BBC notices that the world is not getting warmer

posted at 9:30 am on October 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

When global-warming skepticism reaches the BBC, then it has become a major issue.  This weekend, the BBC asked the question, “What happened to global warming?”, and then answered it with a balanced article that reported on the response from both sides of the debate to the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last eleven years, despite an increase in carbon dioxide release.  Skeptics point out that the models never predicted it, while advocates say that massive warming is still just around the corner:

For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. …

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature. …

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

For the sake of argument, assume that the last statement is true.  That in and of itself proves … nothing.  It proves that the Earth warms at times, and cools at others.  The question isn’t really whether the Earth has warmed over the last several decades — the question is whether that warming is anthropogenic, or man-made, through the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Clearly, as the modeling of the advocates has failed to predict a cooling cycle, the answer appears to be no.

Besides, weather cycles of this sort do not move in decades.  They move in centuries, or millenia, or eons.  Fluctuations from one decade to the next would be akin to determining that a hurricane is approaching because the wind shifted direction over the space of a few minutes.  Meteorology is at best an inexact predictive science even at its basic level, precisely because the weather gets impacted by myriad factors whose interaction dynamics cannot be predicted easily.

Global-warming advocates have used higher temperatures in the 1990s as a “sky is falling” data point, but have been thoroughly unable to connect that to carbon dioxide release as a primary or even minor cause.  Their predictive computer models have failed to predict actual temperatures for the last eleven years, which for any other “science” other than that which means tons of government cash for scientists and state control of energy production would mean the discrediting of the models and the hypotheses of their authors.  Even the BBC has begun to notice that global warming, like its predecessor hysteria The Coming Ice Age, is little more than hot air from environmental activists.

Update: Just in case you thought Saturday was a fluke:

Update: Here’s the second clip I took this morning, and finally figured out how to upload in HD. This is the view from the back yard:

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 am about to go pumpkin picking on Long Island, its freezing out!

rob verdi on October 12, 2009 at 9:32 AM

On a serious note, there is no evidence that the dire apocalyptic warnings of the left, the media, and the democrats are based in reality.

rob verdi on October 12, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Ya but the polar bears are in trouble.

Flat earther.

artist on October 12, 2009 at 9:33 AM

I’m waiting on another nine minute screed from the administration on how they are not ‘balanced’.

Vashta.Nerada on October 12, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Hey Ed, you could moonlight for Google Earth providing street views. Why not double dip?

Sooooooo glad I’m in Vegas in my t-shirt.

Mojave Mark on October 12, 2009 at 9:35 AM

They tell me it isn’t going to rain as I’m looking at rain…so what to believe.

tomas on October 12, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Given the inactivity of the Sun over the past couple years, I’d venture that we may be entering a mini-mini-Ice Age sooner rather than later.

[And there is real science to back up that conjecture.]

coldwarrior on October 12, 2009 at 9:35 AM

30 years ago the same bunch of scientific geniuses predicted a coming Ice Age due to man. Scientists, for the most part, are nothing but snake oil salesmen, whose ONLY effort, is to retain the grant that keeps them in Bunsen burners.

Jeff from WI on October 12, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Ok, so can we call Al Gore a religious leader yet?

Osis on October 12, 2009 at 9:36 AM

Let’s warm this place up! Flatulent Friday’s!

Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 9:36 AM

I’m still waiting for all of that acid rain they warned us about in the 80′s to kill me.

teffertoes on October 12, 2009 at 9:36 AM

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature. …

Using the term ‘small part’ to describe less than 2% of the possible impact somewhat understates the issue. The word ‘negligible’ might have been more appropriate.

Vashta.Nerada on October 12, 2009 at 9:38 AM

I’m sorry, Ed, but we will have to cut off your microphone and your blog because you are asking questions that compromise the global warming agenda.

Bishop on October 12, 2009 at 9:38 AM

I love me some snow. Why do I live in Tucson again?

Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 9:39 AM

So in the 1970′s we were warned about a new ice age. Then in the 1990′s and earlier this decade, it was global warming. And now it’s been renamed “climate change”(as if the climate changing is a new phenomenon).

Can someone explain to me why the environmentalist lobby has any credibility left? If economists got their predictions wrong this badly, they be laughed out of the room anytime they opened their trap.

Doughboy on October 12, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Thankfully the Minnesota Twins will not be as good in playing in their new outdoor stadium next year so they will not have to experience the playoffs in these conditions.

WashJeff on October 12, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Don’t you think it’s cute when liberal kiddies start to honestly ask and answer the questions of life?

HondaV65 on October 12, 2009 at 9:40 AM

What? The computer models designed and programmed by people who get massive grants to study “climate change” actually predicted “climate change” thus keeping the grant money flowing from gullible governments and the Left?

I’m shocked!

In related news… the guy who programmed Space Invaders says his computer models predict slow-moving alien ships dropping bombs as they weave back and forth in the sky as they approach the earth.

mankai on October 12, 2009 at 9:40 AM

You bunch of Rethuglican Deniers! The polar bears are drowning! The seas are rising so fast the water is coming in waves! We must heal Mother Earth before it’s too late! Now if you’ll each just send me three easy payments of $39.95, I’ll fix the whole thing.

P.S.

Racists!

trubble on October 12, 2009 at 9:41 AM

My vote in the 2012 Iowa Caucuses goes to the first candidate that says global warming is an absolute fraud.

bigred on October 12, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Let’s warm this place up! Flatulent Friday’s!

Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 9:36 AM

Sorry….

right2bright on October 12, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Ya but the polar bears are in trouble.

artist on October 12, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Two more years of this trend and Ed’s pictures of his backyard will include Polar Bears roaming about.

WashJeff on October 12, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Doughboy on October 12, 2009 at 9:39 AM

I have a new name… I call it “weather.”

mankai on October 12, 2009 at 9:42 AM

Let’s warm this place up! Flatulent Friday’s!

Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 9:36 AM

Sorry….

right2bright on October 12, 2009 at 9:41 AM

But what about the childrens???

Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Meet Environmental Guy.


Watch the video if you’ve ever wondered what it’s like working at a large, state university.

mankai on October 12, 2009 at 9:44 AM

30 years ago the same bunch of scientific geniuses predicted a coming Ice Age due to man. Scientists, for the most part, are nothing but snake oil salesmen, whose ONLY effort, is to retain the grant that keeps them in Bunsen burners.

Jeff from WI on October 12, 2009 at 9:35 AM

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation swings in approximately 30 year cycles. 30 years ago, it was just finishing a 30 year cool cycle, then for the last 30 years it’s been in it’s warm cycle. A few years ago, it switched back to a cool cycle, which will last for around 30 years.

Add to this, the fact that the sun was more active during the last half of the 20th century than it had been in a thousand years, and now appears to have dropped to near historic levels of inactivity, and we can safely conclude that most of the warming seen over the last century was due to factors not under the control of man.

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 9:44 AM

30 years ago the same bunch of scientific geniuses predicted a coming Ice Age due to man. Scientists, for the most part, are nothing but snake oil salesmen, whose ONLY effort, is to retain the grant that keeps them in Bunsen burners.

Jeff from WI on October 12, 2009 at 9:35 AM

As a scientist, I resent this comment.

And who uses bunsen burners anymore?

loudmouth883 on October 12, 2009 at 9:45 AM

That’s so pretty, Ed. I am glad I live in Florida.

Cindy Munford on October 12, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Al Gore is being revealed as the clown that he is. And they say there is no God!

Christian Conservative on October 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM

On the other hand…………
If the earth is warming (which I don’t believe) would someone please tell me why in the overall scheme of things,that would be a bad thing? And, why we need to stop it?
BRING IT ON!

oldernwiser on October 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Yep. And considering the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has switched to a cold phase at about the same time the Sun has hit a very quiet phase… and the Atlantic Decadal Oscillation is 10 years or less from flipping to it’s cold phase… I’d say the forecast is for colder for a couple of decades at least.

Your individual weather may vary :-)

Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Here in WI I have had the wood burner and passive solar panels going now for two weeks. The garden froze out a week ago. It has been about 20 degrees below normal. We expect two inches of snow today.I could use some global warming. Yes, a conservative with solar heat.

Grayzel on October 12, 2009 at 9:48 AM

But what about the childrens???

Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 9:44 AM

They had a contest once where you sent in labels and $5 and you receive a “windbreaker”, it was hilarious…so we give congress “windbreakers” to combat global warming…

right2bright on October 12, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Grayzel on October 12, 2009 at 9:48 AM

I’m all for solar and wind and nuclear power. As long as we drill or the resources we have while we develop ‘alternatives.’ To switch to the future at the expense of the present is lunacy, but lunacy seems to be the norm anymore.

Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 9:51 AM

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 9:44 AM

So you are saying we need huge turbine propellers in the ocean to control the currents to offset man’s damage to the atmosphere? ;-)

That proposal is no more foolish than the proposal to put sun blocking panels in space.

WashJeff on October 12, 2009 at 9:51 AM

They had a contest once where you sent in labels and $5 and you receive a “windbreaker”, it was hilarious…so we give congress “windbreakers” to combat global warming…

right2bright on October 12, 2009 at 9:50 AM

That’s great!

Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 9:51 AM

They had a contest once where you sent in labels and $5 and you receive a “windbreaker”, it was hilarious…so we give congress “windbreakers” to combat global warming…

right2bright on October 12, 2009 at 9:50 AM

My 4 year daughter and 7 year old son could easily win a wind-breaking contest. Where do I sign them up?

WashJeff on October 12, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Al Gore is in the Midwest this weekend promoting his global warming scam.

Ever notice that horrifically cold and unseasonal weather follows this clown?

mankai on October 12, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Went bow hunting in the pocono’s this weekend and froze my arse off at night, There’s no global warming in the mountain’s of pa that’s for sure.

SHARPTOOTH on October 12, 2009 at 9:53 AM

One of the lies told by those who wish us to buy into their particular myth, is that predicting the climate is much easier than predicting weather. When you predict climate, you don’t have to worry about precisely when that cold front will hit, or how much rain a particular rain cell will produce.

While it is true that climate models can ignore these short term phenomena, it is also true that weather models can and do ignore many long term phenomena.

Fore example, since the oceans don’t change their temperature much from one day to the next, weather models assume that the oceans are a constant.

There are 4 basic “spheres”. Atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and bioshphere.

With weather models, all but the atmosphere are ignored. With climate models, you have to factor in how all of these “spheres” interact with each other. The trouble is, we don’t know how with any degree of accuracy, how any of these spheres interact.

How does changing water temperature affect the type and number of clouds? We don’t know.
How do changes in clouds and rainfall affect what types of plants grow in any particular region? We don’t know. (Different plants mean different albedoes and different amounts of water being transported into the air by the plants.)
How does changes in water circulation affect ice formation, which in turn affects atmospheric circulations, which affects how much rain falls on the plains of Spain.

Until we have learned to understand the way these 4 spheres interact, there is no way we can accurately predict how tiny changes in the makeup of atmospheric gases will affect anything.

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 9:53 AM

I’ve had the pellet stove going for about a week and a half now. We may get our first snow tomorrow. I wouldn’t mind a little global warming, to be honest. Just for a couple more weeks.

Slublog on October 12, 2009 at 9:54 AM

If they pass Cap and Tax, watch how fast the global warming hoax disappears.

The sheeple will awake, with pitchforks.

TXUS on October 12, 2009 at 9:54 AM

I’m all for solar and wind … power. As long as we drill or the resources we have while we develop ‘alternatives.’ Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 9:51 AM

…and we do not have to subsidize it. If “alternative” power generation can sustain itself on the market, have at it.

WashJeff on October 12, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Correlation is not causation …

The fact that the modern solar maxima has ended is also proof the sun controls the earth’s climate.

Two questions:
How is it possible that a trace atmospheric gas can control anything? Especially CO2, the source of all life on earth, without which there would be no life.

And then how do we know the current level of atmospheric CO2 is too high, and not too low? and how would we know?

tarpon on October 12, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Yes, a conservative with solar heat.

Grayzel on October 12, 2009 at 9:48 AM

Join the crowd
It’s embarrassing to compare Gore’s houses with Bush’s…

right2bright on October 12, 2009 at 9:55 AM

If the polar bears start drowning can we at least harvest their coats , its getting pretty darn cold out here.

fourdeucer on October 12, 2009 at 9:57 AM

In addition to that, the affect of CO2 is logarithmic. That is, each doubling of CO2 concentration will have half the affect that the previous doubling had.

The first half of CO2 absorbtion occurred when CO2 was at 50ppm. That’s right, 50, one sixth the current concentration. The current “doubling” of CO2 will only increase the amount of “absorbtion” by a percent or two.

CO2 is already saturated.

The scary predictions are based on huge positive feedbacks, that have never been demonstrated. In fact, the few actual studies that have been done indicate that negative feedbacks dominate the climate. (Which makes sense, since positive feedbacks mean instability, while negative feedbacks lead to stability. The atmosphere has been amazingly stable over the last 4.5billion years.)

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 9:57 AM

and how would we know?

tarpon on October 12, 2009 at 9:54 AM

You know when you income depends on continued government funding.

WashJeff on October 12, 2009 at 9:57 AM

There are 4 basic “spheres”. Atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and bioshphere.

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 9:53 AM

At least 6….Goreoshpere, Obamasphere….

Until we have learned to understand the way these 4 6 spheres interact, there is no way we can accurately predict how tiny changes in the makeup of atmospheric gases will affect anything.

right2bright on October 12, 2009 at 9:58 AM

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 9:53 AM

That’s some wisdom there.

Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Scientists, for the most part, are nothing but snake oil salesmen, whose ONLY effort, is to retain the grant that keeps them in Bunsen burners.

Jeff from WI on October 12, 2009 at 9:35 AM

So you believe that the developments of the last 200 years are nothing but snakeoil? I suppose you would like to go back to living in a house heated by wood, with a horse to get you to work.

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Ya’ll better stop using them CFC’s before the hole in the O-Zone layer gets too big.

Remember that from the 80′s?

uknowmorethanme on October 12, 2009 at 10:00 AM

and the Atlantic Decadal Oscillation is 10 years or less from flipping to it’s cold phase… I’d say the forecast is for colder for a couple of decades at least.

Your individual weather may vary :-)

Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Did you mean the Atlantic Meridianal Oscillation?
I believe the AMO is in the process of switching right now.

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:00 AM

I’m just wondering how well you insulated that playhouse, Ed.

:)

Bob's Kid on October 12, 2009 at 10:00 AM

When I was growing up, we called “climate change” seasons.

deedtrader on October 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM

So you believe that the developments of the last 200 years are nothing but snakeoil? I suppose you would like to go back to living in a house heated by wood, with a horse to get you to work.

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Today’s scientists are different then yesterday’s scientists. Yesterday’s scientists worked on a “quest for knowledge.” Today’s scientists work on a “quest for money.” Yes, there are some exceptions, but overall, Jeff’s point is true.

uknowmorethanme on October 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM

I am glad I live in Florida.

Cindy Munford on October 12, 2009 at 9:46 AM

It’s so much safer in Florida.

And prettier too.

Loxodonta on October 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Being a carpenter, I made mine (3- one for milk house and two for the house) 10 years ago. Simple matter. WI has a moratorium on nuclear power. In my area about 3/4 of our electric is from the nuclear plant by lake Michigan.

Grayzel on October 12, 2009 at 10:03 AM

I am about to go pumpkin picking on Long Island, its freezing out!

rob verdi on October 12, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Doing that later today too, across the sound in Conn. Couldn’t believe the temp this morning…what was it, a few degrees above freezing?

Me thinks we’ll need the snow shovel for Halloween night…

JetBoy on October 12, 2009 at 10:03 AM

We went to the State Fair of Texas yesterday. October in Dallas is usually sunny with highs in the 70′s. Yesterday was cold and rainy. Worst trip to the fair in years.

Kafir on October 12, 2009 at 10:03 AM

I think it’s very important that we hold the liberal leaders accountable for their errors. AGW is being proven to be a complete hoax. Encourage your leftist friends to consider this: if Gore, Obama & Co. were SO SURE that man-made global warming was real, and they were wrong, how do you trust their opinions on anything else?

Sadly, most rank and file liberals will just say the current decade of cooling is a temporary break before the world heats up, then the issue will mysteriously disappear. Obama is rushing to use the global wawrming canard to increase government control before his lemmings realize what a joke it is.

hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Even the BBC has begun to notice that global warming, like its predecessor hysteria The Coming Ice Age, is little more than hot air from environmental activists.

Actually, it’s MUCH more than that. It’s about big government and global governance. No longer can the naive accuse us of being conspiracy theorists for saying this. How many world leaders have now said that we need a “New World Order” to combat global warming? What’s with things like the Kyoto Treaty? And while we’re at it SARS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu. It’s all an attempt to scare the world’s people in to believing on the UN or it’s future incarnation can save us from these disasters.

The reason these have failed, so far, is largely because Americans aren’t ready to fall for it yet, but much of the rest of the western world is. If we don’t begin to recognize what is really behind this and talk about it, we could fall in to the trap ourselves.

RightWinged on October 12, 2009 at 10:07 AM

I’m going to buy two cars. One will be a Hummer H3 which will have Greenpeace bumper stickers. The other will be a hybrid with NRA, Bush/Cheney 00 and 04 stickers, a big “3″ on the door (I saw Zombieland this weekend), and a gun rack. Would either go over well in Berkeley?

KillerKane on October 12, 2009 at 10:08 AM

Today’s scientists work on a “quest for money.” Yes, there are some exceptions, but overall, Jeff’s point is true.

uknowmorethanme on October 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM

And you know this how?
Do you believe that the scientists who work for say, Monsanto, are only in it for the “money”.

BTW, why is being in it for the money a bad thing? We expect business people to be “in it for the money”. It’s called capitalism.

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:09 AM

As Richard Lindzen said, science is an effective approach to inquiry and analysis. It shouldn’t be a source of authority. The abuse of science by liberals is a manifestation of their authoritarian tendency.

year_of_the_dingo on October 12, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Years ago the BBC and LGF were on opposites sides of the Global warming debate.

Ironically now they are again. And he and Gore are both shutting down those who try to call them on the debate.

petertheslow on October 12, 2009 at 10:10 AM

Meanwhile back at the ranch …

America is not going to bleed its wealth importing fuel. Russia’s grip on Europe’s gas will weaken. Improvident Britain may avoid paralysing blackouts by mid-decade after all.

The World Gas Conference in Buenos Aires last week was one of those events that shatter assumptions. Advances in technology for extracting gas from shale and methane beds have quickened dramatically, altering the global balance of energy faster than almost anybody expected.

J_Crater on October 12, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Did you mean the Atlantic Meridianal Oscillation?
I believe the AMO is in the process of switching right now.

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Thanx for the clarification. Bottom line: Cold Atlantic. Cold Pacific. Quiet Sun. Cooling trend for planet Earth.

Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 10:11 AM

So you believe that the developments of the last 200 years are nothing but snakeoil? I suppose you would like to go back to living in a house heated by wood, with a horse to get you to work.

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 9:58 AM

The vast majority of those developments are a result of applied science. Nonsense like global warming is a byproduct of theoretical sciences, which are constantly seeking to make their area of study seem important, even vital, to mankind.

Worth considering, too, how little science has to do with man-made global warming. The UN has driven this argument. The IPCC documents are steered by politicians. They find the data that fits their intended arguments, and bury data that moderates or disproves their stance.

hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 10:12 AM

When I studied in the UK in 2007, it was quite clear that global warming was a secular religion held by just about all Britain. So, yes, the BBC recognizing that there is actually a debate over the subject is something indeed.

WannabeAnglican on October 12, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Thanks for the clear explantions, Mark the Great.

Unfortunately (for us), our legislators are woefully ignorant about science…and economics… and business.

onlineanalyst on October 12, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Global warming jumps the shark

thebrokenrattle on October 12, 2009 at 10:17 AM

There’s this interesting article in the LA Times

A cruise ship docking in Nome is proof of global warming. The newspaper article had a picture comparing current ice conditions with the “mean ice”. Of course, at the end of summer, there is ocean where the mean says there should be ice. It will be interesting to see what the comparison is in a few months.

unclesmrgol on October 12, 2009 at 10:17 AM

In my area about 3/4 of our electric is from the nuclear plant by lake Michigan.

Grayzel on October 12, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Actually there are two nuke plants within six miles of each other. Kewaunee and Point Beach. Owned by different companies.

Oldnuke on October 12, 2009 at 10:19 AM

B-b-b-but… the science is settled!

Jim Treacher on October 12, 2009 at 10:19 AM

This only goes to that that the IPCC ignored solar activity at their own peril.

J_Crater on October 12, 2009 at 10:19 AM

I wonder how long before the politicians notice that the gas has gone out of AGW.

This White House is worse than the last one when it comes to seeing that the facts on the ground have changed.

J_Crater on October 12, 2009 at 10:21 AM

BTW, why is being in it for the money a bad thing? We expect business people to be “in it for the money”. It’s called capitalism.

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:09 AM

But liberals don’t understand capitalism. So they tend to come up with short-term scams to earn a quick buck, instead of developing real products that generate revenue for a long time.

That’s all AGW theory is – the “scientific” version of an email scam. It plays on some basic human desires – to do good, to create a safer world for our children, to be a responsible member of the community, to show evidence of our intelligence. Any serious study will reveal the ruse.

hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 10:22 AM

And you know this how?
Do you believe that the scientists who work for say, Monsanto, are only in it for the “money”.

BTW, why is being in it for the money a bad thing? We expect business people to be “in it for the money”. It’s called capitalism.

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Did you even read my post? Yes, there are some exceptions. But it’s all about the grants these days. Scientists are not business people, but nice try. They need the money to do the research if they are NOT in the private sector. Universities, non-profits, Gov’t agencies…these are the places that house the majority of scientists, so they test conclusions in the hope of being right instead of generating a theory and testing the theory.

Besides, Monsanto makes seeds. Not exactly ground-breaking science.

uknowmorethanme on October 12, 2009 at 10:22 AM

This White House is worse than the last one when it comes to seeing that the facts on the ground have changed.

J_Crater on October 12, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Well said.

B-b-b-but… the science is settled!

Jim Treacher on October 12, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Interesting that the WH is now trying to use the “there’s a consensus” argument to sell health care, isn’t it?

hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 10:23 AM

I have a new name… I call it “weather.”

mankai on October 12, 2009 at 9:42 AM

I don’t know about that i’m 50 now and i’m almost positive they used to call it weather when i was younger.

heshtesh on October 12, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Would either go over well in Berkeley?

Sure…if you don’t mind some fairly extensive Alameda County pinstriping. :)

Bob's Kid on October 12, 2009 at 10:23 AM

The problem is it’s getting colder and the CO2 levels keeps rising.

You got to be a believer not a scientists to BELIEVE this disproved crap theory.

Like with health care reform, it’s not about the earth, it’s not about improving health care for all, it’s about controlling people though health care and environmental nutball theory. Is this even Constitutional? I remember the stink raised over the library card snooping, so now we are supposed to accept the government having complete access to your health records ….

tarpon on October 12, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Who is going to get the Gov’t grant? The guy working to show why Global Warming is real? Or the guy working to show Global Warming is a farce?

uknowmorethanme on October 12, 2009 at 10:24 AM

The vast majority of those developments are a result of applied science. Nonsense like global warming is a byproduct of theoretical sciences,
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Before scientists could create the transistor, theoretical scientists had to figure out how electrons behaved at a quantum level.

Before scientists could use genetic engineering to create new types of seeds, theoretical scientists had to figure out how genes worked, and figure out ways to insert new genes into existing plants.

Before scientists could figure out ways to make engines more efficient, theoretical scientists had to figure out how plasmas worked.

Just because one branch of theoretical scientists have disgraced themselves, is not evidence that all theoretical science is worthless.
I might add, that there is a lot of good theoretical work being done even in the area of climatology.

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Do the facts matter?

Repubs are starting to sign up for Cap and Trade. Add that to the Health bill and we will have given over to government control 27% of our economy in one year.

Knowing this I don’t take anything serious any longer. With trillions in new debt the goose is dead.

patrick neid on October 12, 2009 at 10:24 AM

But it’s all about the grants these days.
uknowmorethanme on October 12, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Then you know nothing about how science works.

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Besides, Monsanto makes seeds. Not exactly ground-breaking science.

uknowmorethanme on October 12, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Genetic engineering is not ground breaking work?

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Their predictive computer models have failed to predict actual temperatures for the last eleven years, which for any other “science” other than that which means tons of government cash for scientists and state control of energy production would mean the discrediting of the models and the hypotheses of their authors.

Junk in, junk out.

Johan Klaus on October 12, 2009 at 10:28 AM

The BBC’s Hudson is missing the forest for the trees by focusing on oscillations in warming for an overall trend. It isn’t, as this graph illustrates:

GISS trends, 1980-2010

starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM

And yet, despite all the mounting evidence against AGW, it appears we are almost assured to have a cap and tax bill pass within a year, as Republicans have started to sign on to the Gore AGW madness. WTH is wrong with these people?

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/11/what-did-i-tell-ya-lindsy-graham-signs-on-to-cap-and-tax/

mbs on October 12, 2009 at 10:32 AM

There’s over an inch of snow on the ground in Minnesota — and it’s still snowing.

Aronne on October 12, 2009 at 10:33 AM

GISS trends, 1980-2010

starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM

A thirty year study on trends is less than a blink in terms of the age of Earth. Give me a detailed study for 1000+ years and I may consider it, until then it is no more than a high school project.

thomasaur on October 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM

There’s nothing wrong with Lindsay Graham, who is thankfully willing to deal with reality when it comes to global warming rather than deny it.

Using a cherry-picked interval (in this case 1998-2008) isn’t how real science is done.

starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Loxodonta on October 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Gators too. At least hurricanes only surprise the stupid. I know every area has it’s drawbacks. I was surprised to hear from a lady who moved here from California that she would rather deal with earthquakes. Obviously it’s whatever you are use to. Snow is great if I don’t have to go out in it.

Cindy Munford on October 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM

GISS trends, 1980-2010

starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Using a cherry-picked interval (in this case 1998-2008) isn’t how real science is done.

starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 10:36 AM

The irony here is rich.

thomasaur on October 12, 2009 at 10:38 AM

GISS trends, 1980-2010

starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM

What happened at the end of the 70′s? The PDO shifted from cold phase to warm phase. It’s been in the warm phase until recently.

I love the way liberals cherry pick their data to support the position they want to believe.

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4