July 29, 2006
Global Warming Cult: "We Don't Have to Prove Anything."
If hurricanes are getting more numerous because of (human induced) global warming, as claimed, shouldn't the people who make those claims back it up with data that they can prove? Apparently not--to them. We have to prove them wrong.
Studies that link a spike in hurricane intensity with global warming are spotting "artificial upward trends" because they rely on bad historical data, a paper suggested today in the journal Science.
US hurricane expert stirs global warming debate
...Chris Landsea, a leading researcher at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, challenged studies that found a dramatic jump in hurricane intensity in recent years.The paper is the latest salvo in the debate among climate scientists on whether human-induced global warming is producing stronger hurricanes.
Landsea is among a group of scientists who say the impact of global warming on hurricanes is not clear, and the studies do not account for inaccurate information in storm databases
Okay, Landsea says that the data used by global warming advocates is not accurate. So, how do the GW advocates respond?
Experts respond to questions challenging link between global warming and hurricanes
... no one has done a rigorous error or uncertainty analysis on the data, so in my opinion Landsea's statements about the trends are not supported at this point.
Did you get that? The global warming supporters use data to "prove" that global warming is causing more hurricanes and that they are more severe. But, a scientist with the hurricane center says that, while their method is okay, their data is faulty. Now, here's what I like. In response to him, a GW advocate says that we have to accept their data is correct until someone proves that their data is bad. Is there something backwards here? Shouldn't it be the other way around to where the global warming advocates have to prove that their data is correct--period? Otherwise, why not just make anything up or use any convenient and unsupportable information? Oh, wait. They already do that. That's their science.
Well, file it away. The scientific debate is over on human induced global warming. Let's go spend a few trillion dollars based on their word.
Posted by Woody M. at July 29, 2006 02:50 PM | TrackBackNope. Not true.
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=05-P13-00035&segmentID=3
"EMANUEL: Well I looked at the record of hurricanes in the Atlantic and the western part of the North Pacific, and I looked at a measure of the production of energy by hurricanes over their entire life. When you look at this measure of energy consumption it's gone up by about 70 or 80 percent since the 1970s. It's a really big increase. It was startling. And we're trying to understand why."
Posted by Joe Cone at July 29, 2006 02:11 PM
And why do we the people have to spend anything? This is a false analogy. It is the free market that comes up with solutions. And that will improve the lives of everyone and make them money. Lindzen is a paid shill for the oil companies. He knows better but got himself a contract. He's a weatherman which isn't the same as climatologist. Another false comparison.
Posted by Joe Cone at July 29, 2006 02:17 PM
I live southeast of Jackson Mississippi. That last storm him me hard but I know people farther south who were hit very hard. When my electricity came back on ten days after the storm the first thing I saw on tv was some global warming preacher talking about his religion. I had more important things to think about than his nonsence.
Yes, there might me some truth to global warming. The remains of wolly mamoths were found in areas that are now sub tropical. The Great Lakes were caused by receding glaciers. Those things prove that the planet was once colder but it does not prove that humans caused the end of the ice age. It also doed not prove tropical storms do any thing other than their normal cycle.
I can remember not too long ago when the preachers in the environmentalism cult based their sermons on global cooling and the return of the ice age.
Posted by Cliff Brown at July 29, 2006 02:25 PM
""It's not to say that global warming isn't causing changes. I don't dispute the fact that global warming is going on or that it can have an impact on hurricanes," Landsea said."
The problem with you people is you're absolutists. Landsea has not refuted anything that has been published before supporting more intense hurricane activity. There is no religion in science. Only in those who can't think without it. Context doesn't do you any favors.
Posted by Joe Cone at July 29, 2006 02:41 PM
Snow Cone York, your expert on hurricanes and climate is quoted from over a year ago and does not address the scientific paper from this week which states that the data used to make hurricane predictions is faulty data. Predictably, you attacked this scientist, as is done to all GW skeptics, as a shrill and unqualified, even though he is a hurricane scientist. What a joke.
Posted by Woody at July 29, 2006 05:10 PM
I didn't attack him at all. I quoted him saying the opposite of what you claim. Predictably lying about what the paper says. It says in a side issue, methods have inproved and thus past data aren't as good. Well duh. They aren't very good at predicting hurricane frequency as the top people alway under predict them. I suppose they could inprove this by downgrading them all to storms. That doesn't make the fact there are more now in the Atlantic any less true. Last year Your buddy Gray predicted 16 and there were 28. That would be more. This is but one aspect of GW.
Posted by joe Cone at July 29, 2006 05:38 PM
Hmmm, warming on Mars and on Jupiter. Now even yorkie isn't dumb enough to claim that anthropomorphic CO2 causes this on these two planets, yet, the warming is proven there. As yorkie would say FACT! So, what could account for the warming of all three planets (Earth, Jupiter, Mars) and not include CO2... let's see? How about The SUN? Yeah, that is the single commonality between warming of all three planets... Yorkie, and that is a fact you can put in your pipe and smoke.
Posted by GM at July 29, 2006 07:26 PM
Global warming is happening on the sun and it's George Bush's fault.
Posted by Woody at July 29, 2006 08:39 PM
When politicians take up the GW standard then you know for sure it's riddled with junk science. When Algore made a movie about it, I knew for sure it was a scam. Only a few years ago it was Global Cooling and the next ice age was just around the corner. If they were half as smart as they think they are they would take up the banner of Global Climate Change (GCC) so that no matter how it goes they have a cause. Heh.
Posted by Vulgorilla at July 30, 2006 08:05 AM
Wow! I'd say that's a fancifal overgeneralization fallacy. Perhaps glitches in the orbits on Mars and Jupiter akin to those that cause our ice ages, which isn't responsible for the current warming period, are responsible for their increase? We measure the temp and CO2 and the numbers don't lie. Try Venus on for size. Almost all CO2 in the atmosphere, and heated by SOL too just like Earth.
Try something not contained here. Tell your simpleton troglodytes to read the literature. They're ignorant and sound like broken records. Still wrong after all these years.
Posted by joe Cone at July 30, 2006 10:54 AM
It's amazing that mankind has been burning fossil fuels since the beginning of time and through the industrial revolution, but that it wasn't measurable and didn't matter until the left needed some cause to try to get back into power, when they instantly found "proof" of man caused globla warming, so as to cripple American competitiveness. If this is so critical, then why do they still fight nuclear power generation and not even apply Kyoto to China and India? Who is wrong after all these years?
Give me a lot more proof and proven solutions before asking me to spend a dime on YOUR so-called problem.
Posted by Woody at July 30, 2006 11:51 AM
I wondered what joe cone was talking about, so I went back and checked the links. I was puzzled who we were talking about until I realized that cone had misnamed "Landsea" as "Lindzen." Error one.
Cone accuses Landsea of being a paid shill, then states he doesn't attack him, but is merely quoting him as saying the opposite of what the OP claimed. Cone is quoting someone else entirely. Landsea's comments were fairly represented. Errors two and three.
Cone further complains about Landsea's credentials. Well, he's got a Doctorate in Atmospheric Science. I don't know the field well enough to know whether that's an important credential or not, but my initial guess is that it might qualify him to be considered an expert. At least half an error there.
Landsea's comments were appropriately limited and specific. That doesn't make them accurate per se, but it does nullify accusations that he hasn't succeeded because he hasn't completely disproved GW.
When called on these, cone quickly resorts to insult instead of further argument.
I guess folks can choose who they believe now.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at July 30, 2006 05:38 PM
I love to read the post here that are pure rationalization. And when you can't rationa;ize the fact away, the standard republican action is ridicule. When even folk like Woody admit that the globe is warming, but hasn't a clue as to why, then stick your head in the sand and deny.
Sunday 7/30/06 60 minutes had a pretty compelling section on Global warming, and the FACT that any scientific papers or interviews must be censired by the white house. That means you are getting the information from Lawyers, not scientists.
But if the white house says it, it must be true.
Oh, and woody, the democrats that you persist in designationg as "the left" do not oppose Nuclear power. We strongly encourage it. It would be nice though if the builders and operators assumed some responsibility for their actions.
Posted by James Melbert at July 31, 2006 10:46 AM
Joe Cone. haha. I suspected immediately you were York and sure enough ...
"I didn't attack him at all."
Really? Then what is this - "Lindzen is a paid shill for the oil companies."
"Tell your simpleton troglodytes to read the literature. They're ignorant and sound like broken records." Troglodytes? Is it any wonder that if I ever met you on the street I would be compelled to point and laugh at you, you officious jerk?
Posted by Oyster at July 31, 2006 12:04 PM
Mr. Melbert.
60 Minutes? Not a reliable source.
I was not aware that any scientific papers had to be censored by the White House before publication. That must slow down the publishing of JAMA and NEJM considerably, eh?
As a resident of NH (Seabrook, remember) for most of my life, I can assure you that we have not heard a prominent Democrat speak in favor of nuclear power for decades. Maybe somewhere else.
Now, if you just mean some Democrat who might speak theoretically in favor of nuclear power, but never sees a proposal he finds quite worth supporting, that I might believe.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at July 31, 2006 08:39 PM
Once again GM's Corner would compete with Washington as an epicenter of global warming, except that the alchemy of the internet has turned hot air into electrons.
Actually, this reminds me more of the pirhana feeding hour at the zoo - great spectator entertainment...so long as you don't stick your toe in the water.
Posted by civil truth at July 31, 2006 08:50 PM
James, I don't know about "other folk like Woody," but I understand many reasons that climate change takes place. What I also understand, that Al Gore doesn't, is that mankind's contribution to that is barely measurable, and it does not account for the hurricanes last year, glaciers melting, or ice bergs breaking off. This hysteria has to stop and let reason replace it.
Posted by Woody at August 1, 2006 05:52 AM
