Global warming arrives in Minnesota

posted at 2:27 pm on December 15, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Looks peaceful and placid, right?  Not when you have to shovel the driveway and the wind is gusting up to 20 MPH.  In order to get the barrels out this morning for the trash pickup, I had to clear the driveway first — and even bundled up and wearing my heaviest winter gloves, my fingers went numb about five minutes into the effort.  I did manage to finish in about 20 minutes, getting back into the house at just the moment one of the First Mate’s friends informed us that they knew of a service that would have done the job for about twelve dollars.  I probably would have spent that much to stay warm.

For the record, our below-zero days usually come in January and February, not December.  It looks as though we will have a second long, cold winter in a row.  That’s what makes this report from the AP so ludicrous:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can’t avoid. …

Mother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government’s machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it’s thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.

The average global temperature in 2008 is likely to wind up slightly under 57.9 degrees Fahrenheit, about a tenth of a degree cooler than last year. When Clinton was inaugurated, 57.9 easily would have been the warmest year on record. Now, that temperature would qualify as the ninth warmest year.

Did the AP forget how to do research?  The warmest years on record mostly occurred before Clinton became President — and before Clinton was born.  John at Power Line, suffering under the same weather conditions as me at the moment, noted this last night:

This displays a remarkable level of ignorance on the part of the Associated Press. Global temperature records are nowhere near accurate enough to rank years, over a period of centuries, with any confidence. For the recent past, though, we have the world’s best data set here in the U.S. And it’s true that at one time, it was widely believed that the 1990s were the warmest recent decade. But that was before it was discovered that NASA’s James Hansen, Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, had been fudging the data, either accidentally or on purpose. NASA was forced to correct its data, with the result that the ten warmest years on record here in the US are as follows: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.

The AP apparently hasn’t gotten the word, perhaps because it is relying on the report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the IPCC report was a political document, not a scientific one, which deliberately ignored the most current research in the field.

They haven’t gotten the word?  More likely, they have ignored it in order to engage in global-warming hysteria.  Meanwhile, Hot Air readers in Minnesota should try to keep bundled up to avoid frostbite from all that global warming that just got delivered overnight.

Update: I forgot to mention that it was -8 when I woke up, and -6 when I cleared the driveway … with a -26 wind chill. Yee-haw.

Update II: Actually, I have both a longish driveway and a snowthrower — but the latter is in the shop at the moment.  Believe me, I missed it this morning.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I’m not sure if this is on topic or off, but it’s cracking me up. Drudge the Nitwit has had a headline up all day that says:

Oil Up Sharply

It follows from his meme about OPEC cutting production, blah, blah, blah. I thought it was funny because I watch crude prices every day, and Brent crude was down $1.77 today.

I emailed him to say “dude?”, and eventually he moved it down but kept the link open. So I followed it tonight, and here’s the actual AP headline:

Oil steady at $44 ahead of OPEC meeting

So now I’m laughing my a$$ off, because even the headline from the silly AP disagrees with his meme. But then I read the story, and…

The contract fell overnight $1.77 to settle at $44.51.

Bwaaaaaaaahahahaha! The AP can’t even get the headline straight with the data in their own story! So we go from “up sharply” to “steady at $44 a barrel” to “down $1.77 a barrel” without so much as a wink.

Anyone who is reading an internet or newspaper story in this country who thinks they know what it says is just kidding themselves. It’s like the 200,000 reports about some knucklehead with a shoe, and exactly zero MSM reports that show the reception Bush got from our soldiers in Iraq.

Nothing.But.Propaganda.

Jaibones on December 16, 2008 at 12:14 AM

PS Global Warming is killing me. Four degrees in Chicago. Winter starts in a week.

Jaibones on December 16, 2008 at 12:15 AM

As I indicated, I’m opposed to any of the regulation I’ve heard proposed with regard to global warming. However, the trend is real and science will get us out of this jam through new technologies. I just hate to see conservatives (and the country at large) turn our backs on science.

starflyer on December 15, 2008 at 9:58 PM

Few are saying global warming does not exist. They are saying it has always existed at different periods. What has happened is fact. What may happen is conjecture.

Johan Klaus on December 16, 2008 at 12:22 AM

It snowed in San Antonio and Houston Texas AND New Orleans, La.
I think we need to roast Al Gore. Over a spit.
Global warming my freezing ass.

HornetSting on December 16, 2008 at 12:23 AM

sven10077 on December 15, 2008 at 10:06 PM

I don’t know if you’re still following this thread, but I really am curious to see your citations and over what time period this person’s/group’s predictions were to play out. I wouldn’t be too surprised if someone did testify that temperatures would rise by 10C, but keep in mind that as far from the scientific mainstream as global warming denial is.

starflyer on December 16, 2008 at 12:26 AM

Few are saying global warming does not exist. They are saying it has always existed at different periods. What has happened is fact. What may happen is conjecture.

Johan Klaus on December 16, 2008 at 12:22 AM

Except that right now it looks like we are entering a period of global cooling.

My question for the man-made global warming (now climate change since the warming thing didn’t work out so well for them) alarmists is this: What evidence would you need to see that would disprove your theory? Right now, you claim that if worldwide temperatures go up, it is evidence of man-made climate change; if worldwide temperatures go down, that is evidence of man-made climate change. Knowing that the climate has been in stasis, what would you accept as evidence that your theory is wrong?

AZfederalist on December 16, 2008 at 12:29 AM

scientific mainstream as global warming denial is.

starflyer on December 16, 2008 at 12:26 AM

And man made global warming believers ignore the fact that the earth was warmer in the middle ages.

Johan Klaus on December 16, 2008 at 12:35 AM

My question for the man-made global warming (now climate change since the warming thing didn’t work out so well for them) alarmists is this: What evidence would you need to see that would disprove your theory? Right now, you claim that if worldwide temperatures go up, it is evidence of man-made climate change; if worldwide temperatures go down, that is evidence of man-made climate change. Knowing that the climate has been in stasis, what would you accept as evidence that your theory is wrong?

AZfederalist on December 16, 2008 at 12:29 AM

“That’s some catch, that catch twenty-two”.

Johan Klaus on December 16, 2008 at 12:39 AM

AZfederalist on December 16, 2008 at 12:29 AM

“That’s some catch, that catch twenty-two”.

Johan Klaus on December 16, 2008 at 12:39 AM

It’s also a straw man. The long term changes are clear. There is little serious argument about whether or not greenhouse gasses are contributing to global warming. The causal relationship has been established for decades. However, there has always been short term variability in climate from year to year. Those variations are interesting to look into, and they do not argue against the trend of net global warming.

Arguing that the variability we have seen in the last couple of years refutes the theory of global warming is like arguing that the temperature won’t trend colder into December and January here in Ohio because it has warmed up from 30 to 50 in the last two days.

starflyer on December 16, 2008 at 12:52 AM

Arguing that the variability we have seen in the last couple of years refutes the theory of global warming is like arguing that the temperature won’t trend colder into December and January here in Ohio because it has warmed up from 30 to 50 in the last two days.

starflyer on December 16, 2008 at 12:52 AM

But still ignoring the fact that the climate was much warmer in the middle ages.

Johan Klaus on December 16, 2008 at 1:01 AM

It’s also a straw man. The long term changes are clear. There is little serious argument about whether or not greenhouse gasses are contributing to global warming. The causal relationship has been established for decades.

starflyer on December 16, 2008 at 12:52 AM

Interesting that you would say that.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round. – Time Magazine, 1974

18-1 on December 16, 2008 at 1:25 AM

the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round. – Time Magazine, 1974

18-1 on December 16, 2008 at 1:25 AM

“The times they are a changing”

Johan Klaus on December 16, 2008 at 1:30 AM

We now interrupt the scientific discussion to say, more cold and snow expected through the weekend for the Pacific Northwest.

Ordinary1 on December 16, 2008 at 5:21 AM

Minnesotans For Global Warming Song

Sorry if already posted…

Kafir on December 16, 2008 at 7:10 AM

It’s 15 below zero right now. But there’s no wind, so it only feels like 15 below.Whew,now I feel better.

lizzee on December 16, 2008 at 7:26 AM

I just hate to see conservatives (and the country at large) turn our backs on science.

starflyer on December 15, 2008 at 9:58 PM

Are you referring to the kind of science that tolerates only one conclusion? The kind of science that says if you disagree with the politically correct/popular conclusion you will be stripped of your credentials?
I think Americans have always embraced science. We are the perfect examples of a people that love science, technology and invention. But what is happening in America and the world today regarding global warming is not science. It’s just pure political Fascism in the name of science. It cannot be science if it is fascism. They do not mix. It is just fascism,, and it is pushing us not into a new and brighter future,, but back into the dark ages.

JellyToast on December 16, 2008 at 7:43 AM

I just hate to see conservatives (and the country at large) turn our backs on science.

starflyer on December 15, 2008 at 9:58 PM

In addition to what JellyToast said, what kind of science ignores plain facts? Five hundred years ago, the Earth was so warm that they were growing wine grapes in England and producing such good wine the French were up in arms about it. Also at that time, Greenland was actually green enough to farm and raise livestock. Then the Earth cooled back down and grapes stopped growing in England and the Viking settlers of Greenland had to leave because their food sources were dying off. All this happened before there was a single industrial smokestack, automobile tailpipe, or can of spray deodorant.

I have no doubt that the Earth’s climate is changing, but I know that it has changed before and mankind survived it, so it does not worry me. As far as I’m concerned, this GW CC hysteria is just thinly veiled anti-industrialism or anti-capitalism of the sort that would make Ted Kaczynski proud.

Kafir on December 16, 2008 at 8:11 AM

However, the trend is real and science will get us out of this jam through new technologies. I just hate to see conservatives (and the country at large) turn our backs on science.

starflyer on December 15, 2008 at 9:58 PM

Yes the trend is real but it is not science, it is fraud.

Now please prove this so called “science” using the scientific method and not worthless computers models.

FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in “Man-Made” Global Warming

Poptech on December 16, 2008 at 8:34 AM

Global Warming Alarmism is the biggest scam every perpetrated on the American people. The alarmists prey on their naive understanding of science and ignorance of computer systems.

Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (PDF) (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science)

Poptech on December 16, 2008 at 8:38 AM

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath “cleaner”. Regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) through either ‘Carbon Taxes’ or ‘Cap and Trade’ policies will simply make energy (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil ect…) much more expensive and severely cripple the economy.

Poptech on December 16, 2008 at 8:40 AM

Near as I can tell, global warming is only happening here on the east coast – Virginia specifically. It was 70 here yesterday, and in the 60′s the day before. Today we’re only in the 40′s which is more normal for this time of year.

abcurtis on December 16, 2008 at 8:50 AM

There is little serious argument about whether or not greenhouse gasses are contributing to global warming. The causal relationship has been established for decades.

starflyer on December 16, 2008 at 12:52 AM

These are the type of sentences that are just casually thrown out, and everyone sees them and then begins to believe them.
The fact is, this is serious argument about whether greenhouse gasses have any significant contribution.
See, it is always that word “significant”, and the apologists always say “well it is something, if it is .00001%”.
I have no idea what “casual relationship” means.
But the big argument is, are we causing the global warming, that should be the only argument, since we can’t control nature.
I assume everyone is arguing that we can or cannot control the climate…I say we can’t, no matter what we do, nature will always override what we do.
Stay away from Hansen, you are depending on his advice to much.

right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 8:59 AM

Very bad news about the rapidly warming Arctic:

Arctic melt passes the point of no return

Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen.

Climate-change researchers have found that air temperatures in the region are higher than would be normally expected during the autumn because the increased melting of the summer Arctic sea ice is accumulating heat in the ocean. The phenomenon, known as Arctic amplification, was not expected to be seen for at least another 10 or 15 years and the findings will further raise concerns that the Arctic has already passed the climatic tipping-point towards ice-free summers, beyond which it may not recover.

The Arctic is considered one of the most sensitive regions in terms of climate change and its transition to another climatic state will have a direct impact on other parts of the northern hemisphere, as well more indirect effects around the world.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 9:03 AM

Big business better come out with a 1/2 hr infomercial about the Global Warming Hoax, and how this new GREEN ENERGY is going to make the price of EVERYTHING go up.

marklmail on December 16, 2008 at 9:09 AM

Global Warming Zealots are really just Ice Age Deniers!

JellyToast on December 16, 2008 at 9:40 AM

Giant glaciers will be pushing into NY State in October one year and AP will be telling us it’s just a prelude to the big awful melt.

BTW, any glance at history will tell you people do better during the long slow warm periods than the often sudden and dramatic big chills. For the past several millions of years the trend is for sudden cooling.

Beagle on December 16, 2008 at 10:25 AM

Since he’s back, here’s something:

World’s oceans rise slower since 2005, fail to display predicted accelerating trend.

That’s since 2005, a period now entering it’s fourth year.

So, sea level rise is failing to meet predicted rise and has been doing so for going on four years – I wonder where the water is going which is supposed to be drowning us all. Maybe it’s being taken up in all those glaciers?

I’m just guessing, but then again so is James Hansen…

catmman on December 16, 2008 at 10:26 AM

Tell me why you left California again …

corona on December 16, 2008 at 10:28 AM

theres a lot about earths cycles we dont understand still. Surely you dont think we know all there is to know? It melts, it freezes, and we go round and round.

Oh all the headlines. Dont bother reading them. Its all to control the market so the greedy can remain greedy. Its whats killing us. We’ll be eating out of trash can lids before its all over.

johnnyU on December 16, 2008 at 10:35 AM

starfleet_dude,

Funny stuff. They only report the Spring melt and ignore the Fall/Winter freeze — which has recently outpaced the thaw. I notice you left out Antarctica.

(Because the glaciers are getting bigger.)

Beagle on December 16, 2008 at 10:36 AM

There is an 80% chance of a possibility that next years weather might be marginally or significantly different (hotter or colder, wetter or dryer, sunny or cloudy, etc) than this years weather. /sarc/
You know, as a high schooler in the 70s I recall the big scare of “global cooling” — where there would be mass starvation because of a shortened growing season, rivers would freeze, the great lakes would remain solid, etc. Where the hell did that idea go? It’s a good thing we didn’t run off like chicken littles and try to solve the cooling issue by pumping more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Can you imagine how hot (HOT) it would be today?
BTW, what ever happened to those polar ice caps on Mars. Did we screw with them as well?

DuctTapeMyBrain on December 16, 2008 at 10:46 AM

catmman, I can think of one possible reason why the rate of the rise could slow, which is that there are two causes for ocean levels to rise. First is melting water from glaciers and ice caps, second is thermal expansion of warming ocean water itself. So the addition of colder glacial meltwater could also be serving to cool the oceans and partly offset thermal expansion, leading to a lowering of the rate of mean sea level rise.

YMMV of course, but I wouldn’t be certain that we’re seeing a slowdown in the rate of glacial melting just yet.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Ed, The World Met Organization published a report today saying that this is the coldest year since 1997 based on global averages. It is still the tenth warmest on record in 150 years.

lexhamfox on December 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Finally–climate change (formerly known as global warming) you can’t believe in!
***
Like the Wizard of Oz said, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”
***
Or, “Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?”
***
John Bibb

rocketman on December 16, 2008 at 11:29 AM

If Global Warming/Climate Change is real…

Why is there (under 1200 ft or lower of rock and soil) in some areas of the arctic, remenents of certain jungle type foliage? Think Amazon forest type.

Why is there shown to be permafrost, even along the equater? Wouldn’t that have melted by now?

Why does Rock Core samples show ice ages and then warming ages continuously? There was no SUV’s then!

Why does it show humans got taller as the warming trends started and shorter when there were ice ages? Hmmm foos come to mind when you can’t grow in in the winter!

I am sorry… That beautiful ball of orange gas is what makes us live or die. Nothing we have done, and nothing on our earth can cause spikes as much as B.O.B. (Big Orange Ball) has done. period. Unless we get hit by a meteor or a comet… but then we always get hit by some debris!

upinak on December 16, 2008 at 11:41 AM

upinak, the answer to your first question is continental drift.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Ed, The World Met Organization published a report today saying that this is the coldest year since 1997 based on global averages. It is still the tenth warmest on record in 150 years.

lexhamfox on December 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM

That is a mathematical impossibility.

That would mean that all the years since 1997 were warmer, and since there are ten of them (not counting 2008) they must be the top 10 warmest years. If you make 2008 the tenth warmest, it must bump one of them, but then it wouldn’t be the coolest since 1997.

zmdavid on December 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM

I just hate to see conservatives (and the country at large) turn our backs on science.

starflyer on December 15, 2008 at 9:58 PM

Do you really want to talk science? Can you tell me how “La Nina” destroys heat energy and can you tell me how many joules of heat energy La Nina destroyed in 2008?

If it’s rather your assertion that La Nina created new sinks or a massive hot spot where the missing joules are being sequestered, tell me where that hot spot is or where the new sinks are.

Finally, prior to 1988, when the La Nina weather god was invented, El Nino was a phenomenon that happened every year around Christmas. That is why it was called “El Nino”. Does the El Nino phenomenon still occur every year around Christmas, and if so, how can El Nino and La Nina both happen at the same time?

The laws-of-thermodynamics-defying La Nina was concocted by the same people who are behind the gw hoax and they use it to explain away anything inconvenient. The quickest way to kill the hoax is to demand a peer review of La Nina.

Buddahpundit on December 16, 2008 at 12:18 PM

upinak, the answer to your first question is continental drift.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Star you are seriously annoying me.

FYI, it is a Theory.. not a law! Any 1st Semester Geology student (hell a Highschool student) will tell you that.

I do not believe in complete continential drift… There is more in the mix. And since most of these areas that are found are on the Northern extremes of the Hemishere… I doubt the worlds crust has moved over 5000 miles from an equater in that period of geological time.

http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthmonitor/polarmotion/2006_wobble_anomaly.htm

Learn something and read. Also, the highest concentration of Fossilized Dinosaur bones are in areas that are colder then our “now” equater. Why? Wouldn’t bird like animals with no know fat insulation, or feathery down of any kind (larger dinosaurs) want to be near, Montana, Alaska, Canada, Siberia etc? I can think of Migration patterns, but Going to the top of Alaska where there is only a 4 degree slope to “nest” for duck billed dinosaurs seems kind of redundant.

Have a nice day, tree hugging ninny!

upinak on December 16, 2008 at 12:28 PM

Global Warming is junk science… One of your tree huggers please explain how, if we have consensus, there are over 500 of the WORLDS LEADING SCIENTESTS that totaly dissagree with global warming… This is a money grab, a power grab and a way to FORCE people to drive “green” crap cars, live in “green” buildings and “conform” to Liberal enviro wack job mandates on our thermostates settings in our own homes. The far left want “control” over how and what we do, what we eat, how much gas costs, no coal plants, green this and that… Follow the money and look at the “leader” Gore…

Mark Garnett on December 16, 2008 at 12:40 PM

upinak, continental drift is a theory that’s been confirmed just as Newton’s theory of gravity and Darwin’s theory of evolution.

But in any case, have a nice day yourself.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Finally, prior to 1988, when the La Nina weather god was invented, El Nino was a phenomenon that happened every year around Christmas. That is why it was called “El Nino”. Does the El Nino phenomenon still occur every year around Christmas, and if so, how can El Nino and La Nina both happen at the same time?

They don’t happen at the same time, as they’re the opposite extremes of a cycle of oscillating currents in the central Pacific Ocean.

Being ignorant is one thing, as none of us is born knowing anything and there’s certainly a lot to know. But the level of deliberate ignorance being put on proud display here is nothing to celebrate.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 12:50 PM

They were right back in the 1970s. If you want to be a quasi-religious apocalyptic weather preacher (ahem, starfleet_dude), stick to sudden freezes.

Younger Dryas

Beagle on December 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 12:50 PM

Idiots like this are the same exact ones who if the lid to late 70′s where screaming to everyone that a new global ice age was comming… Movies, TV (abc, cbs, nbc) all ran “SPECIALS NEWS REPORTS” about the impending doom of all humans in the new ice age… Now, 30 years later, no ice age, just the opposite, oh my!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Global Warming… We are all gonna die!!!!!!!!! Run for the hills! What a bunch of garbage, just like the lies on the SCIENTIFIC PROOF of Global Cooling and comming disaters, this is just the latest scare tactic of the wack job Liberal tree huggers… 30 years from now I guess we will have GLOBAL COOLING again… This is so stupid.

Mark Garnett on December 16, 2008 at 1:00 PM

upinak, continental drift is a theory that’s been confirmed just as Newton’s theory of gravity and Darwin’s theory of evolution.

But in any case, have a nice day yourself.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Prove it… via a scientific link. USGS is a good start and even they say it is a Theory!

upinak on December 16, 2008 at 1:04 PM

I love how the chicken littles define science. The word ‘consensus’ is not applicable to science. A theory is presented and either proven or disproven based on challenges. Only when the theory has met these challenges does it begin to be accepted as a theory, and must be proven immutable to be considered a law, such as the law of gravity.

All this is out the window with global warming. Now politically active ‘scientists’ vote on theories while hiding contradictory evidence, threating the tenure and careers of any scientist who dares challenge, and loudly proclaim that a ‘consensus’ has voted to agree that this is happening, and please start the money machine while abandoning your freedom to act as you choose.

Vashta.Nerada on December 16, 2008 at 1:05 PM

They don’t happen at the same time, as they’re the opposite extremes of a cycle of oscillating currents in the central Pacific Ocean.

Being ignorant is one thing, as none of us is born knowing anything and there’s certainly a lot to know. But the level of deliberate ignorance being put on proud display here is nothing to celebrate.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 12:50 PM

Would you agree that El Nino occurred every year around Christmas time prior to 1988? If so, can you explain why it doesn’t occur every year around Christmas time today?

Buddahpundit on December 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM

It’s also a straw man. The long term changes are clear. There is little serious argument about whether or not greenhouse gasses are contributing to global warming. The causal relationship has been established for decades. However, there has always been short term variability in climate from year to year. Those variations are interesting to look into, and they do not argue against the trend of net global warming.

Arguing that the variability we have seen in the last couple of years refutes the theory of global warming is like arguing that the temperature won’t trend colder into December and January here in Ohio because it has warmed up from 30 to 50 in the last two days.

starflyer on December 16, 2008 at 12:52 AM

lol, I’ve never seen an accusation of strawman building so quickly turn to the erection of another strawman in my entire life. There are very reputable folks who would disagree with your assertions.

hawkdriver on December 16, 2008 at 1:18 PM

upinak, continental drift is a theory that’s been confirmed just as Newton’s theory of gravity and Darwin’s theory of evolution.

But in any case, have a nice day yourself.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Actually, Einstein disproved Newton and attributed your 4th point of contact being glue to Earth because of…

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node60.html

CURVED SPACE….SPace….space….

“You” have a nice day.

hawkdriver on December 16, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Notice how moron enviro nut jobs like starflyer on December 16, 2008 at 12:52 AM freak out or don’t answer when you mention the very same folks that are crying wolf about Global Warming are the ones all thru the 70′s claiming Global Cooling. All the Newsweek / Time, ABC, CBS, NBC specials, all the NYT and LA Times articals… The same crap we are hearing now from many of the same fools who lied or “got it wrong” last time… Let’s stop wasting our time on this garbage, giving voice to these wack jobs only allows tools like Gore to make BILLIONS by extorting money from “green” idiot chicken littles…

Mark Garnett on December 16, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Actually, Einstein disproved Newton and attributed your 4th point of contact being glue to Earth because of…

FYI, Einstein didn’t “disprove” Newton, he added to him. Newtonian laws work just fine to send men to the Moon and back again, not to mention accurately sending a 155mm howitzer shell to its target.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Would you agree that El Nino occurred every year around Christmas time prior to 1988? If so, can you explain why it doesn’t occur every year around Christmas time today?

I could take the time I suppose to explain more to you, but really, the truth is out there. You obviously have access to the internet and presumably an open mind to knowledge. I suggest you take advantage of both.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 1:46 PM

An open question to the Earth Warmers:

Has the average global temperature always moved in an upward trend?

If not, to what do you attribute previous global warming and cooling trends?

BobMbx on December 16, 2008 at 1:47 PM

It’s also a straw man. The long term changes are clear. There is little serious argument about whether or not greenhouse gasses are contributing to global warming. The causal relationship has been established for decades.

Completely agree, Starman. Just one point, though: Increasing CO2 has ALWAYS lagged increasing temperatures by ~80 years.
That means temp goes up first, then CO2.

BobMbx on December 16, 2008 at 1:51 PM

I giggle each time I hear some nutjob earth warmer try to explain how the climate models being proffered by the very studied scientists all show the same trend, which is a warming climate. These models are based on proxies and not on recorded temperatures.

The giggly part is that when these same computer models are fed with actual recorded data (as far back as anyone cares to go), those same models cannot predict the climate of today, meaning if they are wrong using real historical data, how can anyone justify their results when proxy data is used?

BobMbx on December 16, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Oh…Ed: I bet if you measured the snow temperature in your yard you’d find that it is somewhat warmer snow than in previous years.

BobMbx on December 16, 2008 at 2:01 PM

Would you agree that El Nino occurred every year around Christmas time prior to 1988? If so, can you explain why it doesn’t occur every year around Christmas time today?

I could take the time I suppose to explain more to you, but really, the truth is out there. You obviously have access to the internet and presumably an open mind to knowledge. I suggest you take advantage of both.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Do you agree that El Nino is phenomenon that occurred every year around Christmas time prior to 1988? That is a yes or no question that can’t really be investigated on the internet apart from asking you the direct question, which I’ve done.

Does the question terrify you for some reason?

Buddahpundit on December 16, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Has the average global temperature always moved in an upward trend?

No.

If not, to what do you attribute previous global warming and cooling trends?

A major factor is Milankovitch cycles.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Does the question terrify you for some reason?

No. Wasting my time doing something you’re perfectly capable of doing yourself without even being asked nicely isn’t much of an incentive. As I’m not being paid to be your climatic customer support, I suggest you read the manual yourself. I’ll go as far to suggest googling “NOAA” and “EL NINO” to get you started. Have fun!

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM

FYI, Einstein didn’t “disprove” Newton, he added to him. Newtonian laws work just fine to send men to the Moon and back again, not to mention accurately sending a 155mm howitzer shell to its target.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Actually neither “adding on” nor “disproving” is quite correct.

Einstein (and others) showed Newtonian physics to be an approximation. An approximation valid for most real world scenarios.

18-1 on December 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM

No. Wasting my time doing something you’re perfectly capable of doing yourself without even being asked nicely isn’t much of an incentive. As I’m not being paid to be your climatic customer support, I suggest you read the manual yourself. I’ll go as far to suggest googling “NOAA” and “EL NINO” to get you started. Have fun!

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM

You want to be paid now for answering a simple question? I guess I could send you a dollar. In your reply post, provide your mailing address with the response to the question I asked and I’ll get that dollar right out to you.

That question again, incase you forgot: Do you agree that El Nino is phenomenon that occurred every year around Christmas time prior to 1988?

Buddahpundit on December 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Thanks for the additional clarity, 18-1.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 2:18 PM

If not, to what do you attribute previous global warming and cooling trends?

A major factor is Milankovitch cycles.

Other factors also include solar activity. I have not seen an explanation from the Warming Earth Society that accounts for the warming trend seen on Mars which, btw, is increasing at the same rate as Earth. Granted, there are now several SUVs driving around up there, but that hardly explains the warming occurring there.

Of particular note and endless personal fascination, how does one explain the rather abrupt pause in global warming (I’ve heard it explained that AGW is now on hold for 10 years or so) due to decreased solar activity. But I bet we can it expect it to return fully rejuvenated to continue to trend towards incineration.

Just wondering…have you fully considered the effect of global warming? Have you thought about the advantages of being able to farm the currently perma-frost zones of Canada? What a cornucopia of abundance. So we trade Florida for more food. The folks in Florida can move, can’t they? Wait, maybe they’ll the Ethiopian attitude (hangin’out in the desert) and just hang around until they drown as the water rises.

BobMbx on December 16, 2008 at 2:39 PM

BobMbx, the alledged link between warming on Mars and Earth isn’t really there:

Global warming on Mars?

Recently, there have been some suggestions that “global warming” has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a “global” change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data. …

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 2:47 PM

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Are you still going on about global warming is man made.

upinak on December 16, 2008 at 2:59 PM

BobMbx,

Florida isn’t going anywhere before Manhattan or LA. So when we see Hollywood actors and Wall Street bigwigs giving up their private jets and Bugatti Veyrons, then I’ll know they really mean it.

The funny thing about all this is that the globe is not actually warming, hasn’t been for ten years. But the headlines still try to scare innocent kids into depression.

Beagle on December 16, 2008 at 3:41 PM

YMMV of course, but I wouldn’t be certain that we’re seeing a slowdown in the rate of glacial melting just yet.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 11:19 AM

If only such prudence were given by the likes of Al Gore or James Hansen…

Think about what you just wrote: Four years of sea levels not rising, or “not rising as predicted” cannot be used as even anecdotal evidence that perhaps AGW theory is at least flawed…

But Al Gore can use Hurricane Katrina, one storm which occurred during a particular hurricane season, as evidence of AGW. He put it in his movie and everything.

Tell me again: On which side of this debate are the fearmongers and absolutists again?

catmman on December 16, 2008 at 4:18 PM

I’m curious…

Would it be better for mankind to live suring an Ice Age or during a period of “global warming”?

Of course for most alarmists the answer would be, “We aren’t concerned with mankind’s welfare, only insert-ecobromide-here.”

catmman on December 16, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Recently, there have been some suggestions that “global warming” has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a “global” change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data. …

Ah yes, infamous Real Climate opinion. A par effort to say the least. It is disengenuous to pontificate that climate changes on Mars are confined to regional causes planet-wide, while the slightest uptick in an earth-bound region is prima facie evidence of AGW.

Every recorded indicator of increasing temperatures on Mars comes with it’s individual reason to explain it. Melting ice caps on Mars? It’s topography. Melting ice caps on Earth? Increasing CO2. Increasing atmospheric temperature on Mars? It’s solar activity. Increasing atmospheric temperature on Earth? More CO2.

What is the non-deviant climate of Earth? You know, the perfect day, the base-line, the Al Gore Utopia?

BobMbx on December 16, 2008 at 4:31 PM

Tell me again: On which side of this debate are the fearmongers and absolutists again?

Both sides, of course. That doesn’t diminish what the science is actually saying about the subject of climate change and global warming though.

I’ve been following this all since the mid-1980s when climate modeling was in its beginning stages and have heard predictions that didn’t come true. Yet there is unmistakable evidence that the Earth is warming as well as a clear indication that human forcing due to CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is contributing to it. That along with feedback effects such as the lower albedo of the arctic regions as polar ice melts leading to an even warmer climate there has convinced me at least that the global warming we’re seeing is real, that we’re contributing to it, and that we need to take it very seriously right now.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Being ignorant is one thing, as none of us is born knowing anything and there’s certainly a lot to know. But the level of deliberate ignorance being put on proud display here is nothing to celebrate.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 12:50 PM

I could take the time I suppose to explain more to you, but really, the truth is out there. You obviously have access to the internet and presumably an open mind to knowledge. I suggest you take advantage of both.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 1:46 PM

O.K., one more time. Why was it much warmer in the middle ages. Hint……Solar activity.

Johan Klaus on December 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM

What is the non-deviant climate of Earth? You know, the perfect day, the base-line, the Al Gore Utopia?

The question isn’t what’s a “non-deviant” climate for Earth, but how changes to Earth’s climate affects the well-being of the planet, including all its forms of life.

As for Mars, I’d be very hesitant to draw conclusions about the climate of a planet we have far less knowledge of than our own to begin with. Besides, we can measure variations in solar output just fine as is, so the whole business about Mars somehow being a proxy for Earth is beside the point.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 4:58 PM

But Al Gore can use Hurricane Katrina, one storm which occurred during a particular hurricane season, as evidence of AGW. He put it in his movie and everything.

Tell me again: On which side of this debate are the fearmongers and absolutists again?

catmman on December 16, 2008 at 4:18 PM

How about the much stornger and deadlier, Great Galveston Hurricane and the Great Hurricane of 1780. Dam those SUV’s.

Johan Klaus on December 16, 2008 at 5:02 PM

so the whole business about Mars somehow being a proxy for Earth is beside the point.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 4:58 PM

That is exactly the point.

Johan Klaus on December 16, 2008 at 5:06 PM

Nothing against MN but isn’t it getting much colder much earlier?

Man-made global warming my a-s. I’m in NYC I don’t like it here much but the weather in other parts of the USA is also just as bad. Floods, Heat, Cold no matter what the alarmists blame it on global warming.

jevica on December 16, 2008 at 7:06 PM

Yet there is unmistakable evidence that the Earth is warming

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM

And if this “unmistakable evidence” was shown not to exist, then you would give up the global warming belief?
Or is something else driving your faith in Global Warming?

right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 7:24 PM

The question isn’t what’s a “non-deviant” climate for Earth, but how changes to Earth’s climate affects the well-being of the planet, including all its forms of life.

Ok, so if the emphasis is (or should be) on understanding the changes and developing methods of coping with those changes (which I believe is the right thing to do), why all the gnashing of teeth by the ultra-left wackos about going green? Thats not coping, thats denial of nature and its attendant change process. Why not start the Exodus away from low-lying coastal areas now, before its “too late”?

And all climate change is bad, right? Its catastrophic. Imagine Florida underwater (again), palm trees in Toronto (again). We should all just off each other right now and save a lot of pain and anguish, then Mother Earth can start repairing all the damage we created.

BobMbx on December 16, 2008 at 8:02 PM

That question again, incase you forgot: Do you agree that El Nino is phenomenon that occurred every year around Christmas time prior to 1988?

Buddahpundit on December 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM

It’s now after 10 pm EST; did starfleet ever answer you?

Red State State of Mind on December 16, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Very bad news about the rapidly warming Arctic:

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 9:03 AM

Not really, it happened before and the current melting is not caused by man.


Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago
(Science Daily)
Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures (Science Daily)

But you failed to mention that the Antarctic ice is increasing:

Satellites Show Overall Increases In Antarctic Sea Ice Cover (NASA)

The Antarctic wintertime ice extent increased…at a rate of 0.6 percent per decade from 1979-2006 – Donald Cavalieri, Senior Research Scientist, NASA

Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 12:56 AM

Mark Garnett on December 16, 2008 at 12:40 PM

31,000 Scientists Prove No ‘Consensus’ on “Man-Made” Global Warming

Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 1:08 AM

Anyone believing in global warming needs to come up to New England where over 400,000 people are without power due to last week’s ice storm. Today we’re having a blizzard.

Consensus doesn’t make science. Remember, scientific consensus that were all wrong? lets make a list:

1. The earth is flat
2. If you get too near the edge of the earth you will fall off.
3. Sea monsters live in the Atlantic ocean
4. The Sun orbits the earth
5. Bleeding patients cures illnesses
6. Bathing causes illness.
7. Cats are familiars of the devil and must be killed, but plague infested rats are ok.
8. Man will never fly
9. Man will never reach the Moon.
10. Drilling holes in the head to cure mental illness works wonders.

Please add your own.

dogsoldier on December 17, 2008 at 7:54 AM

Oh and before I forget: Two villages, one in Greenland and one in Europe have just emerged from receding glacial ice. I have explained the significance to the logically challenged libtards around me.

1. It was obviously warmer globally before the villages were constructed.
2. There were no man made greenhouse gases to cause the warmer temperatures.
3. There were a lot less people at the time.
4. It got cold and they left their tools expecting to come back the following spring, except its now like 400-600 years later…

I got the gist of that from one of the 31,000 scientists listed above. Facts confuse liberals.

dogsoldier on December 17, 2008 at 8:01 AM

we need to take it very seriously right now.

starfleet_dude on December 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Why?

catmman on December 17, 2008 at 9:00 AM

… The causal relationship has been established for decades. …

starflyer on December 16, 2008 at 12:52 AM

The fallacy with the theory is CO2 levels track the temperature change not the other way around. CO2 increases are far behind the actual temperature change. All that indicates is a correlation not a cause.

Our entire atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, and CO2 is the evil gas of choice because it can be taxed. It would be difficult for governments to try and tax oxygen or nitrogen.

Dasher on December 17, 2008 at 9:07 AM

and CO2 is the evil gas of choice
Dasher on December 17, 2008 at 9:07 AM

Most people know CO is bad and I have run across quite a few people that don’t know the difference between CO and CO2. I think CO2 was chosen for the very reason that we have been taught CO is a pollutant and CO2 is very close to the same sound. Ever notice how it is always CO2 and never carbon Dioxide? I think that is because school children are taught that carbon dioxide is good for plants but CO2 and carbon monoxide are very bad. At least that was what my daughter was told in her high school science class which was also heavily biased towards global warming.

jmarcure on December 17, 2008 at 9:21 AM

cadmman, it’s because with CO2 levels already at 385ppm and rising to a projected 500-550ppm by 2050 (up from a pre-industrial level of approximately 270ppm) there’s not a lot of time to wait and see what might happen. We’re already seeing warming and the potential for feedbacks like increased warming in the Arctic due to there being less ice cover as well the potential for methane release as permafrost thaws and oceans warm.

starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM

Why?

catmman on December 17, 2008 at 9:00 AM

Because we have to put them in charge now. It is all important to have the “right” people in charge now in order to save the planet a thousand years from now. The main reason is that we need the people from now because future generations will be so profoundly stupid that they will never be able to take care of themselves never mind the planet. Also it’s well known that all that will ever be invented and ever can be invented has already been invented. In other words we as humans are at the apex of our technological abilities and the “right” people know this and have to be put in charge now. Don’t you understand that they desperately need to reduce the population to sustainable levels, restrict technology and reduce us all to third world societies with them living in luxury to save us all? The best part of this is that we well never ever know if what they do will work. We have to take their word at face value and with ultimate faith that they are indeed the prophets they say they are. So lets make the loads over us and worship them as they so deserve because the “know” the “truth” and are the “right” people to save us from our sins. Of course if it doesn’t work out and all it accomplished was to grant ultimate power to the “right” people we could make them pay for there wicked ways because like us they will be long dead before their prophecies are fulfilled.

I’ll like to propose this. We do what they want but every single one of the “right” people can not ever profit form it in any way other then the knowledge that they saved the world. They can not have power, money or position. They mush fade into the masses they so wish to dominate. Better yet are they willing to die for their cause? Are they willing to be executed after they have put everything in place to save our future? I’m betting that a very few would agree to one or both of those but that the majority know it is a scam to riches and power and would not agree.

jmarcure on December 17, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Sorry I hit submit and ment to hit preview. Here is a better proof read version. Just ignor the last comment.

Why?

catmman on December 17, 2008 at 9:00 AM

Because we have to put them in charge now. It is all important to have the “right” people in charge now in order to save the planet a thousand years from now. The main reason is that we need the people from now because future generations will be so profoundly stupid that they will never be able to take care of themselves never mind the planet. It’s also well known that all that will ever be invented and ever can be invented has already been invented. In other words we as humans are at the apex of our technological abilities and the “right” people know this and have to be put in charge now. Don’t you understand that they desperately need to reduce the population to sustainable levels, restrict technology and reduce us all to third world societies with them living in luxury to save us all? The best part of this is that we well never ever know if what they do will work. We have to take their word at face value and with ultimate faith that they are indeed the prophets they say they are. So lets make them lords over us and worship them as they so deserve because they “know” the “truth” and are the “right” people to save us from our sins. Of course if it doesn’t work out and all it accomplished was to grant ultimate power to the “right” people we could never make them pay for their wicked ways because like us they will be long dead before their prophecies are fulfilled.

I’ll like to propose this. We do what they want but every single one of the “right” people can not ever profit from it in any way other then the knowledge that they saved the world. They can not have power, money or position. They mush fade into the masses they so wish to dominate. Better yet are they willing to die for their cause? Are they willing to be executed after they have put everything in place to save our future? I’m betting that a very few would agree to one or both of those because the majority know it is a scam to riches and power.

jmarcure on December 17, 2008 at 10:29 AM

It would be nice to be able to edit or delete comments.

jmarcure on December 17, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Oh and before I forget: Two villages, one in Greenland and one in Europe have just emerged from receding glacial ice. I have explained the significance to the logically challenged libtards around me.

1. It was obviously warmer globally before the villages were constructed.
2. There were no man made greenhouse gases to cause the warmer temperatures.
3. There were a lot less people at the time.
4. It got cold and they left their tools expecting to come back the following spring, except its now like 400-600 years later…

Hmmmm….could be why they call it Greenland, and not “that F****** cold place”.

How will we deal with the horror of Greenland turning green, again!

BobMbx on December 17, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Well, the water from all of those melting glaciers had to go somewhere. Its in the freakin atmosphere and now dumps on the cities then drains back into the rivers. Round and round we go. This whole thing was started by old NASA data some friend of Gores gave him back in ozone days.

johnnyU on December 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4