Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The Cold Snap Disproves Global Warming

[TheSarge]

The error written about in the article you provided a link to was a statistically insignificant error which led NASA to rank 1998 as hotter than 1934.

They are still wrong.  But don't take my word for it...take NOAA's

Today, NOAA's climate arm, the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., announced that the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average -- the 34th coolest on record.

The preliminary analysis is based on records dating back to 1895.

For the 2009 summer, the average temperature of 71.7 degrees F was 0.4 degree F below the 20th Century average. The 2008 average summer temperature was 72.7 degrees F.

NOAA's climate officials said a "a recurring upper level trough held the June-August temperatures down in the central states," where a number of states came near their record low for the three-month summer: Michigan (5th coldest), Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota (all 7th coldest), Nebraska (8th coldest) and Iowa (9th coldest).

There were more than 300 low temperature records (counting daily highs and lows) set across states in the Midwest during the last two days of August.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

[The Night Owl]

They are still wrong.  But don't take my word for it...take NOAA's

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

What do below average temperatures for June-Augst of 2009 have to do with the 1998 ranking error?

[The Night Owl]

All of this on top of the fact that they can't predict the weather from day to day yet you believe they can tell you what the temperature is going to be in 100 years?  Really?

Weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is far less predictable than climate. For instance, I can't tell you what the temperature will be on this day 5 years from now but I can tell you that we will be in the midst of winter. Okay?

[Texacon]

Weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is far less predictable than climate. For instance, I can't tell you what the temperature will be on this day 5 years from now but I can tell you that we will be in the midst of winter. Okay?

Oh please.  It was a metaphor.  Can you tell me what kind of winter we will be in the midst of 5 years from now?  How high the ocean levels are going to be?  How many trees will be dead from the lack of CO2?

I am starting to think you don't actually believe in AGW .... I think you just like to argue the point.  It would seem the evidence is overwhelming and I don't think you're an idiot soooo that would lead one to believe you simply like to 'argue'.

KC

[Duke Nukum]

Weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is far less predictable than climate. For instance, I can't tell you what the temperature will be on this day 5 years from now but I can tell you that we will be in the midst of winter. Okay?

Obviously climate isn't all that predictable either since they have to hide the decline.  And...isn't all life supposed to have been wiped off the face of the earth by now according to AGW prophets of doom like Ted Danson and Algore?

What's the difference between AGWers prophecies of doom and that of the average UFO or Bible cult?

When the prophecy fails they all just recalculate it.  I guess there are six years, 3 hours, 53 minutes and 30 seconds left on Algore's 2006 prophecy but I think Ted Danson's expired a decade ago at least.

[The Night Owl]

Can you tell me what kind of winter we will be in the midst of 5 years from now?  How high the ocean levels are going to be?  How many trees will be dead from the lack of CO2?

Nope. Nope. Nope.

I am starting to think you don't actually believe in AGW .... I think you just like to argue the point.  It would seem the evidence is overwhelming and I don't think you're an idiot soooo that would lead one to believe you simply like to 'argue'.

KC

Well, I do believe in AGW but I'm not dogmatic about it. I wouldn't say that the science is settled one way or the other but I think the weight of evidence is on the side of AGW. Now, contrast my position against the position of many here who are absolutely certain that AGW is a hoax or just plain wrong.

[TheSarge]

Oh please.  It was a metaphor.  Can you tell me what kind of winter we will be in the midst of 5 years from now?  How high the ocean levels are going to be?  How many trees will be dead from the lack of CO2?

How about we start with an easy question.  How much rain falls on the earth in a given year?

[The Night Owl]

Obviously climate isn't all that predictable either since they have to hide the decline.  And...isn't all life supposed to have been wiped off the face of the earth by now according to AGW prophets of doom like Ted Danson and Algore?

I don't really follow what celebrities and activists have to say on matters of science.

What's the difference between AGWers prophecies of doom and that of the average UFO or Bible cult?

I don't know. I've always maintained that a lot of populated places on Earth will probably stand to benefit from global warming... at least in the short term. My main concern regarding the consequences of climate change is ecosystem collapse and how it could affect our economy and way of life.

[Duke Nukum]

Weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is far less predictable than climate. For instance, I can't tell you what the temperature will be on this day 5 years from now but I can tell you that we will be in the midst of winter. Okay?

I would wonder why, if climate is so predictable, are we in an extended cooling period when climatologists were telling us the earth was in an extended warming trend.  I remember in 1993 we were getting regular agitprop, such as The Fire Next Time, telling us by 2017 the earh would be an Easy-Bake Oven.

Also, I would wonder why, if climate is so predictable, does everything from earthquakes, to snow storms in winter, to hurricanes, to hot August days, are all claimed to be the result of global warming?

If you can predict, predict.

[Texacon]

Well, I do believe in AGW but I'm not dogmatic about it. I wouldn't say that the science is settled one way or the other but I think the weight of evidence is on the side of AGW. Now, contrast my position against the position of many here who are absolutely certain that AGW is a hoax or just plain wrong.

This really shocks me.  If AGW were going on there would be no need to lie and bend facts to fit in the holes they want them in.  That alone pretty much makes the case for me.  If it would stand on its own merit I would be behind it 100% but it can't/won't/doesn't so why would you say there is more weight on the side of AGW.  THAT makes no sense.

Can you point to a single instance where the 'un-believers' have done the same thing?  Why can't the scientists who deny AGW get any air time?  Hell, even the head of the Weather Channel shut down her climatologists views ....  Why silence the dissent?  What is the purpose?

KC

[Duke Nukum]

I don't really follow what celebrities and activists have to say on matters of science.

I don't know. I've always maintained that a lot of populated places on Earth will probably stand to benefit from global warming... at least in the short term. My main concern regarding the consequences of climate change is ecosystem collapse and how it could affect our economy and way of life.

Well, I figure science must agree with the high profile celebrities because I never see them on Larry King, among other shows, correcting Algore, among other AGW Prophets of Doom.

I kind of wonder why people still fall for all these prophecies of doom since they never actually come true.

[Carl]

Oh please.  It was a metaphor.  Can you tell me what kind of winter we will be in the midst of 5 years from now?  How high the ocean levels are going to be?  How many trees will be dead from the lack of CO2?

I am starting to think you don't actually believe in AGW .... I think you just like to argue the point.  It would seem the evidence is overwhelming and I don't think you're an idiot soooo that would lead one to believe you simply like to 'argue'.

KC

You have to remember that TNO will jump on and obsess with any little thing like that to distract things.
Prepare for a dozen posts by him fixated that weather and climate are different things.

[Duke Nukum]

I don't really follow what celebrities and activists have to say on matters of science.

I don't know. I've always maintained that a lot of populated places on Earth will probably stand to benefit from global warming... at least in the short term. My main concern regarding the consequences of climate change is ecosystem collapse and how it could affect our economy and way of life.

If AGW where really a threat, and our political leaders really believed that, they would be bicycling to Copenhagen over the ocean, or better yet, teleconferencing, because the situation is just too dire to be belching tons of the evil life-promoting CO2 into an already bloated atmosphere.

The actions of the believers are never consistent with their beliefs.

[The Night Owl]

This really shocks me.  If AGW were going on there would be no need to lie and bend facts to fit in the holes they want them in.  That alone pretty much makes the case for me.  If it would stand on its own merit I would be behind it 100% but it can't/won't/doesn't so why would you say there is more weight on the side of AGW.  THAT makes no sense.

Scientists are human. Humans are sometimes overzealous.

Can you point to a single instance where the 'un-believers' have done the same thing?  Why can't the scientists who deny AGW get any air time?  Hell, even the head of the Weather Channel shut down her climatologists views ....  Why silence the dissent?  What is the purpose?

KC

This one is easy...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/01/steve_mcintyre_defends_pat_mic.php

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Scientists are human. Humans are sometimes overzealous.

And climate scientists are political advocates getting fat government tax-payer funded pay checks that in turn allow politicians to pass massive wealth redistribution schemes and centralize power under their grubby little fingers while insiders set-up bald-faced carbon pyramid schemes that will wreck the economy.

Give us one good reason why ANY of this should be permitted.

[Duke Nukum]

Nope. Nope. Nope.

Well, I do believe in AGW but I'm not dogmatic about it. I wouldn't say that the science is settled one way or the other but I think the weight of evidence is on the side of AGW. Now, contrast my position against the position of many here who are absolutely certain that AGW is a hoax or just plain wrong.

I am positive that in the whole history of End Times Cults, the End Times have never come as or when prophesied.  I am also positive that we just don't have an accurate record of climate for more than 100 years, and after recent revelations, I doubt even modern statistics on the climate so that there is little to nothing to base the AGW Prophecies of Doom on.

Furthermore, I am absolutely positive that the earth herself can belch up more pollution into the atmosphere during one volcanic eruption than human beings have belched into the atmosphere during our entire industrial phase thus far.  I also believe if anything is going to wipe out life on earth, it will be something like a super volcano erupting or a large object from space exploding in the atmosphere and not someone driving their Hummer.

In fact, I  am certain that in the whole history of humanity and in the whole history of automobiles, nobody has ever brought about the end of the world by driving a car.  I am equally certain that in the whole history of humanity and the whole history of bicycles, nobody has ever saved the earth by peddling to work, or the hippie jam fest.

I allow humans do have a small impact on their local atmosphere and sometimes the winds will carry this to other regions, but it still pales in comparison with what the earth can do.  But I find that the Wizards of Climate Change are so deceitful, it is difficult to take anything they publish with any amount of seriousness.

They are more or less preaching to the choir and getting gratification from believing they actually care about the earth when all they care about is blaming others as the problem while they fuel their own narcissism.

[The Night Owl]

Furthermore, I am absolutely positive that the earth herself can belch up more pollution into the atmosphere during one volcanic eruption than human beings have belched into the atmosphere during our entire industrial phase thus far.  I also believe if anything is going to wipe out life on earth, it will be something like a super volcano erupting or a large object from space exploding in the atmosphere and not someone driving their Hummer.

The fact that cosmic and geological events are capable of affecting climate has no bearing on the question of whether human activities are affecting climate.

In fact, I  am certain that in the whole history of humanity and in the whole history of automobiles, nobody has ever brought about the end of the world by driving a car.  I am equally certain that in the whole history of humanity and the whole history of bicycles, nobody has ever saved the earth by peddling to work, or the hippie jam fest.

Cars aren't the only problem. There's also industry. Of course, I can see why you'd try to minimize the problem. Nice try.

[The Night Owl]

And climate scientists are political advocates getting fat government tax-payer funded pay checks that in turn allow politicians to pass massive wealth redistribution schemes and centralize power under their grubby little fingers while insiders set-up bald-faced carbon pyramid schemes that will wreck the economy.

Give us one good reason why ANY of this should be permitted.

LOL! Have you ever looked at the kind of academic credentials climate scientists have? These are people who could, if they wanted to, get easy and high paying jobs in the private sector. To suggest that climate scientists do what they do to get rich is just silly. That said, there are always bad apples in any field.  

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

LOL! Have you ever looked at the kind of academic credentials climate scientists have? These are people who could, if they wanted to, get easy and high paying jobs in the private sector. To suggest that climate scientists do what they do to get rich is just silly. That said, there are always bad apples in any field.  

Oh, so now credentials matter.

How convenient for you.

A credentialed scientist publishes a report that says AGW violates the laws of physics and all you can retort is because the AGW pushers haven't acknowledged the report it doesn't count.

Fact is the head of the IPCC is in deep shit back in India because his ties to the carbon credit Ponzi scheme have come to light. He's making money hand over fist peddling his bullshit...just like Owl Gore...set to become a billionaire off of this tripe.

Fact is, unless you're willing to tell the politicians that there is a crisis and they, the politicians, quickly consolidate power and raise taxes then you DO NOT get the research grants. No one ever got a research grant for saying everything is going to be OK.

Fact is, IPCC 2007 includes reports put in strictly for political narrative and/or submitted by policy advocates. It's a shame they had to kill so many trees publishing that piece of dreck.

[Duke Nukum]

The fact that cosmic and geological events are capable of affecting climate has no bearing on the question of whether human activities are affecting climate.

Cars aren't the only problem. There's also industry. Of course, I can see why you'd try to minimize the problem. Nice try.

Okay then: I also firmly believe in the whole history of humanity and the whole history of industry, no human industry has ever led to the end of the world.

Even the most destructive human activity I can think of, liberalism, has not as yet led to the End Times.  And as far as human activity destroying the climate, I would put my money on liberalism as being the most likely to End the World and the Climate As We Know Them, although that is far fetched.  But there are a lot of limousine liberals out there with their private jets and most of them believe in AGW, or so they say, yet they utilize their limos and private jets.  So even if AGW were a problem, it couldn't be that big a problem as the Smartest People in the Room don't seem all that concerned about it.

Even Climatologists seem to enjoy jet setting about to different climate and AGW conferences.  So either they do not believe their own prophecies or they don't seem them as that big a deal.

[The Night Owl]

Oh, so now credentials matter.

How convenient for you.

A credentialed scientist publishes a report that says AGW violates the laws of physics and all you can retort is because the AGW pushers haven't acknowledged the report it doesn't count.

Of course credentials matter. The difference between you and me is that I don't run around in circles screaming "fraud" and "conspiracy" every time a credentialed scientist takes a position contrary to what I believe.

[The Night Owl]

Okay then: I also firmly believe in the whole history of humanity and the whole history of industry, no human industry has ever led to the end of the world.

Even the most destructive human activity I can think of, liberalism, has not as yet led to the End Times.  And as far as human activity destroying the climate, I would put my money on liberalism as being the most likely to End the World and the Climate As We Know Them, although that is far fetched.  But there are a lot of limousine liberals out there with their private jets and most of them believe in AGW, or so they say, yet they utilize their limos and private jets.  So even if AGW were a problem, it couldn't be that big a problem as the Smartest People in the Room don't seem all that concerned about it.

Even Climatologists seem to enjoy jet setting about to different climate and AGW conferences.  So either they do not believe their own prophecies or they don't seem them as that big a deal.

Well, look... if you think that pumping CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere at the current rate won't eventually have a detrimental effect that's your business but the science seems to indicate that it's a problem.

[Duke Nukum]

Well, look... if you think that pumping CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere at the current rate won't eventually have a detrimental effect that's your business but the science seems to indicate that it's a problem.

See?  There you go again.  CO2 is a basic building block of life, not a pollutant.  You believe it is a pollutant, but that is only a belief.

[Chris_]

Well, look... if you think that pumping CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere at the current rate won't eventually have a detrimental effect that's your business but the science seems to indicate that it's a problem.

How can you justify allowing politicians to disrupt a significant portion of the world's economy based on this premise when:

1.  The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is minuscule.......and

2.  Research has shown that it has been significantly higher in the past without ending the world as we know it....

It has been established that the eruption of Krakatoa, in 1883 infused the atmosphere with more CO2, and other atmospheric pollutants than mankind has since the beginning of the industrial revolution........how do "climate scientists" account for that.  Certainly there was a worldwide climatic effect from this eruption, but the climate reverted to "normal" after a few scant years........does this support the wholesale destruction of the economies of the world.........?

Further......I will restate to you the question that I asked you on this subject a year or so ago in a similar thread on this topic (that you failed to answer......)

........"assuming AGW to be real, what steps exactly, do you propose to resolve the problem, and exactly how much of the worlds economic resources are you willing to commit to that effort, and finally, exactly where should those financial resources come from.......?

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Of course credentials matter. The difference between you and me is that I don't run around in circles screaming "fraud" and "conspiracy" every time a credentialed scientist takes a position contrary to what I believe.

Gawd you're such a petty little liar.

Their own emails and practices incriminate them. Calling someone a liar when they are caught lying is a valid statement. You're problem is you are such a cultist you believe IN SPITE OF the evidence, not because of it.

This isn't a matter of: good evidence existing for AGW and a few bad actors choosing bad lies; this is: no evidence and bad actors lying, period. And we have no reason to accept the word of any other scientist who lacked the diligence or honesty to be a signatory to their lies.