Redstate

It's a pretty vacuous rant...

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.

Now there's a solid argument!

For those who follow the Church of Denialism™, this is an excellent example of the fundamental pillar of conspiracy.

So any scientist who disagrees is a liar, a fraud, and probabaly paid off by "Big Oil" but any scientists who DOES agree with High Priest Algore is (of course) correct.

It's time to face the music. There are scientists who say AGW is real. There are scientists who say it isn't. EACH SIDE IS, BY DEFINITION, DENYING THE OTHER'S THEORY. The reason is simple: NO PROOF. If a case is made that can be PROVEN, then it will be, and those scientists that you feel are in such "denial" will be made to look as foolish as one who says the Earth is flat. The burden of proof is on YOUR side and so far, they haven't PROVEN anything. All they've manage to do is scare a bunch of kids by making them watch a movie, in public schools, produced by a politician that's full of errors. Then of course as with any liberal cause, all of Hollywood along with the drive-by media jumps on board and pushes the agenda without question like the good sheeple they are.

What makes it even funnier (and I find this rather revealing) is how anxious Algore is to make us "deniers" just shut the heck up. What exactly is he so afraid of? Being made the laughing-stock of the 21st century? Oh how I can't wait for time to bring that day to pass!!!

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

Newsflash - I don't agree with everything Al alluded to in his movie and where did I mention "Big Oil"?

Haven't proven anything eh? Hmmm...what specifically would you like to see proof of? The greenhouse effect, carbon emissions effect on greenhouse effect, proof that the vast majority greenhouse gas rise in the last century is due to human cause, proof that natural variations are not strong enough to cause current rise in temp? Ask and you shall receive, my friend. Here's a good start. If you need more specifics, I'd be happy to point to them.

I don't mind deniers, as long as they have data. Where is it?

If only I were more "consensus science correct," then I'd have grant money coming out of my ears. But alas, my grand theory of Global Tepiding, while equally a relevant as AGW just hasn't gotten the traction.

As I wrote back in January when I had an epiphany while shaking a snow globe:

The bottom line for me is this: Global warming may be true; global cooling may be true; my Grand Theory of Global Tepiding may be true. In fact, they all may be true simultaneously. And I’ll even grant that mankind may have had an effect on the planet’s climate, particularly in the past half-century. But I also consider it asinine and hubristic to assume that man can do anything to significantly change the weather…aside from the voluntary culling of about half the world’s population.

People are going to burn stuff. More people? More stuff burned. Less people? Less stuff burned. We can all do our part to save the planet by dying. But I want to see all of the disciples of phony altruism on the left show their commitment by going first, OK? Take our word for it that we’ll go next.

How many times must we point out that we're not buying the IPCC's politically-driven snake oil? Good lord! A link to the IPCC as an argumentative device...at RedState?

Seriously?

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

I'm looking for razor blades....

It needs to be said more often: The primary reason man has any effect at all on Global Climate is because there are so many of us.

Rather than go through the unseemly process of trying to get the Regressives to voluntarily participate in the "culling of about half the world’s population," I suggest that we use the easier path of only taking every other breath. It won't do quite as much good, but we'll still have the Regressives to kick around afterwards.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

ask yourself this, if the IPCC report is so biased (against the US, I assume?) why did Bush administration officials (along with thousands of US scientists) sign off on it?

Then ask yourself, why does the US National Academy of Science agree with its findings? Heck, why does Newt Gingrich agree with its findings? This conspiracy is clearly taking over the world.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

make a living and are having to choose between integrity and eating given the liberal agenda dominated $$ for "research", insn't this just another example of where our fellow republicans need to quit whining and put their money into science, just as they need to put their money and bodies into broadcast news, cable, newspapers, academia generally and hollowood?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

I've been asking for proof that someone, anyone, can devise a measurement of the Global Temperature (however defined) for the year 1885 that produces an accuracy better than 2 degrees C. Without that, the whole verticle scale of tenths of a degree changes over a century blows up.

You can cut down every 200 year old tree on earth and have zero knowledge of the temperature of the oceans or the poles.

like the thousands of years the eastern seaboard was under the Atlantic

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
www.race42

how many people lived there then?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

it's early morning, and I see already 28 comments on this thread. I didn't know anything about John Coleman, so I clicked on his biography. I see he's now a weatherman on KUSI San Diego. His opening statement is "Being a TV weatherman in San Diego is an outrageous scam". So I see where the language is coming from.

I'm with PJ here. It's a pretty vacuous rant. The site (Icecap) is a bit odd - I get frequent "Error 500" reports, and I see from comments elsewhere that the text of Coleman's rant changes from time to time.

I really hate to agree with you two, but I'm not impressed by the linked article. No insult to those who enjoyed it, but I thought it came off rather juvenile. I was doubting the authorship all day, but now that I've seen this linked bio, I think old Coleman may just have a juvenile style. Or else he has become so completely embittered by his experiences that he can't help but rant his case.

Either way, personally I didn't find his article, which was really more like a blog comment, to be very compelling.
absentee

I watched John Coleman in SD for 15 years, I can assure you he is indeed a silly old fart (which is why I watched his weather news).

In San Diego the four seasons are bit different anyway: fire, flood, smog and drought (from Johnny Carson).

Redstaters should be focussing on preventing idiotic responses to global warming (carbon tax), rather than than this quixotic battle against global warming science. There is no "crisis", but yes the earth is warming. Many places will become more unpleasant with global warming.

Another responder noted the importance of the "Aqua" satellite results showing an absence of an IRIS effect.. The basic idea is: if you add a blanket of CO2, if you are going to maintain the same temperature on Earth, you have to prevent more sunlight from reaching the ground. Lindzen proposed the "IRIS" effect which said cloudiness would increase and reflect light into space (a reasonable guess since warmer water puts more moisture in the air) and so balance the increased blanketing effect . The big question was whether the increased cloudiness would be high clouds (which would reflect light back into space) or low clouds.

glad you could join us...:)

can be smart and still have trubble spellin and splainin. Cherce a words kin be a problem, two.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

ah, listen to them pop!

High Priest Algore has fooled plenty. Give it about 50 years and our kids will look back on this and laugh at how so many people can be fooled. At least this time it may be somewhat funny as opposed to the last time a politician (circa 1942) fooled a lot of people. But then again, the consequences of forcing masses of people to "go green" could be pretty bad indeed.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

You mean like the Mann 'hockey stick' graph, where it was later discovered that he merged two separate sets of data, one for the gentle downslope and another for the sharp upslope, and didn't even try to normalize them?

I guess these 19,000 scientists are part of the paranoid conspiracy too.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Rises again. Wonder how many of the original signers still agree and how many actually have scientific degrees?

PS don't forget to read the 12 independent studies (Chapter 6) that came to the same conclusion as Mann or the National Academy of Sciences report that said the same. Merged two data sets, eh? That's a new one. What's your source?

But this article does a pretty good job of eviserating the hockey stick graph, starting by using the IPCC's 1990 report, which was released before the whole current global warming hype started.

The data before 1900 was from tree rings (which are themselves suspect), the data after 1900 was from surface temperature measurements:

At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record. The effect was visually dramatic as the 20th century was portrayed as a climate rocketing out of control. The red line extends all the way to 1998 (Mann's `warmest year of the millennium'), a year warmed by the big El Niño of that year. It should be noted that the surface record is completely at variance with the satellite temperature record [20]. Had the latter been used to represent the last 20 years, the effect would have been to make the 20th century much less significant when compared with earlier centuries.

As a piece of science and statistics it was seriously flawed as two data series representing such different variables as temperature and tree rings simply cannot be credibly grafted together into a single series.

In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial scepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the public at large.

This never happened with Mann's `Hockey Stick'. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann's paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the greenhouse industry. Within the space of only 12 months, the theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

So much for his 12 independent studies and National Academy of Sciences report. One (well-researched, I'd add) webpage turned them all to slag. Something tells me that those 'independent' studies weren't so independent after all-- probably all competing for the same global warming funding.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

the witch is dead! Not stumped, just busy - too bad John Daly isn't around any more to stand up for his ludicrous arguments. I'll be back with more details. Question #1, why is everything Daly uses almost 20 years old?

He was analyzing data from before 1900, mostly. So tell me, what's changed in the last 20 years about the temperature data before 1900, besides being infected with global warming hype?

And how about that IPCC data from 1990? What's changed from then to now about temperatures before 1990, other than, again, the global warming hype? Why did the Medieval Warm Period suddenly disappear from the IPCC post-1990, other than that it blows global warming out of the water and thus Must Be Discredited?

The fact that you didn't know that the Mann hockey stick graph consisted of two entirely different sets of data stitched together like Frankenstein shows to me that you're all bluster and hype and way short on actual information. The ludicrous one (all you have against Daly is ad hominem attacks) is you.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

What changed between 1990 and now - hmmm, temps went up? The hockey stick was published in 1998, remember. The answer to my question is that his arguments fall apart when including the last 20 years of data - gosh is probably why he failed to include it.

MWP - I'm too lazy, but this gives a sufficient answer.

Here's the data, my friend - I count 31 different data sets. Sorry, bud...

Don't forget to read about those 12 other studies and NAS study that backed them up. Do you honestly believe a sinlge website is better than the combined results from all of those? Why hasn't Daly ever published these results? More consipiracy?

OR even more than 8-12 lying, cheating scientists [who live off grants from government and other agenda-driven sources]. All these lefty eco-Nazis are of a like mind and don't have to be 'on the inside'. They just see new 'evidence' that supports their viewpoint and run with it.

How something like this goes worldwide is through the use of a large number of useful idiots. Which we have in abundance, and we call them the 'mainstream media'.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

Well, then we must be able to name them all. Who are they?

which ain't alot, considering that the scientific fields involved are fairly eaten up with leftist eco-Nazis. Why does it require that I be able to name names?

Should I be able to name all of the people involved in the Kennedy assassination, otherwise it must have been Oswald acting alone?

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

Now, how did those 8-12, who shall remain unnamed, convince the 5000 or so scientists that produced this report? Are we getting to a sizable conspiracy yet?

Besides the fact that each pdf file takes 5 minutes to load, how am I supposed to be impressed with this?

The IPCC, WMO, UNEP -- trivia question here. Are any of these organizations coming to the table without a significant agenda and/or bias? Holy FREAKIN' Cow, PJ. For Pete's sake, it's a UN confab here. That hate America, and at the heart of the AGW Hoax is the notion that America and the other industial powerhouses (except magically China is not among them) have caused the impending doom of the world by CO2 emissions. Therefore we must pull the USA down, cripple their industry and economy, then they'll be bankrupt and soulless like the rest of us.

I don't know anything about the 5000 scientists that put this together (other than it's a UN project). How many collected raw data? How many cross-examined raw data and did independent data collection?

I have already averred here and elsewhere that the academic scientist crowd WANTS data that supports AGW, and when they see what they want, they run with it, ignoring any contrary data.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

is a summary of the scientific literature from the past 30 years from 10s of thousands of scientists worldwide (the conspiracy is expanding), and represents the state of the art. All the science has gone through through the traditional vetting using raw data and cross-examination etc...no worries.

Yes, it was published by UN and was written by many US scientists. It does not disagree with anything the red, white, and blue National Academy of Sciences has said on the subject if that makes you feel better. And nowhere does it say anything about excluding China or taking down the USA - nice adding to the conspiracy though.

So, tell me, what consipiracy theory leads you to believe that scientists want to find data that supports AGW? They hate capitalism/US? Only way to get grants? Old-boys club? These are sooo tired, what else you got?

Oh, what contrary data? I'd love to see it.

First, to get it out of the way, I did not say the China-doesn't-count meme was part of the conspiracy theory -- that's just part of the hate-USA theme the socialist-eco-Nazi crowd feeds us every day [see Protocol, Kyoto for a typical example].

So, tell me, what consipiracy theory leads you to believe that scientists want to find data that supports AGW? They hate capitalism/US? Only way to get grants? Old-boys club? These are sooo tired, what else you got?

That's the territory we've all argued every time you come to play at RedState. Don't care to chase or be chased around the tree all day on this, so I'll give my short opinion on each, and you can of course reply and have the last word.

What conspiracy theory?-- well, THAT's the one we're talking about. The one where scientists falsify data, other scientists glom onto it without checking because it suits them, media jump on the bandwagon because the media (leftist as always) loves any opportunity to bash free markets, and all the little 2-bit commie dictators at the UN get in on it because it's a good chance to take a dig at the USA.

They hate capitalism/USA? -- Well, that would be YES, wouldn't it? Actually it's a combination: environmentalism of a form that would like us all to go back to the days of horses, stagecoaches, 1-story buildings and wooden ships; a hatred of industrialism inspired by that; a desire to control other people (i.e., in a nutshell, leftism); there's more but I ain't got all day.

Only way to get grants -- Yes as well. Actually this is how the 20% turns into the 70% (and if you think this is a 95% consensus, you are soft in the head). Intimidation. Surely it's not news to you that college faculty/admin is over 90% Democrat, is it? Conservative thought is stifled, big-time, on colleges, and hiring and promotions cull out dissenters to the point that the whole land of academia is one big echo chamber. And they STILL don't have a consensus.

Old boys club? Yes, or rather Old Lefty's Club. See above.

Feel free to give your thoughts, as I know you will, since you are like a dog with an old bone.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

It's only 'tired' because you keep hearing it so much. As if your Global Hoax from the Church of Al Gore isn't 'tired' to me.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

because their is no proof, how about showing us some evidence of this so-called conspiracy and how it managed to entrap thousands of scientists?

from rising heat is only a minuscule part of the worry. You can think about from a purely economic standpoint if you must.

The most recent studies show that doing nothing about AGW will cost the world economy about 6% GDP growth by 2100 (remember change is not free) with growing losses after that, whereas leveling carbon emissions will cost about 1% GDP growth and we'll still have to pay 3% for changes that are currently locked-in - for a total of 4%. So, in order to gain an additional 2% GDP growth by 2100 (and more after that), we should do something.

Worldwide economic growth forecast for the year 2100? Are you kidding me?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

believe long-term economic forecasts, what do you base your opposition to doing something about AGW on?

we conservatives base our opposition to "doing something" mostly on the short-term economic effects of implementing Al Gore's proposed solutions (Kyoto, MUCH higher taxes, others outlined in his book Earth in the Balance and others).

Short term probable scenario: We enact Gore's proposed anti-business solutions. Small businesses with possibly better products are knocked out of the running because of draconian regulations that are hard to live up to. Big Business stays, but outsources most of its workers to places like China and India AND forces customers to pay higher prices to offset losses from the taxes imposed on them. Because of outsourcing due to artificial futzing with the economy by the government rather than market competition, less jobs are available. Added bonus: we the people get to pay substantially higher taxes. End result: our country gets poorer, more economically friendly countries get wealthier.

I'm not necessarily disputing global warming (although I am under the persuasion that it's not man-made), but I don't think that Al Gore's solution is the way to go about solving it. People like Newt Gingrich have proposed more economically friendly solutions, but right now the perception is that, because Al has seen the problem, he must know the solution. That's what scares me about global warming hysterics.

they don't control the satellites. Poor beaten down Richard Lindzen was able to convince NASA to launch Aqua to test his Iris theory - I'm sure that was cheap. Why didn't he get the Nobel Prize? The conspiracy knows no bounds!

HTML Help for Red Staters

which is why Lindzen's theory, based on only 20 months of data over the western Pacific, fell apart after 3 or so years of worldwide observations from Aqua.

we should listen to the most educated! Oh, wait I guess individuals overreach at times. Here's a better strategy to eliminate that possibility: take a poll of the most studied in this area. What do we discover?

"One generation goes, and another generation
comes, but the earth abides forever." (Ecclesiastes 1:4)

Also, a great post-apocalyptic science fiction novel Earth Abides

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

I can't stand her.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

The cabal can't or won't explain those melting icecaps on Mars; must be those American SUVs making it happen.

For all the conspiracy neo-fascism "the science is settled," that 'educated' Gore fellow has the scientific credentials of an auto-didact with a two-digit IQ. His top grade at Vanderbilt in Divinity School in the mandatory science classes [he couldn't get into law school] was a C+; another was a D. I'll take Coleman and Lindzen ten times out of ten.

Cargo Cult Science, Richard Feynman was a prophet.

Just follow the grant money, and you'll find the data!

This is a place for people who can think. Dropping one-line stinkbombs into ongoing discussions is not what RedState is about. That's pretty much all you've done. Should you wish to make the case that you know how to do other things, use the contact form. In the meantime, we won't be needing any more stinkbombs.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

But I talk to a ghost. :sigh: Poor bugger couldn't even hold it in until he got to an appropriate thread...

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!