Now is the winter of their discontent. Record snowfalls across the United States are harming the global warming nuts in more ways than we know. While the snow is obviously making Americans scoff at global warming, its also causing another problem for them with far more severe consequences.
WBAL reports:
As the storms gripped the city, crime plummeted. Comparing last week to the same week in 2009, the most serious crimes were down 71 percent, according to city statistics.
The fatal shooting early Tuesday morning of a man in the Park Heights neighborhood ended a nine-day stretch in Baltimore that was free of killing. That stretch put the yearly homicide total at 18 — significantly less than the 32 homicides recorded year-to-date in 2009.
A lower murder rate because of snow? That means more people are alive due to the snow. That means more pollution. Aaaaahhh.
So as if it wasn’t bad enough that people are giggling about anti-human global warming alarmists but now there’s more people to do it. Poor things. The climate has sure turned against them.
February 23, 2010 at 5:07 am
Where are all the warmists meeting as we speak? In Bali, with UNEP the George Soros backed enviro fraud. Who else is involved? Ravendra Pachauri and Jeffrey D. Sachs (Columbia's Earth Institute).
February 23, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Here's a link I strongly recommend to you:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
February 23, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Oy…Craig, that list is simply terrible. Strawman arguments for the skeptics "answered" by pithy non-explanations.
February 23, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Skeptical Science Actually links to a lot of academic papers on various subjects. It's a bit more believable than "OMG SNOWZ. NO GLOBAL WARMING. AL GORE FAIL"
February 23, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Shall I, then? With my paraphrasing (P = Posit; R = Rebuttal; M = My response)
1. P: "It's the sun". R: "The Sun is in a cooling trend". M: Temperature is only one type of energy released by the sun, and the overall impact of the changes in solar cycles is unknown. In addition, this rebuttal rests on the accuracy of the "average global temperature", which is questionable at best, and can be averaged in so many different ways as to make the statistical trends meaningless.
2. P: "Climate changes all the time". R: "CO2 is causing this change." M: Uh…prove it. Not that the greenhouse effect exists (we all know it does), but prove that it is the primary cause of the measured temperature change (once you take care of that pesky temperature averaging problem mentioned above.)
3. P: "There is no consensus". R: "All these published scientists agree". M: Screw consensus. Consensus is NOT science. Science is repeatable, falsifiable, and open. Most scientists (not the Church) disagreed with Galileo. Pasteur had to fight to get his ideas accepted by the "scientific community". Many great advances in science came about in spite of consensus, not because of it. Or, to quote "experts" of the day, "Man will never fly."
4. P: "It's cooling." R: "It's really getting warmer, even though the surface temperature is cooling." M: This gets back to the temperature averaging thing I spoke of in point 1.
Want more?
February 24, 2010 at 12:17 am
Mr. Siekierski,
Each of the "What the Science Says" responses is backed up with actual research if you click on the words.
Feel free to check out the actual research done by actual climatologists done over decades.
You don't need to try prove anything to me. I just posted the link so people could see that AGW is much, much more than idle speculation.
February 24, 2010 at 8:24 am
Craig:
No one is saying AGW is "idle speculation" – lots of scientists have been busy little beavers skewing data to get grants. See them squirm when called upon to produce actual data that hasn't been massaged or tricked as part of the Peabody lawsuit.
February 24, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Barbara,
It is the lawsuits that misrepresent the science. Not the other way around.
February 24, 2010 at 5:02 pm
you might also look for a baby boomlet 9 months from now.
February 24, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Criag,
First of all, feel free to call me Matt.
I clicked the links. I read the responses. I found them to be distinctly lacking in citations pointing to the actual studies. In those cases where there are citations, the studies I checked are not transparent. The source of the global average temperatures is not disclosed, nor is the method used to average the temperatures taken from whatever sources, nor how station moves/adds/changes/removals are accounted for. When the basis for most of the studies is the same set of global average temperatures, all of the studies will show the same trends.
I've looked for the information and methodology with regards to some of the subtopics within climate change theology, and some of the scientists haven't been open. I've looked into the research, I've looked at the Climategate files, I've looked at the programming. I have a fair understanding of statistics and programming, having written code for a statistical processing program (for manufacturing use).
But feel free to ignore my points. Science isn't determined by consensus, but by fact. When alleged "facts" are based on the statistical processes applied, and vary greatly based on the statistical analysis used, they aren't facts on which to base science.
To put it a different way, the global average temperature can be made to show any trend one wants, simply by using a different averaging process. And there are valid reasons for applying each of the different averaging methods, but none of them are real numbers on which to base policy.
Climate science has, for the research world, been the equivalent to .com models were to the business world in the 90s. If you stuck ".com" on the end of your company name, venture capitalists lined up to throw money at you. If you put "and it's effect on global climate change" in a research proposal, you get grants. Call me a skeptic if you want, but I have to question the integrity of any group that puts forward information that has a high potential for conflict-of-interest. If climate scientists said "there's no problem", they'd lose funding. If they say "there's a huge problem" they get gobs of money. Of course they're going to say there's a huge problem.
February 24, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Matt,
The Skeptical Science website is not the CRU or the IPCC. If you feel the need to analyze the data further, I'm sure you can go to their respective websites and find more information.
Here's one:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Here's an IPCC report:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
I am not "ignoring your points", as it were, I just don't have the time or desire to debate your claim that climate science is a theology.
On second thought, maybe that does mean I'm ignoring your points. Sorry.
I posted the link to SS so people could see for themselves what is out there in a relatively simple format. I think it's a pretty good overview of what the debate is all about.
February 24, 2010 at 8:25 pm
I've looked at the Realclimate info before. I've looked at the IPCC info. I still maintain that the lack of openness in the scientific process makes it impossible to judge the validity of the conclusions they announce as proven fact. They become the high priests of their own religion, saying "trust us". Sorry, I don't, and neither should anybody else. Science requires that experiments/explorations be falsifiable and reproducible.
Add in the scientists' own admissions of the mess that is their primary data source for temperatures, the possible duplication of stations, the uncertainty of location of some stations, and numerous other assumptions that were made in order to adjust the numbers to try and get real values, all of which is not documented nor is it something that can be rebuilt, and it's voodoo, not science.
Answer this one question: Why should we trust the temperature data that is used to determine the trend in average global temperature when the original data is no longer available?