BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Global goofing

73 comments on Global goofing

Global goofing
: The irony is as thick as the snow on my deck right now:

Mother Nature is threatening to give Al Gore the cold shoulder today when he gives a speech on “global warming” at the Beacon Theater.

Accuweather is predicting the temperature will reach a high of a bone-rattling 14 degrees this morning – accompanied by snow and high winds – while Gore blasts the Bush administration’s policy on global warming.

“We don’t control the environment,” said Lisa Sabori, a public-relations official for MoveOn.org, the group sponsoring the event.

“Maybe [the speech] won’t apply in New York right now, but Vice President Gore will be highlighting the effects of global warming in different parts of the world,” Sabori added.

MoveOn will webcast the event here. Here’s hoping somebody leaves the door open.

73 responses to “Global goofing”

  1. Ted Barlow Avatar
    Ted Barlow

    Jeff, I don’t doubt you when you say that you’re a liberal. But do you see how this kind of post can make others doubt it?
    You seem to be chuckling at the irony that anyone would be foolish enough to believe that global warming is a problem, when any fool can see that it’s actually cold in New York in January.
    Do you see the problem here? Cold weather in January in New York does not, in and of itself, disprove the theory of global warming. If cold winters had been eliminated as far north as NY, even TechCentralStation would have to admit that there’s something to this global warming thing.
    Or did I read you wrong?

  2. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Oh, ferchrissakes, Ted… LIGHTEN UP. Jeesh. It’s funny. It’s irony. Is it really now a requirement that all card-carrying, orthodoxy-approved liberals have to be humorless dolts? Well, then, maybe I don’t want to be liberal. (Warning: That was irony, too. I don’t really mean that. I am using that to make a point. It’s called humor. Apparently been awhile since you’ve seen that.)

  3. Ted Barlow Avatar
    Ted Barlow

    OK, lightened up.

  4. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Whew.

  5. Theodopoulos Pherecydes Avatar
    Theodopoulos Pherecydes

    The problem with this problem is that no one will articulate it problematically MY WAY.
    In 1955 I visited Glacier National Park. There were actually glaciers there. Of course, for any Geology 101 student it was plain the glaciers had been receding for a very, very long time. Start looking at “U” shaped, glacially scoured valleys and it’s obvious we are looking at glacial retreat over a period of tens of thousands of years.
    The questions is how much, if any, is related to human activity and I very much doubt that even the creator of the Internet has good, hard, consistent scientific information that the world has been warming faster in the last 500 years than in the last 30,000.
    But I would listen to his arguments until Hell freezes over.

  6. Glenn Avatar
    Glenn

    it appears that being a liberal means that you must subscribe to any and all of the basic tenets of the left.
    for me, this thing with global warming is about taking a scientific theory and turning it into law before, heaven forbid, the scientists gain full understanding of the matter. There are so many layers that are still in doubt (is there really a hockey stick shape to the rise in world temperatures, what is the real cause of this rise, how much effect will fossil fuel reductions actually have on warming), yet the lefties have already figured out how many species will go extinct, how many people will die, etc., all because the kyoto protocol has been rejected.

  7. Glenn Avatar
    Glenn

    here’s an article from MIT Technology Review on the debate over the hockey stick:
    http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_muller121703.asp
    And here’s the best part:
    “The disagreement is not political; most of it arises from valid issues involving physics and mathematics. First the physics. An accurate thermometer wasn

  8. JorgXMcKie Avatar
    JorgXMcKie

    Glenn, you miss the point of the human-caused global warming true believers (or not). The point is to build a huge global administrative apparatus that spends gazillions of dollars forcing people to do what they should. Even Kyoto only *slows* global warming for about 4 years over a century of spending trillions. However, you get the benefit of a giant, nosy, forceful international beaucracy (you know, those friendly types at the UN, all those democrats and such). Just *think* of all the really great potential uses one could find sor such an instrument.

  9. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    The thing with Global Warming is that when it’s happened and the theories have been verified, it’s already too late and we’re fed. At least we will have had dirty-buring coal power for those x years, I guess.
    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

  10. Easycure Avatar
    Easycure

    Global Warming is another enviro-fascist idea to control what other humans do and to extract money from the masses. There is not one person who can prove that there the Earth is very much different than it was just 2000 years ago, or that humans have influenced any kind of “warming” trend. yeah, so the Earth has warmed a degree in the last 50 years, so you are going to blame my use of hairspray?
    Face it, it’s crackpot science. I’m going to fight to keep my money from going into anything that has the label “global warming” on it. Sensible environmental protections, OK. Crackpot science, I’m not financing it if I can help it. *loads gun*
    Anybody who believes in a “global warming” theory is just being alarmist.

  11. Glenn Avatar
    Glenn

    yes hipocrite, that is the scare tactic of the left. very effective. the world’s gonna turn into a fiery hell (avg. temp. rise of AT LEAST 2 degrees)in 50 years right? so why can’t we have fun blowing stuff up, eh??
    that’s a sick joke, i know. but its just a play on the leftie mindset. i don’t really like to see stuff get blown up.

  12. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    And the supporters of faith-based science come out.

  13. Angus Jung Avatar
    Angus Jung

    “The thing with Global Warming is that when it’s happened and the theories have been verified, it’s already too late and we’re fed.”
    So it’ll be after lunch?

  14. Independant George Avatar
    Independant George

    Fourteen degrees? Luxury! Why, in my day, we used to dreeeam of ‘aving Global Warming speeches in fourteen degree weather. We used to get up at the crack of dawn, put on nothin’ more than a raggedy wool sweater with holes through the elbows, then walk forteen miles through the ice barefoot, when the wind chill would make it thirty below. And by gosh, we loved it!

  15. Glenn Avatar
    Glenn

    “And the supporters of faith-based science come out.”
    i don’t even know what this means, or how it applies to me. if you checked out michael crichton’s speech on the true believers, then you would know it is the enviro-leftists that have been practicing “faith-based science”.
    for me, i fully support scientific research on:
    GM Foods
    Nanotechnology
    Therapeutic (not reproductive) Cloning
    Stem Cells
    and i am willing to rail against those on the right or left who speak and act to hinder further development in these areas.

  16. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    Well, Glenn, that’s nice. You don’t support continued research on Climate change, because you’ve decided that one side is right, even though the rationals among us think it’s still a question, with scientific evidence pointing to the possibility that humans could effect global climate change.
    Here’s the faith based science:
    “… it’s crackpot science… Crackpot science, I’m not financing it if I can help it.”
    I assume, Glenn, you were up in arms when GWB cut one legs and one arm, one lung, one kidney and the heart out of Stem-Cell research, right? Or is goldenboy above reproach for his Solomanian solution?

  17. Floyd McWilliams Avatar
    Floyd McWilliams

    “The thing with Global Warming is that when it’s happened and the theories have been verified, it’s already too late and we’re fed.”
    That is merely one possibility. Another possibility is that human activity has kept the Earth from slipping back into an ice age. Anyone can concoct scenarios where if we don’t do something now, it will be “too late and we’re fed.”

  18. John Irving Avatar
    John Irving

    If humans are the cause of global warming, then why is Mars showing warming at a similar proportionate rate? Questions like this are what point to the shoddy science of the Global Warming/Kyoto activists.

  19. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Global Warming is another enviro-fascist idea to control what other humans do and to extract money from the masses.
    A related syndrome to BPPD (Borderline Psychotic Partisanship Disorder), is DISS (Denial of Inconvenient Science Syndrome). For treatment on this issue, click here.
    It’s entirely uncontroversial in climatology to suggest that fossil fuel emissions are playing a significant role in the current warming trend. What’s often not settled is the detailed mechanics of this process. That the process is occurring isn’t significantly in doubt.
    Of course, as any idiot can see, this is all proof positive that climatologists are really a conspiracy of liberal Stalinist agents who want to create a One World Government to tell you when you can drive your car. I mean, it’s just obvious.

  20. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    But, the major point about global warming is, whether it is happening or not, Kyoto would barely have any effect on it anyway. And, if we can’t even get Kyoto passed, there’s no way we’re going to get even more stringent controls passed.
    If GW is actually occurring, it is going to require a major effort of planetary scale engineering that proactively removes greenhouse gases from the air (e.g., carbon sequestration at the bottom of the ocean).
    Until then, eat drink and be merry (for tomorrow, we may die).

  21. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    But, the major point about global warming is, whether it is happening or not, Kyoto would barely have any effect on it anyway.
    Kyoto would have no effect on what damage we have already done — that, we’re stuck with. But it’s dubious in the extreme to argue that a 29% cut in greenhouse gas emissions wouldn’t affect levels of further damage.
    Intro discussion on the Kyoto Protocol can be found here.

  22. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    The BBC also has a useful summary of the controversy.

  23. Jeremy Avatar
    Jeremy

    Mars is showing signs of global warming for the same reason the Earth is – the output of the sun has increased slightly.
    The fact that the sun is more active is not in question, but very few people have bothered to link this to the climate, despite the obvious fact that the Sun is the cause of the climate.
    Furthermore, the global warming people would be much more credible, if most of them hadn’t been crying about global cooling only 30 years ago.

  24. Jeremy Avatar
    Jeremy

    Anyway, even if the Pres (or even Al Gore if he won) wanted to implement Kyoto, he couldn’t – the Senate voted against it, 95-0

  25. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    Only among faith-based scientists does updating ones theories to fit all available data show you are dishonest.

  26. Glenn Avatar
    Glenn

    hipocrite, you wrote:
    “You don’t support continued research on Climate change,”
    i never said that. the research should be conducted, but no one should jump to conclusions, which you already have done even though you admit that it is merely a ‘possibility that humans could effect global climate change’. before anything is confirmed, you want america to spend/lose HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. that is what it would cost america over the next few decades to reduce emissions below the levels set by the kyoto protocol (with different rules for every other country in the world).
    then you wrote,
    “I assume, Glenn, you were up in arms when GWB cut one legs and one arm, one lung, one kidney and the heart out of Stem-Cell research, right? Or is goldenboy above reproach for his Solomanian solution?”
    you seem to have a little trouble reading. Let me try again (i’ll just cut and paste):
    “for me, i fully support scientific research on: GM Foods, Nanotechnology, Therapeutic (not reproductive) Cloning, Stem Cells
    and i am willing to rail against those on the right or left who speak and act to hinder further development in these areas.”
    so yes. of course i was up in arms over bush’s actions on this. i just didn’t have a blog when it was making the news in 2001. i have written a tiny bit on stem cell research since, and actually approved of the action taken by the EU.

  27. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    “Only among faith-based scientists does updating ones theories to fit all available data to support a predetermined outcome show you are dishonest.”
    Maybe those “faith-based scientists” are on to something.

  28. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    “Kyoto would have no effect on what damage we have already done — that, we’re stuck with. But it’s dubious in the extreme to argue that a 29% cut in greenhouse gas emissions wouldn’t affect levels of further damage.”
    Hey, Doc, why don’t you read your own sources? From the BBC article:
    “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the reductions demanded by the treaty are not enough. Since gases can remain in the atmosphere for a century or more, emissions would have to be cut by around 60% to really make a difference, but this would have a significant impact on global economies. ”

  29. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    Don’t you dare attribute a statement to me that I didn’t say, coward.

  30. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Hey, I’m just filling in the words that you left out.
    Coward, huh? Mighty big words for an anonymous poster on the internet. Yo’ momma knows where to find me, punk.

  31. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Hey, Doc, why don’t you read your own sources?
    Your confusion is understandable. The quote you mention is talking about what would be required to entirely prevent climate change — opponents of the Kyoto Protocol are on this issue setting a strawman task for the treaty that it isn’t meant to accomplish, and then criticizing it for not being able to accomplish it.
    The Kyoto Protocol goals are based on stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at a level that will stop warming from catastrophically affecting the West Antarctica ice sheet and thermohaline circulation, as outlined here. No treaty that absolutely eliminated climate change would be economically sustainable.
    Hope that’s clearer.

  32. Sandy P. Avatar
    Sandy P.

    And here I thought part of the problem was soot. Especially from those BIG countries which weren’t included in Kyoto.
    Well, that and sunspots.
    I could never understand why 2/5s of the world’s major polluting population was exempt.

  33. Glenn Avatar
    Glenn

    “I could never understand why 2/5s of the world’s major polluting population was exempt.”
    all you gotta do, sandy, is take a look at who drew up the rules. this hyperpower, the usa, was a tad underrepresented in the drafting process maybe? naaah, that’s craaazy talk.
    doctor slack is such a good disseminator of information. i figured i’d find some piece of propaganda to counter his propaganda. this lady from london is pretty good:
    http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000255.html

  34. Glenn Avatar
    Glenn

    here’s another solid piece of propaganda:
    http://www.ntu.org/taxpayer_issues/ntu_issue_briefs/ib_125_ntu.pdf
    you may learn who benefits most from the kyoto protocol and also what the clinton administration department of energy had to say about the effect on the American economy, if the usa were to follow the protocol to the letter. cost of electricity would be 86% higher than without the protocol. gas prices would rise by an average of 66 cents a gallon. ouch!
    its fascinating reading. one might begin to understand why the pro-kyoto nations use political pressure (usa the unilateralist) and scare tactics (millions of dead people, extinct species in the next 50 years) to push their faulty product (rather than honest scientific debate).

  35. Tatterdemalian Avatar
    Tatterdemalian

    The very same scientists who are proclaiming global warming today were proclaiming global cooling a decade ago, and both for exactly the same reason: the burning of fossil fuels.
    What has changed? Not any laws of physics or chemistry. The only thing that’s changed is that the junk scientists have realized that the thought of a iceberg creeping down from Canada doesn’t throw people into a panic like the thought of peoples’ beachside homes getting flooded and entire nations getting inundated by the ocean.
    They don’t want people to be safe. They want people to panic, shut down industrial society in toto, and reduce all nations to “ecologically pure” third-world hell-holes.

  36. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    Glenn again goes to the faith based Scientists.
    Noelle D. Fiacco, High School Graduate is an Associate Policy Analyst with National Taxpayers Union. She will be returning later this year to Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA, as a Senior majoring in Business Finance. She is apparently more qualified to tell us about how Global Warming is a fraud than James McCarthy, Professor of Biological Oceanography, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography, and Director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
    Apparently Melanie Phillips, who read English at St Anne

  37. Jack Tanner Avatar
    Jack Tanner

    ‘”We don’t control the environment,” said Lisa Sabori, a public-relations official for MoveOn.org, ‘
    But according to them George Bush does?!?
    In that case, in the words of Kent Brockman ‘I for one welcome our new overlords’

  38. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    Tatterdemalian – only a faith based scientist believes that fitting your theory to all the available data is dishonest. Also, how do you think that these scientists are able to maintain their grand conspiracy to decieve everyone about their true motives? Do they teach a class on pretending to do scientific research at the top grad schools? I must have missed it in the course cataloge.

  39. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    No where did Sabori insinuate or otherwise imply that she believed Bush controlled the environment. She was merely refering to the faith-based scientists siezing on the fact that it’s been cold over the past two days as a debunking of global warming, which it, of course, is not.

  40. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    No, Doc, I’m not the one who’s confused. But, I can understand your disorientation after being body slammed like that.
    The West Antarctica ice sheet, you say? Wonderful! While my seaside villa washes away with the tide, I can say, “well, at least the West Antarctica ice sheet is OK”.
    Doc, face it, my point is the only logical one that can be drawn here. Kyoto would essentially achieve nothing and, there is no way anything even more draconian is going to come about. Get looking into the sequestration I mentioned – it’s the only way anything can actually be done here (assuming it needs to be).
    Oh, and Hippie, there is another likely difference between Melanie Phillips and a lot of atmospheric scientists such as Jorge L. Sarmiento. The latter depend on grants for research into global warming to feed their families and advance their careers. I don’t know anything about Ms. Phillips (didn’t she sing with the Mommas and the Papas?) but, I’m assuming that she does not.

  41. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    Reid writes that researchers need grants, and apparently this would make them less trustworthy than people who have Undergraduate degrees in English:
    1. If you have a “seaside villa” I’m John Elway.
    2. In order for grant money to bias things one way or the other, there would have to be more grant money on one side of the argument than the other, right?
    Princeton Universities endowment, for everything from Algebra to Zoology is Two and a Half Billion Dollars. Exxon Mobil’s equity market cap is Two Hundred and Sixty Six Billion Dollars. They had Seven Billion Dollars in CASH at the end of 2002.
    You don’t think there’s money out their to fund research that dosen’t think there’s global warming?

  42. Glenn Avatar
    Glenn

    i’ll repeat for you hipocrite, because i know its tough for you to digest material sometimes.
    this is not faith based science:
    “and also what the clinton administration department of energy had to say about the effect on the American economy, if the usa were to follow the protocol to the letter. cost of electricity would be 86% higher than without the protocol. gas prices would rise by an average of 66 cents a gallon. ouch!”
    Thats economics, and I do know something about that!
    As for real science, i will turn once again to the very basic question, before all the other questions: We know temperatures have risen over the last fifty years, but is this rise out of the norm, or pretty much in line with normal temperature movements over time? From the MIT Technology Review, linked earlier, here’s a sample:
    “The disagreement is not political; most of it arises from valid issues involving physics and mathematics. First the physics. An accurate thermometer wasn

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Correcting myself on princeton. 6.5 BN

  44. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    No, Glenn, that’s not faith-based science. Everything else, of course, was, but the economics was not. Projection economics isn’t a science at all, it’s art, and even the practitioners know that.
    If Mann is wrong then one table is wrong. That table isn’t the beginning, middle or end of global climate change models.
    But certainly, let us use Mueller as our science beallandendall. He blieves that the tilt of the earth dramatically effects warm and cold periods – a disagreement with Mann’s proxy data. He believes the change in tilt of the current earth will lead to a coming ice age! Wow, he’s got to be one of those scientists who thinks Global Warming is hooey, right?
    However, and I quote “Muller does not discount manmade global warming, however. He argued that global warming is a near future phenomenon and that the coming ice age is in the distant future.”

  45. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    No, Doc, I’m not the one who’s confused. But, I can understand your disorientation after being body slammed like that.
    Reid, if you don’t mind my asking, how old are you exactly? It’s just that stomp-your-feet-to-make-it-true logic like this:
    Doc, face it, my point is the only logical one that can be drawn here.
    … gives the impression of a teen throwing a tantrum. Just thought you should know. As for this:
    The West Antarctica ice sheet, you say? Wonderful!
    Yeah, what could that possibly have to do with anything? After all, it’s not like any part of the ecosystem can affect other parts, right?
    S-factor indeed.

  46. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    The very same scientists who are proclaiming global warming today were proclaiming global cooling a decade ago
    Yeah, how dare these scientists change their conclusions? It’s almost like they’re collecting more data and doing science, or something.
    Like I said, the only possible conclusion is that it’s a liberal One World Government conspiracy. Nothing else makes sense!

  47. Glenn Avatar
    Glenn

    “However, and I quote “Muller does not discount manmade global warming, however. He argued that global warming is a near future phenomenon and that the coming ice age is in the distant future.””
    hipocrite, i’m not sure you’ve been following any of my arguments at all, because if you did, then you would know that i absolutely agree with this statement. yes, it does seem that world temperatures rise and fall to different degrees over time. warming first, then cooling. groundbreaking. i don’t doubt that there has been a rise in global temperatures in the past century.
    i think that scientific research in this area is highly valuable. but i also understand the severe limitations of computer simlulations and models based on a multitude of assumptions. what i really don’t like is that the enviro-wackos have already jumped to the next stage and use POLITICAL PRESSURE and SCARE TACTICS to push a crappy “solution” for global warming, which is of course the kyoto protocol.
    by the way, y’all should check out my Top 10 american science articles of 2003 – http://hippercritical.typepad.com/hipp/2004/01/top_ten_2003.html

  48. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    “yes, it does seem that world temperatures rise and fall to different degrees over time”
    That’s not what the Muller quote says, quite, now is it? Maybe some emphasis is necessary:
    “Muller does not discount manmade global warming, however. He argued that global warming is a near future phenomenon and that the coming ice age is in the distant future.”
    IOW, it’s generally not credible in the field to say “it’s all just sunspots” and pretend that’s that. Even among scientists who disagree with some of the data and interpretations put forth in favour of global warming theories.
    You may disagree about the urgency of the matter. That’s fine. But it would be more interesting if you had more than a single out-of-context quote from a journal and ALL CAPS shouting about ENVIRO-WACKOS to make your point. One good thing Muller did say: scientists admire restraint in debate. You could obviously learn from him.

  49. Andrew | BYTE BACK Avatar
    Andrew | BYTE BACK

    Easycure?
    What’s the easy cure?
    Why is it so hard to figure out that in the last 100 years or so of accelerated and INDUSTRIAL growth – something that hadn’t been around before – global warming is REAL.
    It doesn’t seem to be doing much for human respiration – what makes anyone think the earth is “breathing” better.
    You want more anecdotal evidence. Dow here in Arizona people rember when it used to snow in Phoenix. Fairly regularly.
    No more. The whole south of the state is in the middle of a 15 year long drought.
    I don’t know what you call a 15-year-long drought. I call it a problem. But that’s just anecdotal so let your mind do with it what it will.

  50. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Doc – you are some piece of work. Even after being refuted by your own sources, you continue to soldier on, ignoring all previous arguments and impervious to logic, humor or subtlety. You must be one blissful fellow. More power to you, lad.
    Andrew – I’m sorry but, the world really did exist before you were born and, it went through cycles of drought and moisture, heat and cold, all by its lonesome self. There is a reason anecdotal evidence is considered suspect in rational argument, you know?

  51. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Even after being refuted by your own sources
    You’re totally right, S-factor! Quoting a snippet from one of my sources that raises a strawman argument is, like, totally “refuting” me! Sorry I doubted you, little buddy.

  52. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Lengthy article I wrote a few years ago. More data and opinion has been added to the debate since then. I’ve seen little to alter the conclusion that anthropogenic causes for climate change are minimal at the worst.
    -Regards

  53. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    Again, why believe Dann Todd, holder of a AS in something is more qualified to tell me about global warming than any of the scientists above? Especially with not a single footnote or endnote giving his sources?

  54. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    For the same reason that one might listen to a mechanic on the subject of engine design when there are engineers designing engines that have to be removed from the automobile in order to change the spark plugs.
    It’s a debate. I read. I thought. Those were my conclusions.
    Feel free to come to different ones.
    Dismissing my conclusions out of hand certainly doesn’t do much to encourage consideration of yours.
    -Regards

  55. Glenn Avatar
    Glenn

    yeah doctor slack, i have not discounted the possibility of manmade global warming either. thats not very strong language though (by him or me), not ready just yet to throw hundreds of billions of dollars to fix the leak just yet.
    my point with the ALL CAPS was a little play on the enviro-wackos who like to use the scare tactics. i rarely, if ever, use all caps when making a serious argument. IOW, it was a joke.

  56. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    It’s a debate. I read. I thought. Those were my conclusions.
    It would be easier to set more store by your conclusions if we knew what you read, Dann. That’s the point of footnotes and bibliographies and stuff.

  57. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Fair enough, Glenn.

  58. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Doctor Slack-
    An honest request:
    I know that is a looooong article. Please read it. In some of it, I try to us your usual high school physics to grok gw theory. In other parts I look at the political component. In still other parts I discuss chaos theory and linear modeling techniques.
    Bottom line is that I tried to use a modicum of common sense to get gw theory to mesh with what we know about the rest of the world.
    Perhaps my conclusions aren’t definitive. Heck, toss “perhaps” aside. They aren’t definitive.
    By the same token, I think that I identify some serious holes in gw theory that need to be addressed. The changes in solar output that happen to track with changes in temperatures measured on earth being just one example.
    It may be that humanity is causing some changes in the climate. How do those changes compare to the natural cycle of the atmosphere? Is it possible that some people are sounding alarms over gw for reasons that have nothing to do with good science?
    -Regards

  59. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    Ok, Dann, you want me to go through your nonsence and hack it apart, I will. You conflate Ozone and Global Warming – which have NOTHING to do with eachother, and NO ONE doubts the Ozone issues, so I have to hack you apart twice.
    On Ozone – you write this idiocy:
    “A third point to ponder is how much UV is actually absorbed by ozone. If we assume that 100 theoretic “units” of UV are consumed by impacting (2) O3 molecules (molecular weight 48), then the same 100 units should be consumed by impacting (3) O2 molecules (molecular weight 32).”
    Of course, this is dramaticly wrong. So stupendoulsy and absolutly wrong that it’s impossible to believe you got anything right. It’s like saying that since you weigh 200 pounds and a dog weighs 20 pounds, but you are both made out of flesh, a dog is functionally the same as a human.
    http://web.unbc.ca/chemistry/chem408/chpt4_pf.pdf
    “O2 is strongly bonded and can exist above the stratosphere.

  60. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    Sadly, an important bit of my thing got cut off due to the inclusion of a less then.
    “O2 is strongly bonded and can exist above the stratosphere.

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I think that I identify some serious holes in gw theory that need to be addressed.”
    Dann, the AS that crushed the PhD!
    Whatever, guy. Everything you wrote is either dead 100% wrong or already incorporated in current best theory.

  62. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    I know that is a looooong article. Please read it.
    Others put it a bit more harshly than I would have, but yeah, it’s fair to say there are some problems with the article.

  63. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Hipocrite-
    Thanks for reading with an open mind.
    1. Ozone – at the time it was written, the ozone issue was cited pretty heavily by others, thus the reason for inclusion.
    2. Ozone – the point I tried (unsuccessfully) to make was not that a 200 lb man was the same as a 20 lb dog. The point I was trying to make was that if you try to drive a car through a confined area containing one 200 lb man and one thousand 20 lb dogs (to use your terms) that the dogs are going to cause you more trouble than the man.
    3. Models – at the time, linear models seemed to be dominating. Might I add that the creation of non-linear models does not address the biases that can be introduced by the person developing the model.
    4. Weather prediction – I never indicate anything about local weather prediction. My point was that given past data sets (say up to 1998) an ACCURATE model should be able to reasonably reproduce the continuation of those data sets from 1998 through 2003.
    5. Currents – The point (that I apparently failed to make) was that the oceans appear to act as a kind of heat pump; moving energy around in response to other changes in the atmosphere.
    6. The larger point (that I apparently failed to make) was that our atmosphere is made up of a lot of complex systems. How those systems interact isn’t well known. Thus the reason for creating models and doing research. Given the complexity involved, the infancy of the research, and the HUGE *#^(# potential that humanity may have very little to do with causing climate change, shouldn’t we postpone some of the more radical ideas being promoted by the GW supporters?
    -Regards

  64. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    Re Point 1:
    Ozone has been accepted by all comers as blocking things in the upper atmosphere. You deny that it does so. Ozone has nothing to do with global warming. You assert that it does. Untill you retract, you are wrong.
    Re: point 2.
    Ahh, no. You’re still wrong about Ozone, and now it’s willful. Imagine there’s something bad at say, 300 nm wavelengths. We’ll call it “UV rays that kill us.”
    Now, imagine that O2 has a 0% chance of absorbing those, and that O3 has an x% chance of absorbing those.
    How much O2 does it take to equal one O3?
    That’s how it works here in the “real world.”
    Re point 3:
    You write that “at the time, linear models seemed to be dominating.” Now that you have made an assertion of past fact, let’s play “back that up.” Go back to when you wrote the essay, and point me at one – just one – linear model of climate change. You, of course, can’t.
    Re point 4:
    You wrote “Thus the data we have collected are useless with respect to developing an accurate weather model.” Wrong, and irrelevent. You wrote “Climatologists have been attempting to model our atmosphere and its weather patterns for years.” Irrelvent to global warming in a general sense. You wrote “There are many different cycles and systems that affect our weather.” Irrelevent to global warming.
    In summary, you attacked global warming because we can’t predict if it’s going to rain in two months. That’s echo chamber anti-scientific hackery.
    RE point 5:
    Oh no, you made your point quite clear – heating in the poles alone would slow down currents, which would heat the equator. Thus, you would argue, heating in the poles actually just heats the equator. Of course, you forgot the next step – heating the equator would speed up those selfsame currents, heating the poles. The currents are a pump, and they are exactly why average temperature is all that matters.
    Re point 6:
    You argue that we don’t understand Climate Change fully. Your conclusion to that is that we should pound away, full steam ahead. If we don’t UNDERSTAND what CO2 does to global temperatures, than it dosen’t do anything? Earlier posters have said it’s all junk science – when the actual junk science is your broken idiotic article, which you advertise here. No, what we need to do is take rational steps to reduce CO2 emissions and continue to devote significant study to the long term effects of our behavior on our environment.
    The lobby that you support believes we should do nothing and study nothing. Why would someone like you who so obviously dosen’t understand our climate oppose continued study of it?
    As an aside, as long as that contrafactual article you wrote remains on your website, I’m going to continue to ignore every single statement of fact you make – you’re a publisher of lies and misinformation.

  65. Daniel Wiener Avatar
    Daniel Wiener

    Speaking from the very objective vantage point of Southern California, where the temperature is in the seventies and my wife is worried that our fruit trees will be fooled into budding too early, I find it highly amusing that Al Gore chose to make a major “global warming” speech in the midst of record-setting cold weather.
    Of course one instance of unusually cold weather does not disprove the global warming thesis. But it has become commonplace to hear the vapid talking heads in the news media attribute every major heat wave to global warming. Not one of them ever suggests that a cold spell is counter-evidence; indeed, we hear people promoting the idea that extreme cold weather is ALSO evidence of global warming.
    A theory isn’t science unless it’s falsifiable. If neither heat nor cold can disprove the global warming theory, what can? What evidence would it take to convince a proponent of global warming that the theory was wrong?
    Let’s not even go that far. What evidence would it take to convince a proponent of global warming that the theory was open to serious question? What would it take to raise doubts about human activity being a major source of climate change?
    It appears to me that the answer is “nothing”. For proponents of global warming, the issue is settled, and the Kyoto Treaty is an essential first step towards saving the planet, regardless of how little real impact Kyoto would have or how much it would cost. To them, the risk of global catastrophe from rising temperatures is so enormous and horrifying that it is better to do SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY than to allow ANY delay for dispassionate research and debate.
    Just something to bear in mind as people try to avoid frostbite out there on the East Coast…

  66. hey Avatar
    hey

    as daniel wiener said, the point wasn’t that algore’s point was refuted by the coldest day in new york in years, but that you’re an idiot for scheduling a global warming conference in january in the northern hemisphere
    making a big policy speech decrying global warming while outside everyone is freezing their ass off is stupid. do the speech in phoenix or vegas… or in australia… you just look like an idiot
    as for kyoto.. it’s proponents say taht it will “fix” global warming… honest people acknowledge that it won’t.. it won’t even really cut the growth in emissions much, it will simply retard the american economy (euros get a break by closing down the soviet factories across former communist countries)
    i’m not personally convinced by the modelling data. if the models coul retrospectively fit the historical data (i.e. you run a simulation and get the past outputs again, within a decent margin of error) they would convince me… the problem is that they don’t do this, they don’t have any predictive value, and that predictions are currently false.
    we don’t understand the system well enough to predict what the outputs of the inputs are. we also don’t have good data on the inputs, and have very small amount of data on the outputs… this is not a good way of trying to change the output of a system.
    by geological data, we seem to be due for an ice age.. so we may be looking at global cooling… or we may be having global warming that returns us to the medieval warm period… the vikings did have experience with a much warmer environment than we do now… additional insolation would tend to warm up the globe. now, human activity may be the most significant contribution to the warming that we seem to be having… we just don’t know, and have no idea what we exactly need to do to avoid the consequences.. therefore, since we seem destined to have the negative effects of warming, we should focus on mitigating the effects (evacuating vulnerable areas) and studying the climate, rather than trying to hinder the economies of the developed world…

  67. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    A theory isn’t science unless it’s falsifiable. If neither heat nor cold can disprove the global warming theory, what can? What evidence would it take to convince a proponent of global warming that the theory was wrong?
    There is a lively debate among climatologists about the degree to which GW is an issue. The basic question of the existence of anthropogenic warming is in little doubt, and frankly I’d question the integrity of someone who thinks they can write off that issue wholesale by proclaiming: “it’s complex, so we can’t really know” or “look at the sunspots!” The issue is complex, and we are still learning about it (that’s a very different thing from “we can’t really know”); the question some here have basically posed is, do we err on the side of protecting jobs, or the environment, while we learn?
    And I think in many ways that’s actually a false problem. It’s not only possible to work at diversifying our energy industries beyond the dependence on fossil fuels; it’s necessary, and a process that’s occurring as we speak. Jobs lost in that endeavour could arguably be replaced by new sectors, and there are strategic and political arguments as well as environmental ones for pursuing non-fossil fuel technologies. Whatever your position on those issues — and there’s certainly grey area to be had — the days are long gone when you could honestly portray the environment as the sole concern of a few activist groups.
    Now, I’m not about to take a bullet for Kyoto or anything, but I will say that I expect some basic honesty and a degree of education from the other side of the debate. So here are some examples of what won’t convince me:
    Economic doom-and-glooming.
    No-one should imagine environmentalists are the only obsessive doom-and-gloomers in this debate. Let’s put it this way: oil industry executives are unlikely to be dispassionate and honest commentators on the probable effects of environmental regulations. Their concern, their job, is the short-term bottom line, and their likeliest impulse will be to skew any available evidence in the direction they think favours this. Our job as citizens trying to get informed is not to take those comments at face value. That doesn’t mean dismissing concerns about the economic impact out of hand; they can be valid but they need open discussion.
    Look! It’s cold out today! What “global warming”?
    If it’s vapid to attribute every heat wave to GW, it’s obviously equally vapid to pretend that “look! it’s cold out!” is a response to GW theory. The objection to the “joke” that kicked off the comments may have seemed humourless, but this is the basic insinuation underlying the “irony” that had Jarvis chuckling. And, well, it’s just not impressive. The lesson here is that anecdote is not your friend.
    It’s all a Clintonista UN leftist plot to steal our money!
    Leave the tinfoil hats at home, people.
    Ha ha, you’re all a bunch of crazy cultists!
    There are people on both sides of the debate who want their positions to be taken on faith. They’re not serious, nor should any serious commentator pretend that they’re the norm. When someone comes to me and says “I know all you people won’t be convinced by anything I say,” I’m inclined to dismiss them immediately as an example of precisely the sort of cultic mentality they claim to be decrying.

  68. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Hypocrite-
    Since you will be ignoring this anyway, I’ll be brief.
    1. I don’t believe I have ever endorsed ending climate research.
    2. Humanity is responsible for x% of climate change. Natural cycles and sources are responsible for y%. IMNSHO, x is a rather low (i.e. single digit) value.
    -Regards

  69. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    Given that you maintain an archive of lies and misinformation, your opinion is not only uninformed, but activly attempting to decieve others to believe things that are not true.
    Imagine that the temperature without man’s effect is x. The temperature with man’s effect is x+y. The temperature at which New York City floods is x+z.
    At what point does “y is very small compared to x” show anything about “y will remain smaller than z,” exactly?

  70. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Unless you can guarantee that x alone will never be greater than what is required to cause flooding, the debate on y seems to be one of when such flooding would occur rather than on if it will occur. Given the wide range of global temperatures and evidence of flooding in the areas of concern present in the historical/geological/archeological record, it isn’t exactly a stretch to suggest that such an event might occur in the future as a result of the natural cycles of the atmosphere/sun/etc.

  71. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    If a well-behaved function f(t) reaches value z when t = d > 0, when does a well-behaved function Q(t)=f(t)+h(t) reach z, assuming h(t) is positive for all t>0? Let’s call the difference between this answer and z the “Saved time”, and d the “normative time”
    Solve, for various discount rates, values of the eastern and western seaboard, various saved times and various normative times exactly how much $ value that the present is borrowing from the future by not working to change the function h(t).

  72. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Precisely. Please let the world know once you have a solution. We might be more fiscally sound if we built a series of dikes and seawalls in 50 years (instead of building them in 55 years) than to submit to a corrective action that seeks to limit the current economic capacity of a few countries while permitting other countries free rein in the production of GH gasses.
    The whole debate boils down to which function is more significant. IMHO, f(t) has been underestimated and h(t) has been over estimated. Further research is certainly justified at this point. Kyoto is not.

  73. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    You are the one alleging something about the math – not I. Please give values for the:
    Discount Rate
    t::h(t)=d
    t::Q(t)=d
    Values of the entire Eastern and Western Seaboard.
    At such a point we’ll see if we can proceed from your estimates.