News & Politics

Featured Posts
Ice and cold: Global warming believers are today's climate deniers
by SallyMJ
January 4, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Just this week we had dozens of Global Warming-believing scientists, who specialize in researching ice melt in Antarctica, run into a helluva lot more Antarctic ice than their research told them would be there. So much more ice that their ship and three ice-breaking rescue vessels were stuck in ten feet of it for days (two of the vessels are still stuck). As I write this, the big news of the weekend is a cold snap across much of the country with temperatures reaching 20 and 30-year lows. And yet, despite all of what should be good news, the Global Cooling Global WarmingClimate Change community is not celebrating.  

Not only are Climate Change Truthers not celebrating, they are hysterical with worry that unexpected Antarctic ice discoveries and American winters returning to the normalcy those of us of a certain age remember, might hurt their religion crusade. The media is so worried they have coordinated a cover-up of the news from Antarctica and those of us pointing to what one might call the "science" of colder temperatures and increased Arctic ice are being mocked for doing so.

Granted, more ice in one area of a vast South Pole is not empirical proof that all is well in the Antarctic, but it is a great way to call attention to the fact that according to NASA, "In late September 2013, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual winter maximum and set a new record."

Who is anti-science now?

The chief of today's Climate Deniers is President Obama, whose second term will end up being "all about Climate Change." Despite all this good climate news, Obama still intends to circumvent Congress and use the Tyranny of the Bureaucracy to strangle the kind of industries that create solid middle class jobs. But don't worry, while Obama is killing good-paying energy jobs he will be rescuing us from income inequality that good paying energy jobs would help to solve.  

There are all kinds of reasons not to believe in Global Warming -- the cover-ups, themedia biasthe outright lies; the science just being plain old wrong; the absurdity of using a hundred-or-so years of data on a planet billions of years old;  the oh-so bizarre coincidence that the only solution to the "crisis" is to check off every item on the Marxist wish-list; the fact that Global Warming Believers live their lives like the rest of us instead of preparing for imminent catastrophe…

And let's not forget the oily shift in branding from Global Cooling to Global Warming to Climate Change…

Well, now we can add to this list the fact that the very good news of unexpected Antarctic ice, and a return to the kind of winter weather we experienced before this Climate Change hysteria began, hasn't so much as made a single Truther pause for just a moment to wonder aloud if this might be good news.

Instead, they are ignoring the science to double down on their denial and partisan bitterness.


  • -Celestial-
    January 4, 2014 at 7:52 PM
    With the record heat waves around the globe, earth us only trying to cool itself down
  • jcribb16
    January 4, 2014 at 7:59 PM

    Thanks for posting this.  I've never agreed with "Global Warming" in the first place.  Climate changes are normal and are natural or not, part of the science we have been and are being taught in schools.

    EDITED TO ADD: Climate changes are normal and are natural or not.

  • grandmab125
    January 5, 2014 at 1:25 AM

     It's astounding.  You probably believe the stuff you say.  LMAO.

    Quoting -Celestial-: With the record heat waves around the globe, earth us only trying to cool itself down


  • Clairwil
    January 5, 2014 at 6:20 AM

    Quoting jcribb16:

    Climate changes are normal and natural

    There are natural climate changes.

    That doesn't imply that all climate changes are natural.

    There are natural sources of night time illumination, such as the moon.

    That doesn't mean that every time you see a bright light in the night sky, it must be something natural.  It could be the lights of an aeroplane.

  • Clairwil
    January 5, 2014 at 6:23 AM

    Quoting -Celestial-: With the record heat waves around the globe, earth us only trying to cool itself down

    I disagree.   The planet doesn't 'try' to do anything.   It isn't a sentient being.

    Perhaps you're thinking of Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, whereby sometimes you can model the emergent properties of the system as though they had a tendency towards homeostasis?

  • Clairwil
    January 5, 2014 at 6:27 AM

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    There are all kinds of reasons not to believe in Global Warming

    -- the science just being plain old wrong

    Do you actually read the articles you link to?   Here's the text of the above:

    GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: "Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections".

    Mr Cohn does his best to affirm that the urgent necessity of acting to retard warming has not abated, as does Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, as does this newspaper. But there's no way around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases. The reality is that the already meagre prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.

    Dramatic warming may exact a terrible price in terms of human welfare, especially in poorer countries. But cutting emissions enough to put a real dent in warming may also put a real dent in economic growth. This could also exact a terrible humanitarian price, especially in poorer countries. Given the so-far unfathomed complexity of global climate and the tenuousness of our grasp on the full set of relevant physical mechanisms, I have favoured waiting a decade or two in order to test and improve the empirical reliability of our climate models, while also allowing the economies of the less-developed parts of the world to grow unhindered, improving their position to adapt to whatever heavy weather may come their way. I have been told repeatedly that "we cannot afford to wait". More distressingly, my brand of sceptical empiricism has been often met with a bludgeoning dogmatism about the authority of scientific consensus.

    Of course, if the consensus climate models turn out to be falsified just a few years later, average temperature having remained at levels not even admitted to be have been physically possible, the authority of consensus will have been exposed as rather weak. The authority of expert consensus obviously strengthens as the quality of expertise improves, which is why it's quite sensible, as matter of science-based policy-making, to wait for a callow science to improve before taking grand measures on the basis of its predictions.   

    Anyway, Mr Cohn cites a few scientists who are unruffled by the surprisingly slow warming.

    It might seem like a decade-long warming plateau would cause a crisis for climate science. It hasn’t. Gerald Meehl, a Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has seen hiatus periods before. They “occur pretty commonly in the observed records,” and there are climate models showing “a hiatus as long as 15 years.” As a result, Isaac Held, a Senior Research Scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, says “no one has ever expected warming to be continuous, increasing like a straight line.” Those much-cited computer models are composed of numerous simulations that individually account for naturally occurring variability. But, Meehl says, “the averages cancel it out.”

    Isn't this transparently ad hoc. The point of averaging is to prune off exceedingly unlikely possibilities. It does not vindicate a model to note that it gives no weight—that it "cancels out"—its only accurate constitutive simulations.

    If "hiatus periods are commonly observed" is the right way to think about the current warming plateau, then the rest of Mr Cohn's article, examining various explanations of the puzzle of the hiatus would be unnecessary. But, as all the pieces discussing the warming plateau make perfectly clear, climate scientists are actually pretty baffled about the failure of their predictions. Is it the oceans? Clouds? Volcanoes? The sun? An artifact of temperature data?

    As a rule, climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn't. This isn't a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus. Mr Cohn eventually gets around to admitting that

    In the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word “uncertainty” with striking regularity.

    But his attempt to minimise the political relevance of this is unconvincing. He writes:

    The recent wave of news and magazine articles about scientists struggling to explain the warming slowdown could prolong or deepen the public’s skepticism.

    But the “consensus” never extended to the intricacies of the climate system, just the core belief that additional greenhouse gas emissions would warm the planet.

    If this is true, then the public has been systematically deceived. As it has been presented to the public, the scientific consensus extended precisely to that which is now seems to be in question: the sensitivity of global temperature to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Indeed, if the consensus had been only that greenhouse gases have some warming effect, there would have been no obvious policy implications at all. As this paper has maintained:

    If ... temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. But that would be good advice only if these new estimates really were more reliable than the old ones. And different results come from different models.

    We have not been awash in arguments for adaptation precisely because the consensus pertained to now-troubled estimates of climate sensitivity. The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal. 

  • Clairwil
    January 5, 2014 at 6:34 AM

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    Look at the three graphs on page 5.

  • Clairwil
    January 5, 2014 at 6:42 AM

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    That's not necessarily a good thing.


    A common error when discussing Antarctic ice trends is to confuse land ice and sea ice. Simply put, land ice is decreasing while sea ice is increasing. I discuss both trends in more detail in Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice? Disappointingly, even after distinguishing between land ice and sea ice, there are still repeated comments confusing the two (eg -herehere and even an accusation of misinformation). Why is this? Perhaps people are not paying attention. Possibly, it's the result of many articles that confuse the two phenomenon. In How to cherry pick your way to Antarctic land ice gain, we see how one article blurs the line between sea ice and land ice to convince people that Antarctica is gaining land ice. Apparently, this technique is all too successful. Or maybe I just didn't explain it clearly enough. As the third possibility is the only one I can do anything about, I've revamped the Antarctic ice page, hopefully clarifying the issue somewhat. I've also added some recent research and simplified the explanation of sea ice trends. To summarise the situation with Antarctic ice trends:

    • Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
    • Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean
  • SallyMJ
    by SallyMJ
    January 5, 2014 at 12:19 PM

    Earth to Celestial: Freezing cold is not the same as heat.

    What do you say about the fact that scientists have not found any measurable heating of the earth for about 18 years? And that actually the earth is cooling? 

    Do you go with the factual information, or do you just let your head explode due to conflicting data?

    Quoting -Celestial-: With the record heat waves around the globe, earth us only trying to cool itself down

  • SallyMJ
    by SallyMJ
    January 5, 2014 at 12:20 PM


    We see the airplane.

    You think it's a UFO.

    As physicians say, if you hear hoofbeats, it's probably a horse and not a zebra.

    Quoting Clairwil:

    Quoting jcribb16:

    Climate changes are normal and natural

    There are natural climate changes.

    That doesn't imply that all climate changes are natural.

    There are natural sources of night time illumination, such as the moon.

    That doesn't mean that every time you see a bright light in the night sky, it must be something natural.  It could be the lights of an aeroplane.

News & Politics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts