Global Warming

[Super Nova]

For balance try this one.

Should evil climate deniers be denied the oxygen of publicity?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... -of-fools/

So asks an Australian activist named Alex White in the Guardian and I think he makes a very good point. Clever people who understand how to think critically and who have scientific evidence on their side can be very arrogant and judgemental. Sometimes they even laugh cruelly at the afflicted, as they have been during the Christmas holidays over the plight of poor Professor Chris Turkey and his so-called Ship of Fools expedition in which he and his crack team of climate scientists set off to conduct vital research work about global warming in the Antarctic only to be trapped by unseasonally thick ice.

This is the kind of mocking article I mean.

And this. (SEE LINKS in Article)
And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

The problem with irresponsible denialist journalism like this is that while it may convey the literal truth about Professor Turkey's expedition, it ignores the broader emotional truth. Yes, it may be the case that if you concentrate on superficial details like factual evidence, you could construct a narrative in which Professor Turkey emerged from this episode looking – as denialist filth might term it, shortly before they were fed to a cage full of 120 ravening dogs – like a prize prat. For example, a denialist filthtard bourgeois capitalist running dogfood lackey might note that both in the Antarctic and the Arctic ice coverage appears to be increasing rather than decreasing, thus driving a Titanic-sized iceberg hole through Catastrophic Anthropogenic Warming Theory; that this frivolous tourist jaunt (or scientifically vital research trip, depending on whether you read the reports published in the left-liberal media before or after the project came unstuck) will cost the Australian taxpayer (possibly the UK one too if the expedition's co-sponsor Exeter University picks up its share of the tab) hundreds of thousands of dollars; that this was essentially a propagandistic exercise, not a scientific one, as can be noted for example in the BBC's and the Guardian's decision to dispatch reporters on the expedition (can you imagine them giving similarly fawning coverage to an Australian expedition led by, say, Prof Ian Plimer or Prof Bob Carter?) and the subsequent desperate attempts at face-saving by the Guardian's Senior Environment Commissar James Randerson.

But all this is to miss the point about the broader – and far more significant – emotional truth about climate change.

"Climate change" is the greatest threat mankind has faced in the history of the universe because all the nice, caring people say it is and because even if it isn't technically a major, proven or unprecedented threat well it kind of feels like it ought to be and therefore we shouldn't look too carefully at the actual evidence. (Multiple H/T below to Bishop Hill)

Rather, we should take a leaf out the book of people like former chief scientist Sir David King, who recently suggested on BBC Radio 5 Live that we are currently subject to more extreme weather events than before (even though there is no scientific evidence to support this).

And people like current chief scientist Sir John Beddington, who made similar claims on the Today programme (even though, again, there is no scientific evidence to support this).

And people like Adam Boulton of Sky News. Despite suffering the handicap of being neither a current nor a former chief scientist, and despite evidently having given the minutiae of the climate change debate about as much careful consideration as you would, say, the details of the terms and conditions when you sign up for a free iPhone app, this has not prevented him from understanding exactly what the sensible, reasonable position is in a column in the Sunday Times.


Last week the journal Nature published a paper reporting that the Earth’s climate was more susceptible to carbon dioxide emissions than previously thought, and predicting global temperature could go up by 4C this century. True, as the tireless climate change “realist” Lord Lawson points out, the global temperature so far has not risen as much as some of the direst predictions but, equally, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded last September it was “unequivocal” that global warming was taking place because of human actions. The panel said its view was supported by 97% of scientific research.

That's right, Adam Boulton. Well done! No one, anywhere that matters has poured ridicule on that 97 per cent figure. Yes, it IS very important to put danger quotes around "realist" when applied to Lord Lawson, even if you are utterly incapable of producing the remotest scintilla of evidence to demonstrate that he's not a realist really. Yes, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is indeed the gold standard of all climate change research and knowledge, and is always worth quoting as an irrefutable authority for no one anywhere has ever found it to be flawed. Yes, you are totally forgiven for the ignorant understatement of that phrase "so far has not risen as much as the direst predictions" [a more correct phrase, you should be aware, would have been "so far has not risen even as much as the least dire predictions"], because, as you rightly perceive, the climate change debate is an issue of absolutely no consequence to anyone and therefore can be covered with the same glib insouciance you might apply had you been invited to cover your first ever football match and you weren't sure whether Chelsea were the ones in the blue or red but what the hell, it's only a game, eh?

[AiA in Atlanta]

It's been decades since Atlanta has experienced cold this this ... it is being called a Polar Vortex and it has engulfed most of North America.

Here is what is being said about it:

“This kind of pattern is going to be more likely, and has been more likely,” she said. “Extremes on both ends are a symptom. Wild, unusual temperatures of both sides, both warmer and colder.”

[IQS.RLOW]

It's been decades since Atlanta has experienced cold this this ... it is being called a Polar Vortex and it has engulfed most of North America.

Here is what is being said about it:

“This kind of pattern is going to be more likely, and has been more likely,” she said. “Extremes on both ends are a symptom. Wild, unusual temperatures of both sides, both warmer and colder.”

What is being "said" about it and what the facts are, are two different things. There is no statistical evidence that weather patterns are getting more extreme. None.

[Rorschach]

It's been decades since Atlanta has experienced cold this this ... it is being called a Polar Vortex and it has engulfed most of North America.

Here is what is being said about it:

“This kind of pattern is going to be more likely, and has been more likely,” she said. “Extremes on both ends are a symptom. Wild, unusual temperatures of both sides, both warmer and colder.”

Reported today... this also occured in the 1890's hmmmm.... blow that one out your arse Gore.

Oh and...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
one back in 1985.

[Rorschach]

The saga of the Akademik Sholaskiy is a mere symptom of creative ways to waste money on immature, misguided self-aggrandizing adventure. Though as a PR stunt, skeptics could not possibly have come up with a better way to highlight the growing sea-ice around Antarctica that the models never predicted; nor to display the lack of pragmatic skill modern climate science has attained.

— that’s when mass-media victims realize that the “Russian Tourist ship” was really a boat load of Australian and New Zealander scientists, paid for mostly by taxpayers and loaded and advised by supposedly “expert” climate scientists. This misinformation was despite the boat having BBC, and Guardian media on board, and Fairfax press in one of the rescue icebreakers. Today I see evidence of the first two effects.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/french ... on-fiasco/

[Chard]

What is being "said" about it and what the facts are, are two different things. There is no statistical evidence that weather patterns are getting more extreme. None.

That's odd. I can find evidence for exactly that with a simple google search. Here's some examples....

Atlantic Hurricane Season. Here's a list of Hurricanes in the Atlantic starting in the 1850s up to the 2010 season. Not that the number of average number of storms per season, the average strength of storms per seaon, and damages caused by storms per season has only increased.

Same thing for Pacific Hurricane Season, Pacific Typhoon Season, and North Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Season. But hey, I guess tere's no evidence for an increase in extreme weather patterns. Nope, no sir, not a bit.

[IQS.RLOW]

Wikipedia?...seriously?

You'll have to do far better than that Choad.

Try something, like, oh I don't know...maybe an authorities source?
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/la ... lished.pdf

See that straight line down the middle going from around 1912 to 2012?
Yeah...that's the sort of stuff you want to reference and let me know when you find one that points upward, dickhead

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/20 ... -2012.html

[Chard]

blah blah blah

It's pretty goddamn obvious you didn't read any of that, IQ. If you had you'd notice that your first source agrees with me and your second source is getting his information from a single graph depicting occurrence of landfall storms only, not total number and he doesn't account for damage either (Never mind of course that Dr. Pielke agree with me on this and on anthropogenic global warming). For fuck's sake, the very fact that you're trying to deny global warming or that global warming is causing a measurable change in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather by posting a link to Pielke's site tells me you're not reading anything when you post this shit.

Maybe you should consider getting an education before attempting to debate science with someone who has a formal science education? You might want to ponder that, IQ. Just saying.

[AiA in Atlanta]

Hot/cold weather always brings out the nutty climate-change deniers: "Oh, look, a ship is stuck in the ice. There can't be climate change. It must be a U.N. plot."

[Super Nova]

Hot/cold weather always brings out the nutty climate-change deniers: "Oh, look, a ship is stuck in the ice. There can't be climate change. It must be a U.N. plot."

Oh look, the US is in a freeze... evidence the world is not warming clearly.