Drew Sheneman for January 26, 2011

HA! okay, that was funny.

So here’s a logic problem. If increased temperature causes more moisture, which in turn causes more extreme and longer colds… how do those things not eventually offset each other?

The water is a coolant as is, especially, snow. If the increased heat caused more of both, then the more of those both would cause greater cooling. Hence, a balance.

Btw, the planet has been hotter than it is believed to be now, yet it cooled despite us.

Easy. More moisture doesn’t cause extreme and longer colds. It creates localized extreme weather, hotter and dryer some times, wetter and colder other times. But on average, last year was the hottest year in recorded history, as was the last decade, and the change has been rapid.

It may have been hotter some time in the days of the dinosaurs, but the changes were gradual, and life had time to evolve to adjust. Our crops are going to be toast in a few hundred years, as are the world’s fisheries (though there the problem from ocean acidification due to CO2 is worse than the heat). A species cannot evolve in two or three generations. Our descendents will have a lot more serious things than one country’s deficit to curse us for.

If you’re really curious about the things you raise in the post, there’s plenty of good, scientific information on the internet if your mind is open to evidence-based science.

Reminds me of the Greeks having a debate about how many teeth were in a horse’s mouth which was going on and on. And so one of them asked why they didn’t stop debating and instead all troop out and COUNT the teeth. This infuriated the debaters so much that they beat the guy up.

Moral – don’t spoil our fun.

Well said Rodney. It’s also useful to note that ove the past century, the globe has only warmed about 1 degree. That is an amount, that on a day to day, or even season to season basis, can easily be drowned out by random variation. Even if it was a constent 1 degree everywhere (which it is no) if it was “Going” to be 25 degrees, and instead is 26 degrees, that is still cold enough for snow.

So then, why the big deal? I mean 1 degree is less then the difference between the floors in my house.

Well, the planet is a really, really, really big place. The amount of extra energy that has to be retained to raise the average temperature 1 degree is enormous. And weather extremes are driven by energy imbalances. The more energy available the system, the more weather you have. Example A being heavier snow. (athough I think it is way to early to conclude that the heavier snow patterns are definately driven by global warming,)

^^ sorry… check the original graphs created by your global warming scientists. It was not the hottest and certainly not believed to be the hottest while man was on the earth. But just like so many things science has drawn up, there’s no empirical evidence to any view… just the best logical deduction that can be made.

As far as “recorded history”… there may be some credence. But with the hundreds of climatologist, geologists and other stating that its been cooling for most of a decade and/or debating the accuracy of the results. What we have is a conflict if data and a conflict in reading that data (as well as conflicts of interest) as well as the purposeful destruction of data and falsely created data.

Other than the drama, one of the major problems has been that many of the worldwide temp sensors have been out of commission for extended periods of time. Others, have been found under exhaust vents, on concrete or tar and other things which create a false temperature. Move 5 ft to either side and the temp could be dramatically different (especially with shade or if under a water run off or heating vent, etc.)

Don’t get me wrong, in Florida it has seemed much hotter than usual until this last year. I myself complained for years. But history is riddled with heating up and cooling off.

The issue still comes back to this, scientist continue to be wrong time and time again. Common sense rarely is. Scientists often craft results for the money, common sense never does. Science requires consistent, complete and accurate data to obtain a complete and accurate result. We don’t get much of that either. This is why there is so much debate, even between scientists and professionals.

So when we can have a perfectly proven and agreed upon scientific result that lines up with common sense and is not concluded upon for political purposes or personal fame/wealth… then I will agree.

Till then, I’ll stick with common sense and skepticism.

The irony is that religion is a faith based on a perception of certain evidences. Atheism is the skeptics view of those perceptions. Global warming as been the faith of atheists and most religious are the skeptics. I just find that funny.

Dj, where do you get your data? I get mine from mainstream climate scientists, 97% of the total group, who know what they are talking about far more than you possibly could using only “common sense” and “skepticism.” Neither ignorant denial or contrarianism count as skepticism. Ignoring scientific data can be considered a lack of common sense (though common sense also said planes wouldn’t fly, the atom couldn’t be split, and we couldn’t go to the moon). You wrote, hilariously: “scientist continue to be wrong time and time again. Common sense rarely is.” Are you vaccinated? Do you take medicines of any kind? Do you wear glasses? Have you ever been helped by a weather report? Do you drive, watch TV, use a computer (obviously)? Here’s the difference between science and common sense: Science WORKS. Common sense doesn’t. Your view of science, by the way, is also completely wrong. Science is never “complete.” Science continues to evolve. For example: Newton’s view of the universe incorporated Galileo’s. Einstein’s explained a few exceptions in Newton’s formulation. Quantum mechanics explained things that Einstein couldn’t. None of the denied what went before; they explained the previous theories and additional data better. As for your insults to scientists: real scientists NEVER NEVER NEVER craft results “for the money.” For two reasons: first, you would be found out quickly. Ever heard of “replicability?” That’s a key factor in a scientific finding: can it be done twice? That’s what killed “cold fusion” - no one could duplicate it, and efforts started the day they announced it. Ever heard of “peer review?” That means to get published, you must submit your paper - and, if necessary, your data - to colleagues in your field who are deeply knowledgeable and can critique your findings and interpretations. Second: what money? Scientists aren’t paid particularly well. I am, but I am a scientist in business (assessing top business leaders), and even then I would never consider faking data, and have gone out of my way to point out those whose data I consider suspect. Global warming is the very antithesis of faith: data that counteracts previous expectations (the nonexistent “cooling trend” that should be occurring but is not) leading to a disturbing but important conclusion.

My REGION of the country is (and has been for some time) setting new record highs for “winter” temperatures, and low rainfall (snow), while other regions are seeing climate change in their REGIONS, not just locality. The global impacts of human “industrialization” and consumption, are vast, varied, and undeniable- by any “scientific” evaluation criterion. Only those unwilling to face facts, favoring proponents of myth spreading rather insane denial are willing do destroy their environment on unsubstantiated “faith”.

^^ you say common sense doesn’t work… you must not know what common sense is.

Studies for decades have either proved what common sense already knew… or the study was wrong (often proved as such years later).

But you made a point… “mainstream scientists.” That’s like saying “mainstream media.” Have you ever seen any of the docs or studies by climatologists, professors, geologists, ect., from all over the world that prove many if not all the theories wrong? Of course not, they didn’t get gov’t funding or “mainstream” promotion because they bucked the “desired” belief.

The difference between you and I is I look at both as a skeptic. As such, only the most logical and convincing argument holds true. Naturally I have my bias, as do you, but I am far more willing to change (i have been all my life) if the facts and best reasoning is against me or my theory.

Read Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science.” It’s riddled with footnotes and scientific findings and charts, etc. Being a scientist that shouldn’t be too difficult or long to read.

There are tons of books on both sides of the debate, but none as well documented as that one on either side.

But you’re right, no one has EVER faked data for money, achem “Inconvenient Truth.”

Once politics and greed drives science, science usually stops being science.

Dj, God I hate it when I have to even partially agree with you, but I’m old enough to remember when we were worrying about “a new ice age”. Of course, we were also worrying about overpopulation in the US, but that was before the boomers started collecting Social Security.

science bought and paid for…..look at the granting agencies

^^ Nobody ever fixed data for money?

Not even the tobacco industry?

Common sense tells us that actions have consequences - dumping garbage pollutes. Screwing with the climate will change the climate. That’s common sense.

Fantasy is to say that what we do has no impact, and therefore we can keep on throwing whatever we want into the environment without further thought.

Dj, no offense, but you are proudly proclaiming ignorance of science. Why should I bother to accept anything you say about it or scientists? Especially since I am one? Rejecting the mainstream for the sake of rejecting the mainstream and claiming a conspiracy is the oldest trick in the book. You really need to read a bit more about how science works. Try Stephen Jay Gould, for example, or perhaps Carl Sagan, or even James Randi (www.randi.org), a real, world-class skeptic. The amazing thing about science, which distinguishes it from every other human activity ever created, is that it is designed to question itself. And it does amazingly well at that. Your assertions that I am biased and you are not is, in itself, evidence that you do NOT do what you say. You are not basing this on evidence, you are basing this on a proud declaration that because you disagree with the mainstream, you are somehow wiser. This is a naive stance at best. We’re not talking about mainstream media or politics here, we’re talking about science, and that operates under different rules. And by the way, contrarians get plenty of funding for their research, or you wouldn’t be hearing about them. In fact, bleeep near the easiest way to get funding is to have a bulletproof proposal to take down an existing theory. And by the way, global warming deniers get LOTS of funding from the petrochemical and coal industries. Funny how you don’t seem to think of them as bought and paid for – though they are. But coming back to contrarians - there is example after example of scientists who proposed something that radically changed our view of the universe, and when they put forth their data, the “mainstream” will turn. It doesn’t even take all that long. Einstein shattered conventional physics in 1910; within a decade it was assumed, and new challenges came forward. Wegener proposed plate tectonics in 1912 and was widely considered a flake because he had no mechanism for it. By 1950, it was accepted science because of new data.

Motive, I think the ridiculously large number of deniers in the US is a good indication of some problems in primary and secondary education, n’est-ce pas?

^Yes, I think so. And note how public schools are on the chopping block. No wonder we’re the only country in the world with so high a percentage of disbelievers in fundamental science like evolution. And no wonder we are falling behind in basic science.

The flaw lies not so much in the science or even the skepticism, but in the “spin” that is put on it by various parties from nutjobs, to the sensationalist in the media, to groups whose interests may be at stake. Look at the vacciine causes autism flap, how long it lasted and those who still belive in it.

Well done motivemagnus. As another professional scientist, I applaud your response to DJ. However, don’t expect a rational response if history is any guide to how s/he responds to real information. Look at his posts over the last month or so and you’ll see that others–myself included–have pointed out the scientific flaws in his arguments. All to no avail.

There are some individuals for whom it is a waste of time to respond except to prevent their misconceptions from being taken seriously by others.

Maybe the next “flood” won’t be a deluge of rain, but we’ll all be buried in snow. I wonder who the new “Moses” will be and what he’ll use for a “vessel” to survive.

And will the new Moses also be named Noah?

DJ, here’s the graph. Where am I wrong?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/

In science, when all of the experts agree, it’s usually because there’s no opposing evidence. The only scientists who have been fired for their stance on global warming are those in the Bush administration who refused to fake their reports to make the coal industry happy. Trying to claim that scientists are somehow being paid to push climate change is of course precisely the opposite of the truth: you cannot find climate change deniers who do not receive money from industries who would be damaged if the truth were accepted. I wouldn’t make that argument if I were trying to make your point, since you’re living in a glass house on that issue.

Good news for the pro-pollution people like DJ…just got this notice from the League of Conservation Voters:

It sure didn’t take long for the new House Leadership to roll out their aggressive anti-environment agenda.

In fact, last Thursday top staff members for Chairman Fred Upton and Senator Jim Inhofe met in a closed-door session – with Big Polluters – to draft a strategy designed to handcuff the Obama administration’s efforts to address climate change, protect public health, and hold corporate polluters accountable.

And that’s not all – Rep. Upton also stated that he’s moving forward with a bill to permanently block or delay EPA’s efforts to advance common sense climate standards under the time-tested Clean Air Act.

It’s crystal clear to all of us now – the leadership of the House in the 112th Congress is quickly becoming the most anti-environment in LCV’s 40 year history.

It’s been warmer, it’s been cooler. In the end the dinosaurs didn’t adapt that well, or adapted by growing feathers. Can we agree that pollution is filth? I’m fond of clean air & water. If it makes some things too expensive, we can find other ways, & market those.

Anthony 2816: Of course, I meant Noah. I must’ve had a brain fart. LOL

It’s hell getting old, Wormy, but it beats the alternative.

I love that collection, DrC. I’d noticed some of those dicotomies before, but not that many.

Here, here, chuk. And reducing dependence on foreign oil is part of the package, too. That’s the sword of Damocles over our economy: Too many semi-stable governments where an interuption would cause an instant recession.

On every global warming thread, I can only draw the same conclusion.

The way to combat global warming is to reduce pollution, making our planet cleaner and healthier for all of us.

But the global-warming deniers just aren’t willing to take that risk.

The essence of the deniers argument…

Let’s see…expensive milk, vs being slowly killed by breathing….

You’re right, Church, that is indeed a tough call.

Gee whiz, churchill, is that the best you can do? If you want to claim objectivity or even a legitimate criticism, then you might want to consider not seeking out lame reasons to harass people who happen to be liberals and who happen to be right on this issue. You dodged the whole debate on science versus common sense AND the obvious desirability of a cleaner world. You worked pretty hard for THAT attempt at a criticism.

^ Every time you disagree with me you give some link to something that claims the mainstream are wrong, some organization I never heard of, some obscure “scientist.”

It is entertaining sometimes, but c’mon.

I guess the Discovery Channel, HDTheater, National Geographics several channels, the Science Channel, and PBS are all in on a plot.

(notice I didn’t include the History channels) Aliens built Stonehenge? Not.

Fennec, you’re trying to argue with someone whose solution to air pollution is for people to stop breathing.

The pro-pollution people like Church and Harley are always going to win, because polluting is easier and cheaper…and it’s obvious they like pollution.

churchill, where do you get this nonsense about us wanting to force socialism on you? As fennec notes, a reduction of income inequality is not the same as income equality. Your attempts to force us into a black-and-white situation is simply fallacious. There has been a massive increase of income inequality in the past thirty years – growing especially fast during Republican administrations, as it happens. You like to cite the time when JFK reduced taxes on the rich to, oh, double what it is today. Back then most CEOs were not paid nearly as much as they are today, especially relative to their own lowest-paid workers, and before you say that’s justified, the US is unique in the fees we pay CEOs – even failed ones. (E.g., Robert Nardelli, who was paid $400m to leave Home Depot, which he nearly destroyed.) But that’s all by the by. You have offered no real substantive reason for denying global warming, just a list of links which are dubious at best – the first link is to a “documentary” which has been discredited for dishonesty and slanting of results including misrepresentation of interviewees. (The British broadcast authority examined it in detail.) Many of the others are merely pundits, not scientists, many commenting on political figures or celebrities (e.g., Laurie David), which is irrelevant to the research. Oh, yeah, and the Drudge Report? C’mon. I could probably come up with a better list, but it would have to be shorter, because it is the minority view. Deal with it. And your response to my comments on science is to insult me and claim that there is nothing but “ridiculousness” in my arguments. Yeah, I see you dodging that bullet too, church. You’re getting nastier, and less interested in a discussion. And telling Anthony to stop breathing? Dear me, church, so much for your claims for wisdom, objectivity, and perception.

So in fact you have no solution for air pollution at all, Church. Your worries about the price of milk are the basis for your pro-pollution stance.

Nice, Church. One can only assume you have no children, and are bitter enough about that fact to explain your hatred of future generations.

Yet again you demonstrate that you’re really analogy-challenged.

(Okay, that sounded liberal…)