Video: MS-NBC’s Brewer claims heavy snowfall proves global warming

posted at 3:07 pm on February 10, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Give credit to MS-NBC’s meteorologist, who does his best to play this one down the middle. When Contessa Brewer attempts to refute Senator Jim DeMint’s humorous Twitter entry that the snow would continue “until Al Gore cries uncle,” he gives both sides of the argument. Brewer insists that the heavy snowstorm that has frozen the mid-Atlantic region and shut down Washington DC in a deep freeze just shows that “more severe weather” proves AGW theory (via Greg Hengler):

It might prove it except that the world isn’t actually warming. The theory about creating more precipitation is one hypothesis in AGW, but it’s supposed to come down as rain because, well, the Earth is supposed to get warmer, not colder.  Seasoned skeptics will recall the dire warnings of  more violent hurricane and tornado seasons after 2005′s dual hits of Katrina and Rita, which have gone utterly unfulfilled.

Usually, though, the rebuttal to DeMint’s jibe would be that skeptics don’t understand the difference between climate and weather.  Funny, but that distinction seems to get lost among AGW hysterics when temperatures spike upwards in the summer, as they always do.

Update: Time tries to make the same argument.

Tags:

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 … 3 4 5 6

funny that idiots like chump do not see not only the monetary incentive but also the use of fear. they also ignore the lies and distortions that are coming out now on a regular basis. They used to charge that those on the right had to have a boogey man in the USSR but they have their own now.

CWforFreedom on February 10, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Take the $$$$$$ factor out of GLOBAL WARMING and GLOBAL WARMING goes away … problem is you can’t … they are one in the same.

redridinghood on February 10, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Wrong again. As long as there are greenhouse gases, global warming will never go away! It’s science.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:58 PM

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:55 PM
———————————————-

Hilarious. Your lack of comprehension skills is obvious.

The climate changes . It did before man came along , it will during man’s tenure, and will long after we are gone. You are the classic useful idiot.

CWforFreedom on February 10, 2010 at 9:59 PM

I don’t believe for a second that NASA is part of some leftist conspiracy to foist global warming on people.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Big surprise, ignorant of current events. Dr. James Hansen, formally of NASA has been shown to be a cult-like fraud.

Another big surprise is that you are just another insecure lib concerning you own intelligence that you have to demean others, especially those scary Christians.

So does science that involves falsifying and manipulating data not count as “cartoon science”.

ClassicCon on February 10, 2010 at 9:59 PM

It’s science.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Another idiotic post. His point was the movement known as global warming. Global warming and COOLING will always be with us –always dupe boy.

CWforFreedom on February 10, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Take it from me, you do not want to be on the chump’s ignore list. It’s damn lonely :(

daesleeper on February 10, 2010 at 10:02 PM

So does science that involves falsifying and manipulating data not count as “cartoon science”.

ClassicCon on February 10, 2010 at 9:59 PM

chump is a nasty person as you have pointed out. he also so badly wants to believe in AGW. he lacks purpose otherwise.

CWforFreedom on February 10, 2010 at 10:02 PM

MSNBC’s claim that cold winters prove man-made global warming is identical to their claim that an armed black man at an Obama rally proves white racists are carrying guns at Obama rallies.

waelse1 on February 10, 2010 at 10:02 PM

As long as there are greenhouse gases, global warming will never go away! It’s science.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:58 PM

The gift that keeps on giving.

redridinghood on February 10, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Part of the problem is that certain events have led us to have a profound mistrust of climate science in general. We have discovered that a number of climate scientists have actually been falsifying data in order to make the evidence of AGW look more alarming. On top of this, we know that many politicians here and abroad are trying to use environmental concerns as an excuse to obtain more and still more power over what ordinary people can and can’t do.

Regardless of the science, the trust is gone.

Aitch748 on February 10, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Were it not for Greenhouse gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc, the earth would be an ice ball! However, too much greenhouse effect and you have Venus where the surface temperature is 900 degrees.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:55 PM

What greenhouse gases, I wonder, are contributing to Venus’s greenhouse effect? (And at what atmospheric pressures?)

On a related note: Are you intending to suggest that water vapor and CO2 can cause a Venus-like greenhouse effect on Earth?

You’re very, very careful to avoid saying so explicitly, but a casual reader might not pick up the subtlety and might think you are suggesting this, when you probably know better.

RD on February 10, 2010 at 10:08 PM

However, too much greenhouse effect and you have Venus where the surface temperature is 900 degrees.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:55 PM

The Vesuvian atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide. Somehow I don’t think that’ll happen here.

darwin on February 10, 2010 at 10:09 PM

They used to charge that those on the right had to have a boogey man in the USSR, at a time when the USSR was actually coming after us, but they have their own now, with no such distinction.

CWforFreedom on February 10, 2010 at 9:57 PM

My take :)

RD on February 10, 2010 at 10:11 PM

You don’t sound agnostic to me,

Then you’re not listening properly.

and I haven’t seen anyone here tout creationism as an argument.

The method of argumentation is very much the same. Caricature and distortion of science is the main approach. Why else would people be crowing about a couple of bad snow storms as “proof” that climate change is a lie?

I’m an engineer and I know from experience that the larger the system is the more difficult it is to model accurately.

But you’re not a meteorologist or a climatologist, are you? Perhaps modeling global climate is a little bit different from the kind of modeling you’re familiar with?

Not to mention that we only have a questionable theory (yes, many scientists do challenge AGW), and climate data for approximately 0.0000000289% of the planet’s existence. Furthermore, it is a proven fact that scientists with this theory have “massaged” data to fit their theories.

You sound more like a creationist than you think, pal.
There are scientists all over the world working on this issue. Honest disagreement amongst scientists is a good thing. If climate change is junk science, it will be revealed as such.

Finally, politicians have consistently used AGW as a way to gain more control over our lives through where/when/what we drive, taxes on industrial products, the electricity we use, etc.

Ah, and here is the real issue. It’s a political conspiracy…

I’m probably wasting my time here, but I’m kinda bored right now so what the heck!

I don’t think you’re wasting your time, but I disagree with your views on this issue. And no, my mind is not made up. If the general consensus amongst scientists is that there is no global climate change taking place, I’d accept that as the current state of the issue.

SG1_Conservative on February 10, 2010 at 9:56 PM

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:12 PM

We have discovered that a number of climate scientists have actually been falsifying data in order to make the evidence of AGW look more alarming.

Aitch748 on February 10, 2010 at 10:08 PM

FIFY. :)

RD on February 10, 2010 at 10:15 PM

chump is a nasty person as you have pointed out. he also so badly wants to believe in AGW. he lacks purpose otherwise.

CWforFreedom on February 10, 2010 at 10:02 PM

It’s like finding out that Santa doesn’t exist -he’s still in denial.

redridinghood on February 10, 2010 at 10:16 PM

On a related note: Are you intending to suggest that water vapor and CO2 can cause a Venus-like greenhouse effect on Earth?

You’re very, very careful to avoid saying so explicitly, but a casual reader might not pick up the subtlety and might think you are suggesting this, when you probably know better.

RD on February 10, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Look, I’ve already said I am not a scientist. I’m not saying that what happened to Venus could happen to Earth. However, scientists seem to believe that continually pumping carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, etc into the atmosphere is going to have some effect. This planet wouldn’t have to get anywhere NEAR as hot as Venus to drastically alter life.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:17 PM

RD on February 10, 2010 at 10:15 PM

At least I know my posts are being read. ;-)

Aitch748 on February 10, 2010 at 10:18 PM

I don’t think you’re wasting your time, but I disagree with your views on this issue. And no, my mind is not made up. If the general consensus amongst scientists is that there is no global climate change taking place, I’d accept that as the current state of the issue.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Still waiting on you to address how falsifying and manipulating data makes you a good scientist. You have read the many stories where the main proponents at the IPCC have been exposed for this. Right? I am sure it was one of the top stories on DIGG.com

ClassicCon on February 10, 2010 at 10:20 PM

chump is a nasty person as you have pointed out. he also so badly wants to believe in AGW. he lacks purpose otherwise.

CWforFreedom on February 10, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Sheesh! What’s your problem? Who have I been nasty to? Or does “has his own opinion” equate to “nasty” in your world?

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:20 PM

However, scientists seem to believe that continually pumping carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, etc into the atmosphere is going to have some effect. This planet wouldn’t have to get anywhere NEAR as hot as Venus to drastically alter life.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Mankind could disappear tomorrow and carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane would continue to be pumped into the atmosphere through on going natural processes.

darwin on February 10, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Still waiting on you to address how falsifying and manipulating data makes you a good scientist. You have read the many stories where the main proponents at the IPCC have been exposed for this. Right? I am sure it was one of the top stories on DIGG.com

ClassicCon on February 10, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Oh for pity’s sake, ClassicCon! A scientist who falsifies and manipulates data is BAD scientist! Such a person should be exposed as the fraud he is.
Because some scientist might be acting unethically that doesn’t mean the theory itself is invalid. The good thing about science is that other people in other countries are also doing research, and the frauds will be found out.

If the theory of climate change turns out to be wrong, I don’t have a problem with that! I’m keeping an open mind on the issue.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Government Controlled Climate

Further proof that the Left is illiterate.

Saltysam on February 10, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Mankind could disappear tomorrow and carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane would continue to be pumped into the atmosphere through on going natural processes.

darwin on February 10, 2010 at 10:22 PM

…and this discussion would be moot. We’re talking about this because mankind is here now and climate change could have a severe effect on us and other species.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Sheesh! What’s your problem? Who have I been nasty to? Or does “has his own opinion” equate to “nasty” in your world?

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Let us see…

Like the cliche little 20-something douchebag, hipster you no doubt are, you could go only only a few sentences before pulling out the “creationists are anti-science hics” meme.

There is this psychological condition like you suffer from, and I will be the first to admit that I am not learned enough on the subject to correctly identify it. However, the characteristics are pretty easy to identify.

You suffer some insecurities in your own life, could be lower intelligence than you feel you should possess, or a lower station in life. Any similar reason will suffice. To psychologically compensate for these subconscious shortcomings, your kind will greedily latch on to any scare-mongering myth where in the scenario the rest of the world are blind, mindless, uneducated fools, and there are only a select, enlightened few that actually understand the impending armageddon. You fancy yourself almost some sort of higher being that simply cannot dumb things down enough for the rest of us dolts to comprehend our own doom.

ClassicCon on February 10, 2010 at 10:30 PM

One thing we do know is that climate stasis has been unknown up to this point.

Saltysam on February 10, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Why else would people be crowing about a couple of bad snow storms as “proof” that climate change is a lie?

Who is seriously suggesting this? Demint was making a joke.

But you’re not a meteorologist or a climatologist, are you? Perhaps modeling global climate is a little bit different from the kind of modeling you’re familiar with?

And you clearly have no background in science. It is a universal truth that the more variables you have the less accurate your model is. It’s hard to think of a system on this planet with more variables than the entire planet.

You sound more like a creationist than you think, pal.
There are scientists all over the world working on this issue. Honest disagreement amongst scientists is a good thing. If climate change is junk science, it will be revealed as such.

How have any of my arguments in any way tied to religion, “pal”? I agree that their should honest debate, but their isn’t. “The debate is over.” Sound familiar? Btw, you come off as an arrogant Christian-hating tool.

Ah, and here is the real issue. It’s a political conspiracy…

It is not a conspiracy, it is plainly in the open. There are a great many liberals in our government who have money in “green” technology, and hence push AGW at any opportunity. Others are simply misguided idealists, and a very few seek to use AGW as a way to create a two class system, with the Govt elite and the rest of us.

And no, my mind is not made up. If the general consensus amongst scientists is that there is no global climate change taking place, I’d accept that as the current state of the issue.

I might be more inclined to believe you if you didn’t take every opportunity to shove words down people’s throats and make your little snide anti-Christian remarks. You’re just so bloody open-minded…

SG1_Conservative on February 10, 2010 at 10:31 PM

ClassicCon on February 10, 2010 at 10:30 PM
I actually reponded to your earlier post with respect; we agree that misusing data is wrong. The basis for a discussion, I thought.
So why this venom?

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:34 PM

…and this discussion would be moot. We’re talking about this because mankind is here now and climate change could have a severe effect on us and other species.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:27 PM

What? Those substances you listed … they’re all natural and constantly released in nature. Mankind’s contribution of CO2 is very small in relation to nature’s. In addition, people tend to forget that man is part of nature.

Secondly, exactly what is this “climate change” everyone talks about? They’ve been warning us for decades but no one has seen it.

darwin on February 10, 2010 at 10:34 PM

We’re talking about this because mankind is here now and continental drift could have a severe effect on us and other species.

We need to control the subduction zones. That is where the Earth’s crust is most at risk.

daesleeper on February 10, 2010 at 10:36 PM

I actually reponded to your earlier post with respect; we agree that misusing data is wrong. The basis for a discussion, I thought.
So why this venom?

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Easy, I can’t stand undeserved, unearned arrogance. Not to mention I am a vile, hateful, motherfvcker. Oh, I am also full atheist, none of this pvssy agnostic sh1t, so unfortunately you can’t really bash me over the head with your sectarian elitism.

So your side is now exploiting this event much like they did Katrina. Nice.

ClassicCon on February 10, 2010 at 10:38 PM

I might be more inclined to believe you if you didn’t take every opportunity to shove words down people’s throats and make your little snide anti-Christian remarks. You’re just so bloody open-minded…

SG1_Conservative on February 10, 2010 at 10:31 PM

I’ll lose no sleep over your “inclinations”, pal.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Also chump, what are you doing on a computer anyway? You do realize those things don’t run on hemp? I would hate to think you are an eco-hypocrite of Gore proportions.

ClassicCon on February 10, 2010 at 10:40 PM

Brainless twit

ultracon on February 10, 2010 at 10:41 PM

We need to control the subduction zones. That is where the Earth’s crust is most at risk.

daesleeper on February 10, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Thank goodness you’re bringing this up. This has been a worry of many scientists recently and luckily they have a solution … higher taxes!

I think it just might work.

darwin on February 10, 2010 at 10:42 PM

I am a vile, hateful, motherfvcker

ClassicCon on February 10, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Ok, so two things we agree on.
Kiss your mom goodnight…

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:43 PM

We need to control the subduction zones. That is where the Earth’s crust is most at risk.

daesleeper on February 10, 2010 at 10:36 PM
Thank goodness you’re bringing this up. This has been a worry of many scientists recently and luckily they have a solution … higher taxes!

I think it just might work.

darwin on February 10, 2010 at 10:42 PM

We’ve got to save our phoney baloney jobs gentlemen!

thomasaur on February 10, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Ok, so two things we agree on.
Kiss your mom goodnight…

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:43 PM

You bet, and tell your mom to quit calling me, I have no idea whose kid you are.

ClassicCon on February 10, 2010 at 10:45 PM

Ok, this has been fun, but I’ve got work in the morning.

And apparently the phrase “like mama used to make” has a special meaning for ClassicCon…sleep tight!

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:47 PM

Climatology is a relatively new branch of the sciences. What do we know about what they do?

Okay, I think its safe to say that they study the climate.

Another thing we do know is that climatologists have no consistent record, at all, of climate prediction. To elevate climatology to the level of credible science, they will have to achieve this first.

Until then, the nubile neo-socialists must rely on their faith in propaganda and virtual reality games.

Saltysam on February 10, 2010 at 10:48 PM

I’ll lose no sleep over your “inclinations”, pal.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:38 PM

There you go again. WTF are you even talking about. Personally, I could care less what a person’s religion is, and for the record I am not a “creationist”. You just go ahead and keep proving what a brave little internet douche you are.

SG1_Conservative on February 10, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Were it not for Greenhouse gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc, the earth would be an ice ball! However, too much greenhouse effect and you have Venus where the surface temperature is 900 degrees.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Venus is 26 million miles closer to the sun than we are, the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than ours, and Venus’ atmosphere is almost entirely CO2 with sulfuric acid sprinkled liberally about.

If I perfected the Planet Booster Rockets I am building in my mountain lair and set them off on the lee of the planet one dark and stormy night, thus sending the entire planet spiraling into Venus’ orbit, meanwhile spewing every molecule of carbon and sulfur we own into the atmosphere, we just might be able to approximate Venus’ climate on Earth.

Lily on February 10, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Liberals please die

Denniscat on February 10, 2010 at 8:29 PM

That’s about all anyone can hope for at this point. They’re like another, stupider species that looks like homo sapiens but isn’t.

venividivici on February 10, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Um, someone needs to clue the warmists in to the fact that The Day After Tomorrow was a fictional film.

They should call it Anthrocentric Global Warming because it takes one massive ego to think our impact on the planet is anything but the equivalent of spitting in the ocean.

NoLeftTurn on February 10, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Let’s revisit the dispassionate, objective Dr. James Hansen of NASA, shall we:

NASA Global Warming Alarmist Endorses Book That Calls For Mass Genocide
Dr James Hansen: Eco-fascist author who wrote that industrial civilization should be destroyed “has it right”

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, January 22, 2010
Prominent NASA global warming alarmist Dr. James Hansen has endorsed an eco-fascist book that calls for cities to be razed to the ground, industrial civilization to be destroyed and genocidal population reduction measures to be implemented in the name of preventing climate change.
Hansen, who was back in the news today commenting on a NASA press release that claims the last decade was the warmest on record, said that Keith Farnish, author of a new book called Time’s Up, is correct in calling for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age.
Hansen is a key figure in the global warming movement, for it was his 1988 with testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore that really got the ball rolling for the elite in their mission to hijack the environmental movement and promote apocalyptic fears of climate change as a means of seizing absolute power over humanity.
Author Farnish “believes – as the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt does – that mankind is a blot on the landscape and that breeding (or for that matter, existence) should be discouraged,” writes James Delingpole.
“The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization,” writes Farnish, adding that “people will die in huge numbers when civilization collapses”.
Farnish echoes similar talking points to those featured in White House science czar John Holdren’s Ecoscience textbook, which called for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.
Farnish explains his desire to see rampant population reduction in the name of saving the planet.
“In short, the greatest immediate risk to the population living in the conditions created by Industrial Civilization is the population itself. Civilization has created the perfect conditions for a terrible tragedy on the kind of scale never seen before in the history of humanity. That is one reason for there to be fewer people,” he writes.
…
It has also come to light that Hansen wasn’t even asked to comment on Farnish’s book, he freely volunteered his opinion.

So, to answer sesquipedalian, this NASA scientist wouldn’t lie, but he is completely down with murder and mayhem. The remainder of the Prison Planet article is here.

ya2daup on February 10, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Oh, I forgot to add that the esteemed Dr. James Hansen of NASA lies, too.

ya2daup on February 10, 2010 at 11:07 PM

This just in…

Everything causes global warming causes everything.

more to follow…

somewhatconcerned on February 10, 2010 at 11:13 PM

However, too much greenhouse effect and you have Venus where the surface temperature is 900 degrees.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:55 PM

WTF??? Venus is 900 degrees because of “greenhouse effect”? Really? Is this your final answer?

redzap on February 10, 2010 at 11:22 PM

Video: MS-NBC’s Brewer claims heavy snowfall proves global warming

For those MSNBC type idiots their need for interorectogestion is proof of global warming.

ray on February 10, 2010 at 11:23 PM

The science is irrelevant.

AGW is dead. The world financial crisis killed it. The U.S. has committed 14.3 trillion to preserve its tattered mortgage and equities markets. Ultimately Europe may need to set aside trillions to bail-out the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain) nations. The West doesn’t have the inclination or resources to combat a potential change of temperature of 3/4 of a degree fifty years from now.

Asian nations have pressing problems of their own as well. China has massive problems brewing in its real estate and financial sector. Japan seems incapable of pulling itself out of recession and is on the verge of a demographic death spiral.

In many ways the collapse of the Copenhagen summit was an acknowledgement of these new economic realities.

Mike Honcho on February 10, 2010 at 11:27 PM

Were it not for Greenhouse gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc, the earth would be an ice ball! However, too much greenhouse effect and you have Venus where the surface temperature is 900 degrees.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:55 PM

You’re right. It was like a GREENHOUSE!!!

The oceans and the sewers were simmering with a rich protein stew.

Seen any of those walking catfish lately?

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2010 at 11:30 PM

MS-NBC’s Brewer claims heavy snowfall proves global warming

Makes sense if you consider that this message is from the same dimly lit bulbs who claim the best way to reduce a heavy debt is to spend more money.

MaiDee on February 10, 2010 at 11:44 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2010 at 11:30 PM

Chumpthreads is a groupthink digg’er out to slander christians. Nothing more, nothing less.

daesleeper on February 10, 2010 at 11:48 PM

Anyone using the climate of Venus as a comparison or any type of analogy to Earth climate is a moron. There are no comparative points to draw any conclusion other than the person attempting comparison probably eats toilet paper and washes it down with a glass of slushy contaminated dirt.

ray on February 10, 2010 at 11:57 PM

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Um. Wrong. On so many levels wrong. Venus has a much higher atmospheric pressure which equals greater heat retention qualities. If you were to reduce the pressure to that of Earth Venusian temp would be cooler than Earth. Ditto for Mars.

Holger on February 11, 2010 at 12:30 AM

I’m an engineer and I know from experience that the larger the system is the more difficult it is to model accurately.

But you’re not a meteorologist or a climatologist, are you? Perhaps modeling global climate is a little bit different from the kind of modeling you’re familiar with?

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:12 PM

I was going to dispute this, but I think you’re right.

See, engineers use something called “mathematics” for their modeling, and “statistics” to work with the data.

I’m not sure I’ve identified what climate “scientists” use, but it doesn’t bear much of a resemblance to the mathematics I majored in. I think we can safely state that mathematical knowledge is of no use in understanding whatever it is that the climate scientists are doing.

Does anyone have any experience with three-card monte? You know, where you show 3 cards, but don’t want one to be the answer so slide it out and remove it from the possibilities while waving your hands and trying to distract people so they don’t realize you’ve hidden what is really going on… that seems a much better learning model for climate science. Except in three-card monte they don’t permanently delete the Queen but simply hide it so it can be presented later if need be.

Yes, prestidigitation would be much more useful than mathematics for understanding the current state of climate science… thanks for clarifying that.

gekkobear on February 11, 2010 at 12:32 AM

Hide the decline!

Yep, that’s just what I was thinking as I lifted about 50 million tons of snow with lovely slush underneath. Thanks algore!

But, in all honesty, I LOVE snow and I wish I lived in Alaska and had it all the time. This has been the greatest winter evah! I wish I had a job and could afford to buy a lift ticket.

margategop517 on February 11, 2010 at 12:36 AM

From the perspective of Physics, CO2 driving climate seems to be a complete no go.

CO2 is only capable of absorbing Infrared energy in three narrow wavelengths where as Water vapor is capable of absorbing water vapor across a significant portion of the Infrared spectrum.

I’d also wager the IR Frequencies CO2 is capable of absorbing is absorbed by other gases as well as black-body radiators like roads, parking lots, building roof-tops and athletic tracks (ours in high-school could get so hot that standing on it in Tennis shoes could start to melt the soles).

Holger on February 11, 2010 at 12:45 AM

How bout “Global Warming” and the P-38 lighting.

Greenland’s glaciers losing ice faster this year than last year, which was record-setting itself
December 15, 2008
Researchers watching the loss of ice flowing out from the giant island of Greenland say that the amount of ice lost this summer is nearly three times what was lost one year ago.

“Greenland is deglaciating and actually has been doing so for most of the past half-century.”

If this were a movie this would be the time for the flash back seen.

July 15, 1942, Six P-38 fighters and two B-17 Bombers being flown to Europe about seven months after the United States entered World War II. When bad weather caused the eight aircraft to turn back they discovered that bad weather had also closed in behind them. The flight leader decided the best thing to do was have the entire flight land together before they ran out of fuel.
The planes circled the flat top of the glacier and one by one landed, skidded to a stop on the icecap of Greenland.

The crews were rescued within a few days, but the airplanes were left where they stopped.

If this were a movie this would be the time for the flash back to our “current” time.

On July 15, 1992, fifty years to the day later, 74-year-old Brad McManus stood on the ice cap surrounded by the recovered pieces of his late friend Harry Smith’s P-38, as chronicled in the documentary “The Lost Squadron”

How do you get a P-38 out of the ice? Simple…melt the ice!
Well, maybe not as simple as that, seeing how it was 268 feet of ice. Basically, you start with a six-digit budget, followed by transporting tons of equipment that include arctic survival gear and heavy construction machinery, and top it all off with adventure-minded individuals willing to take the hardships and risks associated with one-of-a-kind expeditions to a hostile environment. That’s what it took to recover a P-38 from “The Lost Squadron.”

Unlike a movie, this story is true.

The planes were exactly where they were left 50 years earlier, except, that over 50 years 268 feet of ice (that’s like a 27 story building) had accumulated on TOP of the Birds!

How does 268 feet of ice accumulate on glaciers that have deglaciating for the last 50 years?

“Greenland is deglaciating and actually has been doing so for most of the past half-century.”

DSchoen on February 11, 2010 at 12:57 AM

How does 268 feet of ice accumulate on glaciers that have deglaciating for the last 50 years? DSchoen on February 11, 2010 at 12:57 AM

Now THAT is a great story. I love you.

Mojave Mark on February 11, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Amazingly, they restored the plane to flight worthiness. They fly Glacier Girl at the Oshkosh air show every year.

BDavis on February 11, 2010 at 1:30 AM

How does 268 feet of ice accumulate on glaciers that have deglaciating for the last 50 years?

Global warming, of course.

xblade on February 11, 2010 at 2:09 AM

However, scientists seem to believe that continually pumping carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, etc into the atmosphere is going to have some effect. This planet wouldn’t have to get anywhere NEAR as hot as Venus to drastically alter life.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Based on your previous/other posts this comment is scary. Are you suggesting that human activity is pumping too much water vapor into the atmosphere? Will you expect Congress or the EPA to regulate water vapor generation? If so guess we should start designing giant tarps to cover all the oceans and lake to stop evaporation.

RealityCheck4 on February 11, 2010 at 2:55 AM

AGW [Al Gore Worship] will not determine the truth of the either side of the anthropogenic climate change debate. Neither he nor his friends driving the IPCC agenda(s) is a climatologist. I doubt they would recognize a Cumulo-Nimbus if it hit them in the head with a lightening bolt.

RealityCheck4 on February 11, 2010 at 3:02 AM

Chump true or false

At one time there were glaciers in what we now know as the United States T of F

At one time the climate of the entire Earth was tropical T or F

The Earth’s Climate has been warmer and colder in its history than it has over the past 100 years T or F

psst all three are TRUE

CWforFreedom on February 10, 2010 at 9:46 PM

pssst..so what?

oakland on February 11, 2010 at 6:38 AM

Read it and weep, Warmists:
Even the CRU had doubts about Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” graph.
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-climategate-shocker-even-cru.html

H/T HotAir

But the science is settled, so . .
Nevermind.

BigAlSouth on February 11, 2010 at 7:11 AM

Were it not for Greenhouse gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc, the earth would be an ice ball! However, too much greenhouse effect and you have Venus where the surface temperature is 900 degrees.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Venus has a surface temperature is 900 degrees because a couple million years ago it was hit by a asteroid 100 times the size of Mt Everest, that’s why it only rotates once a year on its axis and backwards at that.

doriangrey on February 11, 2010 at 7:23 AM

too much greenhouse effect and you have Venus where the surface temperature is 900 degrees.

40 million kilometers closer and vastly different mass and rotation makes so little difference?
What a total moron

Tony Soprano on February 11, 2010 at 7:37 AM

However, too much greenhouse effect and you have Venus where the surface temperature is 900 degrees.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:55 PM

I think the thing for you to do if you’re so worried about it is to quit emitting carbon dioxide and reduce the excess population…

theaddora on February 11, 2010 at 7:55 AM

wow go figure. we are actually getting more opinions from a news reader at MSNBC. /sarcoff

jbh45 on February 11, 2010 at 8:16 AM

Could you at least take on three or four of them?

Oldnuke on February 10, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Do we have that many of them left?

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 8:17 AM

If everything can be explained by global warming (earthquakes, fires, floods, hurricane and even snowfall) then nothing can logically be explained. How do ass-clowns like this find jobs?

kens on February 11, 2010 at 8:18 AM

It’s not called “St. Louis Warming”. It’s called Global Warming. There’s a whole big world outside of St. Louis. And it was warmer in January than it has ever been on record.

orange on February 10, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Water doesn’t stay in the air long. So the temperature of Singapore has no impact on how much snow is falling in St. Louis.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 8:19 AM

A small place…

Liam on February 10, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Speak for yourself.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 8:22 AM

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in how the AGW Cult claims that record cold temperatures in large regions of the world are not evidence that global warming does not exist, then promptly point to record warmth in other areas claiming that is definite evidence that global warming does exist?

cntrlfrk on February 11, 2010 at 8:23 AM

If you look up the word moron in the dictionary, this idiots puicture is used as an example in part of the definition.

TrickyDick on February 11, 2010 at 8:24 AM

Were it not for Greenhouse gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc, the earth would be an ice ball! However, too much greenhouse effect and you have Venus where the surface temperature is 900 degrees.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:55 PM

I love the way liberals pretend that they understand science.

Venus is a lot closer to the sun. As a result, it never cooled sufficiently for the water to start precipiating out of the atmosphere.

One interesting note. The point in Venus’s atmosphere where the atmospheric pressure equals that of the earth, the temperature also equals that of the earth.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 8:28 AM

The atmosphere of Mars is almost 100% CO2, which means there is more CO2 in Mars’ atmosphere then there is in the earth’s. Yet Mars is much, much colder than the earth.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 8:29 AM

I don’t believe for a second that NASA is part of some leftist conspiracy to foist global warming on people.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Reality is unconcerned with your belief system.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 8:30 AM

Look, I’ve already said I am not a scientist.

That’s painfully obvious.

I’m not saying that what happened to Venus could happen to Earth.

Then why bring up the point at all?

However, scientists seem to believe that continually pumping carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, etc into the atmosphere is going to have some effect.

Notice how the chump decides to try and broaden the topic in an effort to cover his tracks.

1) Regarding CO2, there are some scientists who believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have no affect, because the frequencies absorbed by CO2 are already saturated.
2) There’s a long distance between “some affect”, and “we’re all gonna die if we don’t stop this now”.

This planet wouldn’t have to get anywhere NEAR as hot as Venus to drastically alter life.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Another nice dodge. Who cares about Venus. Try to show that adding CO2 will cause enough problems to force anyone to care.
Before you do that, you need to factor in the many good things that enhanced CO2 does as well.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 8:37 AM

Oh for pity’s sake, ClassicCon! A scientist who falsifies and manipulates data is BAD scientist! Such a person should be exposed as the fraud he is.
Because some scientist might be acting unethically that doesn’t mean the theory itself is invalid.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:25 PM

The only thing backing up the theory, was the now discredited data.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 8:39 AM

…and this discussion would be moot. We’re talking about this because mankind is here now and climate change could have a severe effect on us and other species.

chumpThreads on February 10, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Please tell me how increasing the earth’s temperature by a few hundredths of a degree is going to cause severe affects?

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 8:40 AM

Arrogance.

It has a history of biting people in the ass.

Have none of these people even considered the fact that in virtually every other place on earth the media is reporting the myriad “errors” in the studies that prove AGW?

Seems like a silly time to double down, but then again they are smarter than everyone else, so I guess it is a good time to publicly deny reality.

Dorvillian on February 11, 2010 at 8:42 AM

And you clearly have no background in science. It is a universal truth that the more variables you have the less accurate your model is. It’s hard to think of a system on this planet with more variables than the entire planet.

SG1_Conservative on February 10, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Another point. It’s impossible to model a system when you have no understanding of how the various components of the system interact with each other.

I’ve given my mini-lecture on the 5 spheres, (hydrosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, and atmosphere) several times so I won’t do it again, but let me conclude by saying that the way these spheres interact with each other are complex, and poorly understood, if at all.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 8:43 AM

How does 268 feet of ice accumulate on glaciers that have deglaciating for the last 50 years?

DSchoen on February 11, 2010 at 12:57 AM

As you know from reading my posts, I am as far from an AGW’er as you can get, but even I know that this is easy to explain.

Here’s how glaciers form. Snow falls on a mountain. Some of it melts, but not all. Next year, more snow falls. Over time the snow that didn’t melt builds up, getting thicker and thicker. Eventually the weight of the snow causes the now formed ice to start flowing down hill. Eventually the edge of the glacier gets to a point that is low enough so that the temperature is able to melt all the ice that flows to that point each year. This point marks the end of the glacier.

If the regional temperature cools a little bit, the glacier will be able to slide further downhill before it reaches th balance point. If the temperature warms. The balance point will occur further uphill.

In neither case did I discuss a diminuation of snowfall at the top of the glacier. Neither did I discuss melting ice at the head of the glacier.

The place where the planes landed is at the head of the glacier. Not until the glacier is almost gone, will there be significant melting up there.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 8:52 AM

Venus has a surface temperature is 900 degrees because a couple million years ago it was hit by a asteroid 100 times the size of Mt Everest, that’s why it only rotates once a year on its axis and backwards at that.

doriangrey on February 11, 2010 at 7:23 AM

The heat from that collision would radiate away within a few million years. It would have no impact on Venus’ temperature today.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 8:54 AM

We’ve got to save our phoney baloney jobs gentlemen!

thomasaur on February 10, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Regardless of the thread topic, you can’t go wrong with a Blazing Saddles reference! Mel Brooks is a very wise man.

Red State State of Mind on February 11, 2010 at 9:01 AM

The atmosphere of Mars is almost 100% CO2, which means there is more CO2 in Mars’ atmosphere then there is in the earth’s. Yet Mars is much, much colder than the earth.

Because Mars has an atmosphere that is much much thinner than Earth’s.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Because Mars has an atmosphere that is much much thinner than Earth’s.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2010 at 9:09 AM

That’s not quite the point is it? Enviro-nuts claim that the trace CO2 in our atmosphere has incredible effect on the global temperature. If CO2 is that powerful, then the amount of CO2 on Mars should definitely have a stifling, suffocating, warming effect.

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 9:18 AM

That’s not quite the point is it? Enviro-nuts claim that the trace CO2 in our atmosphere has incredible effect on the global temperature. If CO2 is that powerful, then the amount of CO2 on Mars should definitely have a stifling, suffocating, warming effect.

Mars has an atmosphere about 1% as thick as Earth’s, plus it only receives half the sunlight Earth does. With an atmosphere that thin at those distances, Mars should, by rights, be much much colder than it is. Mars does have a greenhouse effect and CO2 is the cause.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Mars has an atmosphere about 1% as thick as Earth’s, plus it only receives half the sunlight Earth does. With an atmosphere that thin at those distances, Mars should, by rights, be much much colder than it is. Mars does have a greenhouse effect and CO2 is the cause.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2010 at 9:28 AM

And you know this how? A little Martian told you? Exactly how cold should Mars be?

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Talking heads like Contessa Brewer should be taken for what they are . . . willing propagandists, and clowns. She is on a television station that is part of the media wing of a corporate conglomerate (GE) that we know is completely in the tank — especially economically — for promoting anthropogenic global warming as a “fact,” along with so many of the frequently irrational fears about projected climate change that have been added side-saddle to boost that theory.

Even if there was or is a real basis for the theory that trace amounts of human-generated CO2 have contributed to past warming trends, there is no basis whatsoever for what she stupidly blurted.

Let’s be honest.

No self-respecting scientist — including any who are convinced that anthropogenic warming is a fact — nor any scientifically-minded person, would point to a severe snowstorm occurring right in the middle of a particularly cold winter and conclude that there’s your proof of global warming!

Come to think of it, no self-respecting television commentator should be that brazenly idiotic either . . . at least if they had a reasonably intelligent younger research person working for them who would obviously be inclined to say . . . “You know, Contessa, I’m not sure you should put it quite that way.”

But Contessa Brewer is. She will continue to cow-tow to what she believes is the particular corporate interest of her organization in promoting “anthropogenic warming,” and will, therefore, look right in the camera and make a complete idiot of herself.

She is a foppish clown, and should be seen that way.

After all, what really good fun would we be having here without Ed Morrissey having noted and posted the little droolingly stupid gems that the likes of Contessa Brewer, and Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews, and Rachel Maddow and all the rest of them frequently make — either with straight faces, or even better, with a bit of righteous indignation?

Trochilus on February 11, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Brewer is an idiot. Imus knew this years ago.

From : Outside the Beltway

DON Imus didn’t like being called “a cantankerous old fool” by MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer on PAGE SIX. Brewer, a former news reader on Imus’ show, also said the I-man doesn’t know how to relate to “beautiful women.” “With that fat ass she’s got, she wouldn’t be one of ‘em,” Imus said on the air Friday. “That skank has to spend three hours with makeup in the morning … Who’s she kidding? . . . Plus, she’s dumber than dirt … Oh, my God, what a pig. But I was willing to cut her some slack and not say anything, you know, until – in fact, I didn’t say anything . . . That’s why they have those big double-doors there at MSNBC, you know, so they can get her fat ass in makeup.” An MSNBC spokesman said: “Contessa Brewer is a valued and respected employee. While Don Imus’ humor is often brilliant and provocative, we believe that this morning’s comments about Contessa went over the line. We have expressed our displeasure to Don.”

Wade on February 11, 2010 at 9:44 AM

And you know this how? A little Martian told you? Exactly how cold should Mars be?

It’s called science. About as cold as the moon (-230C). It never gets colder than -130C on Mars.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Grow Fins on February 11, 2010 at 10:02 AM

tag team trolling.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 10:07 AM

It’s called science. About as cold as the moon (-230C). It never gets colder than -130C on Mars.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2010 at 10:02 AM

The result of an atmosphere redistributing heat.
Once again, basic science, something you have no knowledge of.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6