Monday, February 3, 2014

Truth vortex descends on global warming



Please read the accompanying article here.

It seems the polar vortex, the frigid cold, just like warming, drought, hurricanes, yada--yada are all caused by... wait for it... global warming!

Run! Run! Run! The apocalypse is upon us!

The article accompanying the video claims that this scientific explanation will "shut down all of the climate-change deniers".

:-/

There's a glitch in the argument, astute readers may have noticed. The truth vortex descending on the global warming argument presented by the folks in the video is that we've had polar vorticies and regional warming and droughts and hurricanes without any global warming for seventeen years!

:0

Note to global warming frauds: pointing to extreme weather as as symptom of global warming only makes sense if there has been global warming.

If there hasn't been global warming, then pointing to extreme weather makes a powerful case against the view that global warming causes extreme weather, because we now know that extreme weather happens without warming. Thus, even if warming happens again (it will eventually, of course-- temperature always fluctuates), we won't be able to link it to warming because warmists have already shown us that extreme weather happens without warming.

You may be thinking to yourself-- "My goodness, this video was made at Yale. Could these people really be that stupid?"

No, they can't. No one is that stupid.

The video is a propaganda video, to push an ideological agenda and gin up funding.

They're not mistaken. They're lying. 

40 comments:

  1. No one is that stupid'.

    Yes, they are. You prove it with almost every one of your posts. Global warming doesn't just involve the lower atmosphere. It also involves the oceans (which contains 400 times the heat as the oceans), the cryosphere and the land.

    The oceans are continuing to warm. The arctic ice caps continue to melt. You continue to be a deliberately uninformed idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's funny how 9 out of 10 of the warmest years on record happened since the turn of the century, and 2013 is in the top 4 without a push from El Nino, and yet there hasn't been any global warming for the last 17 years according to useful idiots like Egnor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike, are you denying the reality of global warming yet again? Do we really have to go through all the same motions in order for you to concede that there has been a global warming?

    It's Groundhog Day at Egnorance.

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
  4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 3, 2014 at 7:40 AM

    Everybody's on stage but KW for the Egnorance Village People's World Warming Revue. It's gonna be hot, Hot, HOT!!!

    Boys, why not kick it off with a rousing recycle of that Classic Moldy Oldie from Golden Grooveyard, "YMCA". It's the way to stay and keep the carbon footprint at bay!

    ReplyDelete
  5. There hasn't been any global warming for 17 years (probably 18 now).

    This is from the epicenter of global warming fraud.

    Claims by warmists that weather extremes that have happened during this period are caused by global warming are obviously ridiculous, because there has been no warming, and actually refute the supposed causal link between warming and extreme weather, because it demonstrates that the extreme weather happens without warming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And there has not been any global warming between 1940 and 1970. But there has been a clear increase in temperature between 1880 and today. Go ahead, take a look.

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. Take a look at this, too. It shows that the heat content of the oceans has been growing an growing.

      Delete
    3. There hasn't been any global warming for 17 years (probably 18 now).

      It is bordering on fraud to cherry pick a specific hot year and use that as a starting point in time series analysis.

      Delete
    4. And you guys are experts on fraud.

      Eugenics, overpopulation, DDT hysteria, global cooling, heterosexual aids, global warming, climate change, climate instability, ocean acidity...

      Delete
    5. So, Mike, has there been warming between the end of the nineteenth century and now? By how much?

      Hoo

      Delete
  6. It doesn’t matter how many times you expose Egnor’s “hasn’t warmed in 17 years” lie, he just keeps on repeating it. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Goebbels said:Mein lieber Freund Mein Arsch ist eiskalt!

      Delete
    2. It's a lie? Show me.

      Ben

      Delete
    3. Show you? First, pull your head out of your ass. You may need some help. Let me know when you're ready.

      -KW

      Delete
    4. Oh, I see. You got nothin'.

      Ben

      Delete
  7. "They're not mistaken. They're lying."

    Exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 3, 2014 at 8:09 AM

    I'll tell you how I know the planet is cooling...

    According to the NYT, elites are doing everything possible to stay warm.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Two primary drivers of average global temperatures explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with 90% accuracy and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).

    CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers.

    The drivers are given at

    http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/

    which includes eye opening graphs and a plethora of links and sub-links to the credible data sources that were used.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan, your claim that "the sunspot number time-integral drives the temperature anomaly trend" does not match the data.

      Here is the average sunspot number. It's been relatively constant since the 1950s. Here is the temperature anomaly. It's been going up at a fast pace from the early 1970s to the late 1990s.

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. anon - The sunspot numbers that were used (Figure 2 in Reference 1 of http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/) look to be very similar to but more completely defined than the Wiki graph. The curve in the Wiki graph is for a running average whereas what is called for is the single number average for a specified time period and the average daily sunspot numbers for each year. It is the time-integral of the difference between the number for a year and the average for a period of years that is used.

      To avoid bias, I used all of the reported average global temperatures as described in Reference 3 (of same paper).

      The resulting graphs, Figures 1, 3 & 4 demonstrate the excellent match.

      Delete
  10. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 3, 2014 at 12:06 PM

    The chances of proving that climate change over the next century will be large enough to be disastrous are virtually nil. For the same reason, the chances of a climate sceptic, or anyone else for that matter, proving the disaster theory to be oversold are also virtually nil.
    --- Garth Paltridge (Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow, University of Tasmania)

    Given that basic truth, it's easy to take a side and conclude that the climate loons are overstating the risks. Why? Because their record on predicting apocalypse has been no better than Harold Camping's record.

    Even the European Commission is backing off from subsidizing medieval energy generation technologies:
    "As a starting point, public authorities at Union and national level should let the market work to encourage appropriate investments. As in any other sector of the economy, price signals are pivotal to incentivize generators and consumers to balance supply and demand.
    --- Brussels, 5.11.2013 SWD(2013) 438 Final

    It's an interesting discussion, and one that inevitably generates [ahem] more heat than light, but taxpayers are sick and tired of doing the heavy lifting for a gang of greentard zealots.

    The game is over. And that's why the hysterics are getting more shrill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ".....taxpayers are sick and tired of doing the heavy lifting for a gang of greentard zealots.

      The game is over. And that's why the hysterics are getting more shrill."

      If only t'were true, Sir!

      I don't see a revival of any 'self preservation' instinct in the non-political/passive political majority. I really wish that I could.

      There are zero means by which any discontent could be expressed politically anyway. The 'political party' system seems totally co-opted.

      My impression is that The Agenda has realised that the vast majority will put up with absolutely anything. Nothing whatsoever seems beyond their tolerance. They just giggle and pretend not to notice.

      Hope I'm wrong.

      JR

      Delete
  11. Once you toss out the junk hockey stick graph, you're left with the older graph from the IPCC second report. There may be inaccuracies in that one as well, but not outright fraud.

    The older graph shows a medieval warming period and a little ice age. It shows ups and downs without any human activity to drive it. We're supposed to believe that that graph is crap now because the hockey stick debunked it, but of course we know that the hockey stick itself has been debunked. That's why Michael Mann is going to great lengths to hide his data. Secret science, you know.

    What's interesting to note, however, is that the assertion that the old graph was wrong undermines their primary claim, which is actually a logical fallacy called appeal to authority. If the best scientists in the world published the graph in the esteemed IPCC report, where it was thoroughly vetted and peer reviewed, it can't possibly be wrong. No chance.

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ben,

      Global lower atmospheric temperatures aren't all there is to global warming. The oceans contain most of the heat absorbed from the Sun (400 times as much). The oceans heat the atmosphere, not vice versa. When heat is retained in the oceans, as with a La Niña event, the atmosphere is cool. When heat is released from the oceans, as with an El Niño, the atmosphere warms.

      This happened in 1998, with a strong El Niño year, causing an abnormally warm year, and is the basis of Egnor's lie that there has been no warming recently. It's cherry picking to start your time series with an abnormally warm year.

      And ell Nino/la Niña events are unpredictable.

      Delete
    2. Great. Thanks for the irrelevant comment.

      Delete
  12. The stature of the scientific community would be bolstered, in my mind, if they'd just admit some fault here. The research into this question has not been transparent and above board. It has treated dissenting voices as heretics and toadies for the energy industry.

    If they would exhibit some self-correction, I don't think their credibility would suffer. But that hasn't happened. They've protected their own, even at the cost of integrity.

    The root of it all, I think, is the mistaken belief that criticism of the scientific community is an attack on science itself. It isn't. The so-called deniers are just people who think that scientists should follow the scientific method and observe basic standards of academic honesty.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JQ:

      My view is a bit more harsh. Science generally, and climate science specifically, is not a particularly honest profession. I've seen it myself for years. A lot of these folks would do all sorts of things-- lie, cheat, steal-- to get grants and gain fame. There is routine dishonesty in efforts to gin up funding, and goodness knows what goes on in things they don't talk about freely with colleagues.

      A lot of them are crooks, plain and simple. They have no more integrity than your run-of-the mill used car salesman. The analogy is apt. They are trying to get you to pay for something that isn't what they say it is.

      Delete
    2. Egnor,

      Scientists generally are completely honest. They're only interested in discovering the 'truth'. What they're after is the fame coming from discovering some unknown truth.

      If they're after the money, they would have become financiers (or if slightly more altruistic - neurosurgeons). There's not much money in science.

      Delete
  13. it's colder than heck where i live in new jersey and has been all winter. now i know that one winter in one corner of the world doesn't tell us much about long term global trends, but i think it should be noted that the warmists predicted that snow fall would be an exceedingly rare event in the future. i believe they said it would be a thing of the past. they should come here and see my back yard. the governor just declared a state of emergency because of a severe winter storm. but now they're telling us that the snow fall we're seeing is actually just what we would expect from a warming planet. sounds like they moved the goal posts and changed the rule book all while no one was looking.

    naidoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Naidoo,

      You believe wrongly. Warming doesn't necessarily lead to disappearance of snow. It's all a matter of the air temperature of the clouds at the altitude at which precipitation forms (where the air is supersaturated with water vapor). If it's cold enough, you'll get snow or hail.

      Whether you'll get any precipitation (rain, snow or hail) at all depends on the water vapor level, which is increased by warmer conditions.

      So global warming could result in increased snowfall in some areas. And decreased snowfall, and increased rainfall, in other areas. It's all a matter of the local conditions.

      Delete
    2. Sure, Bachfiend. Snow was going to be a thing of the past but now that there's plenty of it, it's all completely to be expected. Now, if naidoo experiences a mild winter in New Jersey next year, that will be proof of the same. Everything proves global warming because it's an unfalsifiable theory.

      The infamous quote naidoo was referring to came from the UK's Independent. Anecdotal evidence, the kind warmists reject when it doesn't suit them, was cited to show that snow was becoming rarer in Britain. A famous shop didn't even display sledges in its display window! If that's not proof of global warming, I don't know what is. This was back in 2000.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

      Snow was supposed to be a thing of the past. The next generation of English lads and lassies wasn't even supposed to know what it was. The reporter's source was an esteemed climatoligist from, you guessed it, the CRU at East Anglia University!

      >>However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

      "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.<<

      The prediction was wrong. Can you at least admit that?

      Delete
    3. bachfiend, i mentioned snow but i also mentioned temperature. it's friggin' cold out there too.

      jq, yes that is the article i was referring to. it's all so quaint now. silly shreds of anecdotal evidence linked together to make a scary narrative.

      naidoo

      Delete
    4. Naidoo,

      I don't take much notice of what journalists write in newspapers concerning what individual scientists have claimed. Journalists aren't exactly the most reliable of sources. Although they're more reliable than Egnor.

      Any primary sources?

      Delete
  14. A lot of them are just ideologues. They see themselves are besieged with so-called science haters. They think they're in some kind of constant battle to the point that they adopt a bunker mentality.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My experience is that science is a much more venial process. Sure a few of them are ideologues defending (they believe) science.

      A lot more of them are grubbers, willing to do whatever it takes to get that next grant. The battle is for money, nothing more.

      Delete
    2. And money comes in two ways.

      Exaggerate the importance of your work (which is obvious in AGW research), and don't rock the boat because your peers review your grants.

      If you're a denier, or even are suspected of disloyalty, you starve.

      I have friends who are devout Christians who are basic scientists. I have often been told by them that they support ID, but if they said a word, they'd never get another grant. They were quite concerned about feeding their family and paying their bills.

      Science is a very inbred thing. You don't rock the boat, if you want to eat.

      Delete
  15. Forgot to sign that last one.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
  16. Forgot to sign that last one.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
  17. Globalwarmingolics surely must note that such a frigid winter is not likely the result of a warming state.
    I still think global warming is a idea of the upper classes to allow a cleaner prettier world for their second home.
    its all against common sense.

    ReplyDelete