I've had enough of this global warming!

[Kap'n]

So much irony:



Like I said, can't let facts and figures get in the way.

[Sage]

Indeed, it's quite an astute metaphor for how a myth can continue to persist, even throughout millennia, so long as no one questions it.

[Kap'n]

Indeed, it's quite an astute metaphor for how a myth can continue to persist, even throughout millennia, so long as no one questions it.

A millenium or two, at least.

[elicross]

When you come to understand metaphor, you'll realize fiddles aren't the point.

The fact is, climate change wouldn't be such a controversial topic, and people wouldn't accuse scientists of being corrupt money-grabbers, if global warming hadn't become a political football.

If news of climate change hadn't reached most of our ears via Al Gore -- a former Democratic senator, vice president, and presidential candidate -- 90 percent of us would simply accept the science that says it's happening. But because -- and only because -- the highest-profile face of climate change happened to be a famous politician, it became a political issue.

Certain conservatives came to identify climate change with Gore, and in turn they came to think of it as an exclusively liberal issue. Many of these same conservatives so despised liberals and the Democratic Party already, they had come to see any acknowledgment that a liberal might be right -- about anything -- as a personal failure.

The average person didn't stand to lose anything by acknowledging the science behind climate change. But that didn't matter -- it had become a game for the political Right: If Al Gore is right, We lose points. If Al Gore is wrong, We win.

And so an issue that never should've been controversial, that everyone normally would've gotten behind, became a matter of great contention -- all because its best-known spokesman was a Democratic senator instead of Woodsy Owl.

If "Only you can prevent forest fires" had come from Al Gore's mouth -- instead of Smokey the Bear's -- we'd have half the country telling us it's only money-grubbing scientists who believe we should watch where we toss our cigarette butts. Because today, absolutely everything is political fodder, and the choosing of sides trumps reason 10 times out of 10.

It'd be funny if it weren't so damned pathetic.

[Sage]

When you come to understand metaphor, you'll realize fiddles aren't the point.

When you come to understand irony, you'll realize I wasn't really talking about fiddles.

The fact is, climate change wouldn't be such a controversial topic, and people wouldn't accuse scientists of being corrupt money-grabbers, if global warming hadn't become a political football.

I'll agree with you on this point, but I don't think Al Gore is the cause. His existence as a lightning rod for the issue may amplify the polarization, but the real problem is that global warming was always meant to be a political football in the first place.

The contention of many skeptics is that it's intentionally being used as an excuse by politicos and activists to reconfigure portions of the U.S. economy either out of starry-eyed idealism, veiled hatred for capitalism, consolidation of political power, or personal profit. The question of scientific corruption is really just a tangent. If we weren't being asked to pay billions of tax dollars to subsidize inefficient energy sources and unprofitable transportation systems while overregulating and restricting the industries that do work and make money and provide jobs, no one would question the science.

But when the top official at the global organization producing the models predicting environmental catastrophe (The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC) is found to be working directly for the industries that stand to gain from the policy positions those political interests desire and his organization recommends, people start to question the authenticity of that organization's work.

And when researchers at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, upon whose data the IPCC's reports heavily depend, are caught cherry-picking and even outright fabricating data -- not to mention using their political and academic clout to pressure research journals to bar contradicting data from publication, then people have good reason to suspect corruption.

And when new research contradicts those political entities' assertions entirely, such as last month's report that Himalayan glaciers are in fact growing, not shrinking as the IPCC announced less than four years ago... then people start to think we ought not buy into this b.s. anymore.

Yet we are asked to take more and more money out of a private sector that is already shouldering the burden of a 17.3% U-6 unemployment rate to pay for these "green" initiatives. One in six Americans either can't find a job or is working part time to make ends meet, and businesses are being asked to put even more restrictions on the emission of a gas that naturally occurs in the air we breathe, at the cost of profit and capital that could be used for expansion and hiring.

Fewer and fewer people are buying into the global warming hysteria because they see that they are paying for the environuts' save-the-world fantasies with their livelihoods. That is what makes this such a contentious political hot button. A washed-up politician who hasn't held public office in over a decade is small potatoes in comparison.

[clayville]

Oops. Typo...

[Offshore Angler]

I find this whole thread extremely amusing.

First, non-scientists debating science always turns into a contest of who can present the most facts completely out of context.

Secondly, history has shown us over and over and over ad nauseum that there is a certain type of conservative mind that will fight any scientific theory that challenges their world view - regardless of overwhelming evidence.

A few examples-

The Earth is round

That the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.

That the Earth is not the center of the universe and all things don't move around it.

Evolution

Man will never fly

People of different ethnic heritage are inferior


and I can go on and on. Why these certain minds persist in publicly demonstrating their inability to deal with complex problems is a something I often ponder.

Such as - it's a colder winter and that means Global Warming is disproved. That demonstrates that the person making that statement cannot make the basic distinction between global climate and weather. And they use this demonstrated lack of understanding as the basis of their argument.

Or "experts" that use a single data point out of a complete dataset as the basis of their argument, neglecting to mention that said data point is an outlier with respect to the overall data trend. (See ice argument above.) That shows that the person is either a) not being objective but selecting only the data that supports their assertion, or b) has taken the word of someone else without applying an acceptable level of rigor to substantiate the claim. Either way - really bad science!

Now, if they want to talk about Grashov numbers and how mean temperatures affect the convection potential due to the atmosphere's temperature lapse rate verses the adiabatic lapse rate, well then maybe they can bring something to the table. But I highly doubt they have been even generally trained in thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluids and really, good old math and physics. And that would be basic training, not advanced research at the PhD candidate level. In fact, probably none of them even understand what is involved to become a scientist. I can attest it takes years of dedication, sacrifice and struggle.

But any jackhole can criticize what they don't know about.

Some people relish the opportunity to consider new ideas and learn, others simply reject anything that challenges their world view.

We can see that in action here. I also find it interesting that repeated research shows a direct correlation between how conservative or progressive a person identifies them-self, and IQ. Those who claim to be strongly conservative generally fall in the bottom half of the sample and progressives, conversely. (1)

So the data could be interpreted that arguments between progressives and conservatives are limited by the conservatives' ability to comprehend. One study even went so far as to suggest that conservatism is a "syndrome"! (2)

That's my opinion, yours may vary. I can accept that.

(1) For example, see Kanazawa, S., London School of Economics and Political Science, March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly
(2) Stankov, L., Singapore National Institute of Education,Conservatism and Cognitive Ability

[Skip]

what he said....
it is what it is... there is no denial that "civilization" has an role in the state of the natural world we live in, it's just that many cannot be concerned about time after their life span or that of their immediate family.... Individual theories and actors on the stage of politics have little to no real effect on the world population or the plight of the over populated world.

[mgade]

Such as - it's a colder winter and that means Global Warming is disproved. That demonstrates that the person making that statement cannot make the basic distinction between global climate and weather. And they use this demonstrated lack of understanding as the basis of their argument.

Exactly.

[Cogs]

Wow. An innocuous thread about the weather has become "if you are conservative, you are stupid". I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I know when someone is an asshole!

[elicross]

Wow. An innocuous thread about the weather has become "if you are conservative, you are stupid". I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I know when someone is an asshole!

The subject line of the first post ensured this was never going to be an innocuous thread about the weather. It was ideological from Post One.

[Offshore Angler]

Wow. An innocuous thread about the weather has become "if you are conservative, you are stupid". I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I know when someone is an asshole!

That's "Dr. Asshole" to you, a little respect please!

[Offshore Angler]

LS/MFT

[elicross]

LS/MFT

I prefer Camels.

I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the Internet.

[Offshore Angler]

Where is the Love? <- click link

[NeoFauve]

All I know is, I'm all out of ice melt and my Columbia Bugaboots are prematurely falling apart along their most vital seam, rendering them not-so-waterproof.
It's probably a little conservative of me to want nature to serve me personally, but I'd like my little lump of the globe to warm up to, say, and early April level.
I've been to at least ten stores, but no one has decent mens' winter boots, and sandals are what's being shipped now.
The salt will be back I imagine, but enough is enough already.

[Offshore Angler]

We can all agree on one thing - Winter sucks ass!

Luckily, I'm heading to Key West in a week. Got a tip the sailfish are on a terror.

[NeoFauve]

Rub it in.

I bet the stores down there have boots.

[rudutch]

bring a parka and some insulated socks

[NTBluesGuitar]

We've had a bit of this global warming down here in the Dallas area...you know...where the Super Bowl is this year?

Here I am gettin' ready to run errands just the other day:



I don't doubt the global warming at all, I'm just not blaming anyone for it...and I don't expect it to last.

Tell you what - this past 6-day weekend I had due to the weather sure helped me make progress on the latest amp build. I'll be sharing that one when it's finished.

[elicross]

Crazy!

I was looking at the radar on Weatherbug last night, and it showed freezing precip over Corpus Christi! I don't know if it was sleet, freezing rain, or snow -- but whatever it was, this is some pretty wild weather.

[NTBluesGuitar]

My outlaws live in the Houston area and they were freaking out over the mere MENTION of snow for them.

Turns out it didn't happen and hit us up in Big D instead...we had about an inch of ice a week prior to this that never had a chance to melt due to it never getting above 20º all week.

Lucky for me, I spent my formative years driving in this stuff up in northern Indiana. The weather and roads don't scare me...it's the other Texans out there driving in this stuff that scares me!



However, as of today, we finally have returned to normal winter temps and this mess as mostly melted today.

[Fripperton]

Delegates meet to discuss climate shift.

[Offshore Angler]

We've had a bit of this global warming down here in the Dallas area...you know...where the Super Bowl is this year?

Here I am gettin' ready to run errands just the other day:



I don't doubt the global warming at all, I'm just not blaming anyone for it...and I don't expect it to last.

Tell you what - this past 6-day weekend I had due to the weather sure helped me make progress on the latest amp build. I'll be sharing that one when it's finished.

That's what we call a "light dusting".

[NTBluesGuitar]

That's what we call a "light dusting".

Yep...but consider there's an inch of ice underneath, too. And it's Texas.

[Offshore Angler]

Yep...but consider there's an inch of ice underneath, too. And it's Texas.

Plano Wildcats, class of 1975 here. Lived in Richardson.

You what the difference is between a Texan and a jet?







After the flight to New York, the jet quits whining!

(ducks!)

[NTBluesGuitar]

[NeoFauve]

Delegates meet to discuss climate shift.

Awesome. And kind of creepy.

[melody]

Arrogance is what is fueling this debate..Stop and think about it if the earth is millions of years old man has been keeping records for a couple hundred years and knows what is going on with the climate..Laughable at best.. Shhhh! Don't tell Al...

[Bill Moore]

Well, just an update, that things are starting to return to normal here. Spent most of Saturday trying to get water to the house, finally figured out that the line was frozen below the ground. One of my customers, who came from the cold country told me that folks insulate their water lines into the ground up there. I made a tent with a tarp around my well side, and house side of my line with a space heater in each. About 3:30 it broke loose!
Nobody here ever thought about insulating into the ground!
T.J., my wife talked to her aunt about the weather in your country. Said her daughter made her promise not to clean her walk. (She's 94)

[mgade]

Arrogance is what is fueling this debate..Stop and think about it if the earth is millions of years old man has been keeping records for a couple hundred years and knows what is going on with the climate..Laughable at best.. Shhhh! Don't tell Al...

They used to drill into the ice cap on Greenland to extract really old ice, that reportedly gave info on climate from way back in time.

[Bill Moore]

I wonder if they find ice from the time the Vikings were growing grapes there?

[elicross]

They used to drill into the ice cap on Greenland to extract really old ice, that reportedly gave info on climate from way back in time.

Yep. Science does have ways of knowing what was going on with the climate back before we started writing it down. We also know about all kinds of animals that lived here before humans started drawing pictures of them.

There's nothing arrogant about looking at a dinosaur fossil and knowing it wasn't planted there by money-grubbing archaeologists on the anti-Creation "payroll"...I don't get why it's supposedly arrogant for scientists to study other evidence from millions of years ago and tell us what the climate used to be like. Do climate-change-deniers think it's arrogant to talk about the ice age, since that peaked before humans kept records of the weather?

[elicross]

I wonder if they find ice from the time the Vikings were growing grapes there?

That's a very common anti-climate-change argument that attempts to pit Norse legend against science.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...o-be-green.php

Firstly, Greenland is just a part of a single region and as such can not be assumed to represent any kind of global climate shift. See the article on the Medieval Warm Period for a global perspective on this time period. In short, the available proxy evidence indicates that globally warmth during this period was not particularly pronounced though certainly some regions may have experienced greater warming than others.

Secondly, a quick reality check shows that Greenland's ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old and covers over 80% of that island. The vast majority of land not under an ice sheet is rock and permafrost in the far north. Just how different could it have been only 1000 years ago?

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...-of-grapes.php

As for the specific anecdote that Vineland was a warm land where grapes grew wild, like in the Greenland story, Vineland's name was most likely a kind of marketing ploy. Doing a bit of googling I came across this article by Robert McGhee for Canadian Geographic, from 1988 that had this interesting thing to say:

There has been much argument over the location of Vinland, with scholars and local enthusiasts placing it anywhere between Labrador and Florida, and even in the Great Lakes or the Mississippi Valley. The geographical descriptions in the Norse sagas are too vague to allow certain placement on a modern map, but there is growing consensus that they best fit Newfoundland and Labrador (formerly Newfoundland). The main problem with a Newfoundland and Labrador (formerly Newfoundland) site is the absence of wild grapes. Still, there is a strong suspicion that what Leif found were only berries, and that he followed the practice of his father in "giving a land a good name so that men would want to go there".

(also from the second article):

One can not infer a global climate from an anecdote about a single region, or even a few regions, you need detailed analysis of proxy climate indicators from around the world. These proxy reconstructions have shown that the Medieval Warm Period (around the time the Vikings were said to have discovered North America) was in fact not as warm or pronounced as today's warmth. From NOAA's paleoclimate website we can read these quotes:

What records that do exist show that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century....

[dirtdog]

Yep. Science does have ways of knowing what was going on with the climate back before we started writing it down. We also know about all kinds of animals that lived here before humans started drawing pictures of them.

Exactly.

If we can set aside any of political/ecological/social/economic implications of "global warming" and focus on climate change, how can we really argue against it? Rather than looking at the scientific evidence as evidence of "change" (either in the "good" or "bad" direction) how about looking at it as not being static? Climate is a dynamic system and, as such, is in a constant state of change.

Re: ice core samples and vikings' grapes as a proxy for weather records: I worked as a geological assistant for a summer in my undegrad years. One task I had was to catalog the field work of an emeritus scientist. His office was filled with many dozens of 10 gallon containers holding a lifetime's work. I held a fossilized piece of wood that was dated from the Eocene period (35-55M years ago) and was found in the high arctic on Axel Heiberg island. This chunk of wood was a small part of a clearly large tree (more often found in more temperate latitudes) and was preserved in the freshly exposed mud on the edge of a melting ice field so well that you could see the teeth marks made by a beaver-like creature. I also catalogued soil samples with pollen that were about as old from the same location for plants species that would normally be found around the equator.

I also played around with some data of lake sediment samples which are also used to measure longer term changes in climate in a particular location. Cool stuff.

How about that? Evidence of climate change AND plate tectonics all in one room!!!

[elicross]

Even creepier than the angry mob of snowmen:

[melody]

The climate has been changing for millions of years plain and simple. Yes it is arrogant to think we , you , I or anybody can predict what will happen next week fer fuck sake..So ya you wanna ride a train that is going nowhere cuz some one else said it to be true be my guest..So to say we are the sole cause of climate change is a arrogant statement.


It will continue to change even if man no longer walked the earth from this day forward.

[Bill Moore]

Eli, check out National Geographic, June 2010, for an article on the Norse settlements in Greenland.
The point being, that they were able to farm, and sustain themselves before it got cold again. I don't think anyone quit driving suburbans, or shut down power plants to make things change.(Not man made)!

[elicross]

The climate has been changing for millions of year plain and simple. Yes it is arrogant to think we , you , I or anybody can predict what will happen next week fer fuck sake..So ya you wanna ride a train that is going nowhere cuz some one else said it to be true be my guest..


It will continue to change even if man no longer walked the earth from this day forward.

Wow.

"fer fuck sake" and

Why is that tone necessary?

[elicross]

Eli, check out National Geographic, June 2010, for an article on the Norse settlements in Greenland.

That's the issue that talks about the ice sheet in Greenland vanishing as a result of higher average summer temps, right?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...e/jenkins-text

I'm not sure this is a source you want to point to in arguing against climate change.

The melting ice accelerates the warming—newly exposed ocean and land absorb sunlight that the ice used to reflect into space. If all of Greenland's ice melts in the centuries ahead, sea level will rise by 24 feet, inundating coastlines around the planet.