich. Even though I'm "sort of" on Hcap's side for the global warming debate (but not AGW), I can't help but point out the example of Hitler's dancing skills was one of the most blatant uses of proganda during the second World War. The British news film showing Hitler dancing in Paris after the Germans defeated France was altered to make Der Fuhrer dance like an idiot, when in fact it was he was pretty much like Fred Astair.

Quite the funny.:D

[hcap]

Really Fred Astaire? :lol: :lol:

I think Mel Brooks original version with Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder got it right, and where I first got ."Not many people know it, but the Fuhrer was a terrific dancer."

/kHmYIo7bcUw

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Really Fred Astaire? :lol: :lol:

Sorry. Forgot to include the "/sarcasm" tag.....:)

[davew]

It seems the Supreme Court has a different interpretation of the science surrounding anthropomorphic global warming than dictator 0bama.

http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/the-supreme-court-sided-with-science-against-obama/

[hcap]

It seems the Supreme Court has a different interpretation of the science surrounding anthropomorphic global warming than dictator 0bama.

http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/the-supreme-court-sided-with-science-against-obama/Total garbage from of all rags! The NY post ::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Is More CO2 Good for Us? Don’t Hold Your Breath


They also say that CO2 is not a “pollutant” because “… all living things are built of carbon that comes from CO2.”

This is a stunning statement. Like most denier talking points, there’s a germ of truth to it—the carbon in living tissue does come in large part from atmospheric CO2—but to say that means it can’t be a pollutant is pretty silly.

For example, our bodies produce formaldehyde naturally; it’s a byproduct of the metabolic process. Yet the Center for Disease Control and Prevention classifies it as a pollutant. Why? Because too much of it under the wrong conditions is a bad thing.

[delayjf]

For example, our bodies produce formaldehyde naturally; it’s a byproduct of the metabolic process. Yet the Center for Disease Control and Prevention classifies it as a pollutant. Why? Because too much of it under the wrong conditions is a bad thing.


Does the CDC classify a fart as a pollutant?? :lol:

[tucker6]

Does the CDC classify a fart as a pollutant?? :lol:
No, but the EPA certainly does. Methane is an AGW gas.

[hcap]

1...Does the CDC classify a fart as a pollutant?? :lol:

2...No, but the EPA certainly does. Methane is an AGW gas.


The NY POST is also classified as a fart.

[Tom]

hcap, good news.
You don't have to frustrates yourself trying to understand the Post.
You can always buy the Daily News.


Hope that works our for ya.

[tucker6]

The nicest thing about having Cappy on ignore is that I don't have to read his propaganda any longer.

[hcap]

The nicest thing about having Cappy on ignore is that I don't have to read his propaganda any longer.Wish I could put Anthony Watts on ignore. But often enough someone here will link to his dumb site. Or even better, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith the main climate change skeptic in Congress. Along with righty Judicial Watch :rolleyes:

[Hoofless_Wonder]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-22/most-u-s-flooding-linked-to-climate-change

U.S. coastal cities are flooding more often, and we have no one to blame but ourselves. That’s because two-thirds of floods since 1950, measured at 27 tidal gauges around the country, might not have spilled over without a push from manmade climate change, according to a new report by the research-and-news nonprofit Climate Central (http://www.climatecentral.org/).

Sinister and subtle. That the earth is warming is open for debate (though I lean towards the "yes" side), but to assume it's manmade and let's all feel guilty about it, is a joke.

[davew]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-22/most-u-s-flooding-linked-to-climate-change



Sinister and subtle. That the earth is warming is open for debate (though I lean towards the "yes" side), but to assume it's manmade and let's all feel guilty about it, is a joke.


It is a trillion dollar business.....

[Tom]

The nicest thing about having Cappy on ignore is that I don't have to read his propaganda any longer.

Unless someone quotes him. :mad:
Idea...when somone wants to qoute hcap, just post, "Yadda, yadda, yadda."

Pretty much is what he said anyway. :lol:

[davew]

I wonder if these guys have changed their minds since the last couple years were the hottest on recorded history?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI

[tucker6]

Except that really isn't true. One, 'the settled science' keeps modifying past temp records to create the illusion that temps are increasing and records are being set. See 1934 for example. Second, the medieval warm period and Roman warm period were warmer than today, but again, climate scientists have spent a good deal of time trying to wipe out any evidence of those periods.

Certainly this will be a warm year given the el nino that just ended, so expect a serious cool down over the next couple years.

[Tom]

Science is never settled.
Only feeble minds settle.
History proves this. As does PaceAdvantage.com! :lol: