Warmist Says: It's Never Snow in Washington!

[elvis]

You don't even need 'precious' science. Somewhere on earth it's a lot warmer than normal. Snow has been man-made or shipped in by the truckoad into Vancouver for the winter olympics there.

Washington DC felt that it was time to redistribute snow. So they took what was supposed to land in Vancouver and the west coast and decided to put it in the mid atlantic states. I'm sorry, but we just have to be faaaaaaiiiirrrrrrrr to everyone.

WEATHER AND TEMPERATURE extremes over the course of ONE season have NOTHING to do with global warming, or climate change, the latter being a better description because of the recent extremes in weather patterns over the course of many seasons.

Actually, it does. It's one slice of time and trends. Like taking a single frame of a movie doesn't tell the story, you can at least see where you are at in the script and glean some basic information about what's going on. But you don't have the whole picture. Not by a long shot.

That said, even a few dozen frames or a 30 second clip does not tell what's REALLY going on in the film. That is why saying climate change is man's fault is utter bullshit. There is no conclusive, let alone anecdotal evidence. Only faith and beliefs based on impressions from a single frame of film that is billions of frames long.

Yep, all those scientists haven't any idea of what they are talking about. Ol' Fritz can straighten them out with only a third grade education.

Mann and Jones know what they're talking about. They just fudge the data. And what's your degree in again? Oh that's right. You don't have one.

 

[woodjack]

What needs done.

Climate Change at the National Academies

New Report Recommends Changes in Federal Climate Change Research
February, 2009--Climate change is one of the most important global environmental problems facing the world today. Policy decisions are already being made to limit or adapt to climate change and its impacts, but many of these decisions are being made without the science support that could help shape better outcomes. In the United States, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is responsible for coordinating efforts to generate the scientific knowledge to understand, predict, and respond to climate change. At the request of the CCSP, the National Research Council established a committee to evaluate the progress of the program and to identify future priorities. This, the committee's second and final report, proposes six priorities for restructuring the United States' climate change research program to develop a more robust knowledge base and support informed responses. [more]

Looks like they are running away from the "man made climate change" and are going with just climate change. Wonder why that is?

Anyway if these so called scientists are really that concerned with "climate change", why then do they spend all their time on advocating an agenda through political means? Instead of using their scientific minds on research and development of low pollution energy production. If they could develop a low cost energy generator or a cheap cost effective solar panel, which reduces emmisions, people would support it and buy it and use it. I feel and fear that todays scientists are more worried about green as in money then they are on actual scientific studies, most of their so called science has been proven erroneous and misleading.

Instead they spend all their time and energy advocating political schemes that shifts money to fund their "research". If our past scientist relied on strictly government funds for their projects then how would the world look today?

These climate gate scientists in my view are just desk/book jockeys that are looking for a handout, if they cared that much about it all they would use that money they get from certain governments and use it productively in R and D with engineers; instead of Plush offices touting to various governments how much money they should get, while fear mongering the end is near. Hell, anyone can research this crap! Just look at the weather channel and different local municipalities to get the temperature. Why pay for scientists, when I can get the same info as I pass the bank and get the time, day and temp all in one.

Hell pay me the money and I will fly all over the world with a thermometer and a camera taking pictures and recording temperatures, hell I will even write my own thesis instead of cut and pasting crap from a mountaineering magazine.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Woodjack, it is gratifying to see another idiot join the discussion.

You see, you have earned the title for asking obvious questions without first doing at least a minimal search on the net to see what is really happening.

 

[mudwhistle]

You really dont understand the unpredictable weather pattens that GW causes do you?

Oh....GW is still in office?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You really dont understand the unpredictable weather pattens that GW causes do you?

Oh....GW is still in office?

Flash Forward...its 2011 and the re-election campaign for obama is in full swing.

"I know that unemployment is still over 8% and we have barely recovered those millions of lost jobs and the economy is still weak....however I inherited this mess from George Bush and Plymco_Pilgrim is like george bush #2 so dont vote for him."

 

[saveliberty]

Just for emphasis, there is now a second heavy snow storm on the way to the DC area. Now I hear the faithers saying, these weather pattern changes are part of global warming. Nice cover guys. Actually what I see is a shift in cold and warm regions. If that shift in pattern happened to be at a pole, then it would melt ice possibly. I am waiting for warmers to let us know man caused the pattern shift.

It might surprise some of you, but just because it rained on June 10th in 2009 doesn't mean it will rain on June 10th 2010. Weather changes ALL the time.

 

[Big Fitz]

What needs done.

Climate Change at the National Academies

New Report Recommends Changes in Federal Climate Change Research
February, 2009--Climate change is one of the most important global environmental problems facing the world today. Policy decisions are already being made to limit or adapt to climate change and its impacts, but many of these decisions are being made without the science support that could help shape better outcomes. In the United States, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is responsible for coordinating efforts to generate the scientific knowledge to understand, predict, and respond to climate change. At the request of the CCSP, the National Research Council established a committee to evaluate the progress of the program and to identify future priorities. This, the committee's second and final report, proposes six priorities for restructuring the United States' climate change research program to develop a more robust knowledge base and support informed responses. [more]

No not really. I'm looking at who pays them and who the editors work for.

You see, I believe in the corruptive influence of money and politics on science.

I would bet dollars to donuts that if these people were not making money or perpetuating their livelihoods on the back of this fraud of MANMADE global warming. There's no money in saying "yeah, the weather changes, and there's nothing we can do about it." The money is in perpetuating the lie and creating a state of fear.

Now with THIS found in their "About Us" Section:

GRL's mission is to disseminate concisely-written, high-impact research reports on major scientific advances in AGU disciplines [PDF]. With this goal, the Editorial Board evaluates manuscripts submitted to GRL according to the following criteria:

* High impact innovative results with broad geophysical implications at the forefront of one or several AGU disciplines.
* Results with immediate impact on the research of others and requiring rapid publication.
* Instrument or methods manuscript introducing an innovative technique that makes new science advance possible, with immediate applications to AGU disciplines.

...I get the feeling that advocacy is part of their mission. That taints results they have because you can't trust the articles to be chosen to show science first, or back a specific political point.

As for their editors, they come from the following organizations:

-Purdue University Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
-Space Science Applications Laboratory The Aerospace Corporation
-Department of Environmental Earth System Science and Woods Institute for the Environment Stanford University
-University of Virginia Department of Environmental Sciences
-U.S. Geological Survey
-University of Bristol Earth Science
-Halle, Germany
-Department of Physics and Technology University of Bergen
-Jet Propulsion Laboratory
-National Oceanography Centre Atmospheric Chemistry Division
-National Center for Atmospheric Research
-Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
-University of Reading, Department of Meteorology
-Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Colorado

Maybe it's just me... but I don't see any private industry. Only government and university groups. Could this lead to a certain degree of group think? hmmmmmm... Dunno, but I find it curious. How many of these groups are currently receiving money directly related to proving global warming or at least finding how man is causing it.

So I ask myself, what evidence would I believe? Lord Monkton coming out and showing what evidence he has to recant his position. Dr. Roy Spencer showing me data proving mankind's at fault. Probably some other things, but not many. Unequivocable proof would be required before I'd change my mind on the belief that man is not responsible for changing climate.

 

[MaggieMae]

What needs done.

Climate Change at the National Academies

New Report Recommends Changes in Federal Climate Change Research
February, 2009--Climate change is one of the most important global environmental problems facing the world today. Policy decisions are already being made to limit or adapt to climate change and its impacts, but many of these decisions are being made without the science support that could help shape better outcomes. In the United States, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is responsible for coordinating efforts to generate the scientific knowledge to understand, predict, and respond to climate change. At the request of the CCSP, the National Research Council established a committee to evaluate the progress of the program and to identify future priorities. This, the committee's second and final report, proposes six priorities for restructuring the United States' climate change research program to develop a more robust knowledge base and support informed responses. [more]

Looks like they are running away from the "man made climate change" and are going with just climate change. Wonder why that is?

Anyway if these so called scientists are really that concerned with "climate change", why then do they spend all their time on advocating an agenda through political means? Instead of using their scientific minds on research and development of low pollution energy production. If they could develop a low cost energy generator or a cheap cost effective solar panel, which reduces emmisions, people would support it and buy it and use it. I feel and fear that todays scientists are more worried about green as in money then they are on actual scientific studies, most of their so called science has been proven erroneous and misleading.

Instead they spend all their time and energy advocating political schemes that shifts money to fund their "research". If our past scientist relied on strictly government funds for their projects then how would the world look today?

These climate gate scientists in my view are just desk/book jockeys that are looking for a handout, if they cared that much about it all they would use that money they get from certain governments and use it productively in R and D with engineers; instead of Plush offices touting to various governments how much money they should get, while fear mongering the end is near. Hell, anyone can research this crap! Just look at the weather channel and different local municipalities to get the temperature. Why pay for scientists, when I can get the same info as I pass the bank and get the time, day and temp all in one.

Hell pay me the money and I will fly all over the world with a thermometer and a camera taking pictures and recording temperatures, hell I will even write my own thesis instead of cut and pasting crap from a mountaineering magazine.

The entire subject has been made political by commentary such as yours. Believe it or not, there really ARE issues that have the potential to affect the entire earth and its people that have absolutely zero to do with any political agenda.

That said, I believe in the NOAA scientific R&D which confirms in no uncertain terms that the speed with which a natural global warming pattern has emerged is, in fact, due to man's technological advances with no consideration of the after effects of the damage to earth's delicate balance of eco systems.

 

[MaggieMae]

What needs done.

Climate Change at the National Academies

New Report Recommends Changes in Federal Climate Change Research
February, 2009--Climate change is one of the most important global environmental problems facing the world today. Policy decisions are already being made to limit or adapt to climate change and its impacts, but many of these decisions are being made without the science support that could help shape better outcomes. In the United States, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is responsible for coordinating efforts to generate the scientific knowledge to understand, predict, and respond to climate change. At the request of the CCSP, the National Research Council established a committee to evaluate the progress of the program and to identify future priorities. This, the committee's second and final report, proposes six priorities for restructuring the United States' climate change research program to develop a more robust knowledge base and support informed responses. [more]

No not really. I'm looking at who pays them and who the editors work for.

You see, I believe in the corruptive influence of money and politics on science.

I would bet dollars to donuts that if these people were not making money or perpetuating their livelihoods on the back of this fraud of MANMADE global warming. There's no money in saying "yeah, the weather changes, and there's nothing we can do about it." The money is in perpetuating the lie and creating a state of fear.

Now with THIS found in their "About Us" Section:

GRL's mission is to disseminate concisely-written, high-impact research reports on major scientific advances in AGU disciplines [PDF]. With this goal, the Editorial Board evaluates manuscripts submitted to GRL according to the following criteria:

* High impact innovative results with broad geophysical implications at the forefront of one or several AGU disciplines.
* Results with immediate impact on the research of others and requiring rapid publication.
* Instrument or methods manuscript introducing an innovative technique that makes new science advance possible, with immediate applications to AGU disciplines.

...I get the feeling that advocacy is part of their mission. That taints results they have because you can't trust the articles to be chosen to show science first, or back a specific political point.
As for their editors, they come from the following organizations:

-Purdue University Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
-Space Science Applications Laboratory The Aerospace Corporation
-Department of Environmental Earth System Science and Woods Institute for the Environment Stanford University
-University of Virginia Department of Environmental Sciences
-U.S. Geological Survey
-University of Bristol Earth Science
-Halle, Germany
-Department of Physics and Technology University of Bergen
-Jet Propulsion Laboratory
-National Oceanography Centre Atmospheric Chemistry Division
-National Center for Atmospheric Research
-Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
-University of Reading, Department of Meteorology
-Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Colorado

Maybe it's just me... but I don't see any private industry. Only government and university groups. Could this lead to a certain degree of group think? hmmmmmm... Dunno, but I find it curious. How many of these groups are currently receiving money directly related to proving global warming or at least finding how man is causing it.

So I ask myself, what evidence would I believe? Lord Monkton coming out and showing what evidence he has to recant his position. Dr. Roy Spencer showing me data proving mankind's at fault. Probably some other things, but not many. Unequivocable proof would be required before I'd change my mind on the belief that man is not responsible for changing climate.

Believe what you want. But sometimes an apple is just an apple.

 

[Big Fitz]

Believe what you want. But sometimes an apple is just an apple.

Thank you Sigmund, but I still don't buy it out of hand because some politically active individual with lots of letters behind their name or has a half dozen says so. Particularly when I understand even their work or research or thoughts do not occur in a vacuum.

 

[code1211]

I would love to hear your explanation and proof of the science in which colder than normal temps prove global warming.

This should be precious.

i would like to see too

You don't even need 'precious' science. Somewhere on earth it's a lot warmer than normal. Snow has been man-made or shipped in by the truckoad into Vancouver for the winter olympics there.

WEATHER AND TEMPERATURE extremes over the course of ONE season have NOTHING to do with global warming, or climate change, the latter being a better description because of the recent extremes in weather patterns over the course of many seasons.

Extremes in weather are unique to now?

 

[code1211]

Well, ol' Fritz, does the National Academy of Sciences of the major nations satisfy you?

Climate Change at the National Academies

Science Academies Urge Faster Response to Climate Change
June, 2009--In a joint statement, the science academies of the G8 countries, plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa, called on their leaders to "seize all opportunities" to address global climate change that "is happening even faster than previously estimated." The signers, which include U.S. National Academy of Sciences President Ralph J. Cicerone, urged nations at the upcoming Copenhagen climate talks to adopt goals aimed at reducing global emissions by 50 percent by 2050. The academies also urged the G8+5 governments, meeting in Italy next month, to "lead the transition to an energy efficient and low carbon economy, and foster innovation and research and development for both mitigation and adaptation technologies." View Statement

Faster than expected? Interesting. Global warming stalled for years and they say this is a fast change? Interesting.

 

[code1211]

What needs done.

Climate Change at the National Academies

New Report Recommends Changes in Federal Climate Change Research
February, 2009--Climate change is one of the most important global environmental problems facing the world today. Policy decisions are already being made to limit or adapt to climate change and its impacts, but many of these decisions are being made without the science support that could help shape better outcomes. In the United States, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is responsible for coordinating efforts to generate the scientific knowledge to understand, predict, and respond to climate change. At the request of the CCSP, the National Research Council established a committee to evaluate the progress of the program and to identify future priorities. This, the committee's second and final report, proposes six priorities for restructuring the United States' climate change research program to develop a more robust knowledge base and support informed responses. [more]

Looks like they are running away from the "man made climate change" and are going with just climate change. Wonder why that is?

Anyway if these so called scientists are really that concerned with "climate change", why then do they spend all their time on advocating an agenda through political means? Instead of using their scientific minds on research and development of low pollution energy production. If they could develop a low cost energy generator or a cheap cost effective solar panel, which reduces emmisions, people would support it and buy it and use it. I feel and fear that todays scientists are more worried about green as in money then they are on actual scientific studies, most of their so called science has been proven erroneous and misleading.

Instead they spend all their time and energy advocating political schemes that shifts money to fund their "research". If our past scientist relied on strictly government funds for their projects then how would the world look today?

These climate gate scientists in my view are just desk/book jockeys that are looking for a handout, if they cared that much about it all they would use that money they get from certain governments and use it productively in R and D with engineers; instead of Plush offices touting to various governments how much money they should get, while fear mongering the end is near. Hell, anyone can research this crap! Just look at the weather channel and different local municipalities to get the temperature. Why pay for scientists, when I can get the same info as I pass the bank and get the time, day and temp all in one.

Hell pay me the money and I will fly all over the world with a thermometer and a camera taking pictures and recording temperatures, hell I will even write my own thesis instead of cut and pasting crap from a mountaineering magazine.

The entire subject has been made political by commentary such as yours. Believe it or not, there really ARE issues that have the potential to affect the entire earth and its people that have absolutely zero to do with any political agenda.

That said, I believe in the NOAA scientific R&D which confirms in no uncertain terms that the speed with which a natural global warming pattern has emerged is, in fact, due to man's technological advances with no consideration of the after effects of the damage to earth's delicate balance of eco systems.

What you say may be an accurate representation of the PR put forth by NOAA, but that PR is factually incorrect.

The warming over the last century has been pretty consistant and predicting future rate of increase can be easily done by replicating past rates of increase. Adjusting those rates in consideration of increasing CO2 levels makes the predictions less accurate.

The AGW prediction is that increased CO2 will increase the temperature and the rate of increase. The rate is constant and only recently has resumed to increase after years of stagnation.

 

[Big Fitz]

You don't even need 'precious' science. Somewhere on earth it's a lot warmer than normal. Snow has been man-made or shipped in by the truckoad into Vancouver for the winter olympics there.

Washington DC felt that it was time to redistribute snow. So they took what was supposed to land in Vancouver and the west coast and decided to put it in the mid atlantic states. I'm sorry, but we just have to be faaaaaaiiiirrrrrrrr to everyone.

WEATHER AND TEMPERATURE extremes over the course of ONE season have NOTHING to do with global warming, or climate change, the latter being a better description because of the recent extremes in weather patterns over the course of many seasons.

Actually, it does. It's one slice of time and trends. Like taking a single frame of a movie doesn't tell the story, you can at least see where you are at in the script and glean some basic information about what's going on. But you don't have the whole picture. Not by a long shot.

That said, even a few dozen frames or a 30 second clip does not tell what's REALLY going on in the film. That is why saying climate change is man's fault is utter bullshit. There is no conclusive, let alone anecdotal evidence. Only faith and beliefs based on impressions from a single frame of film that is billions of frames long.

Yep, all those scientists haven't any idea of what they are talking about. Ol' Fritz can straighten them out with only a third grade education.

I don't think even God could straighten out a single self-absorbed scientist that he was real.

Sorta like you accepting Man does not cause climate change.

I'm saying I wanna see their pay stubs and who they're from, before I believe them too resolutely. You can thank Mann, Jones and Hansen for spoiling that applebarrel.

That satisfy you, Mill Rat?

 

[mal]

You really dont understand the unpredictable weather pattens that GW causes do you?

^Climate Change Hysterian Formerly Known as a Global Warming Monkey...

A New Ice Age would be Blamed on Global Warming by these Twits.



peace...

 

[Missourian]

Praise Obama!

After only one year in office he has already reversed global warming.

Lucky for us the Democrat super majority in the Senate was wise enough not to pass Crap and Charade.

They had faith in Obama's powers while the rest of us stubbled.

All hail Obama! lol

 

[MaggieMae]

Believe what you want. But sometimes an apple is just an apple.

Thank you Sigmund, but I still don't buy it out of hand because some politically active individual with lots of letters behind their name or has a half dozen says so. Particularly when I understand even their work or research or thoughts do not occur in a vacuum.

As a general rule, scientists can hardly be placed in the same category of politicians--always looking for the what's-in-it-for-me angle. If a scientist has lots of letters behind his/her name, he usually doesn't have to worry a whole lot about personal finances. They don't spend 15-20 years in school with the attitude that they're gonna be billionnaires, but that they might contribute their learned talents and resulting experience to society.

 

[MaggieMae]

i would like to see too

You don't even need 'precious' science. Somewhere on earth it's a lot warmer than normal. Snow has been man-made or shipped in by the truckoad into Vancouver for the winter olympics there.

WEATHER AND TEMPERATURE extremes over the course of ONE season have NOTHING to do with global warming, or climate change, the latter being a better description because of the recent extremes in weather patterns over the course of many seasons.

Extremes in weather are unique to now?

Some people are using the heavy snowfall in areas where it usually doesn't happen as justification that global warming is a myth, as they do when ice kills Florida crops, etc. It takes more than one season of freak weather patterns to establish a trend, is all I'm saying.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well, ol' Fritz, does the National Academy of Sciences of the major nations satisfy you?

Climate Change at the National Academies

Science Academies Urge Faster Response to Climate Change
June, 2009--In a joint statement, the science academies of the G8 countries, plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa, called on their leaders to "seize all opportunities" to address global climate change that "is happening even faster than previously estimated." The signers, which include U.S. National Academy of Sciences President Ralph J. Cicerone, urged nations at the upcoming Copenhagen climate talks to adopt goals aimed at reducing global emissions by 50 percent by 2050. The academies also urged the G8+5 governments, meeting in Italy next month, to "lead the transition to an energy efficient and low carbon economy, and foster innovation and research and development for both mitigation and adaptation technologies." View Statement

Faster than expected? Interesting. Global warming stalled for years and they say this is a fast change? Interesting.

Since you appear to be particularly smug about this, here is a one-page FAQ put out by NOAA for your edification.

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

 

[MaggieMae]

Looks like they are running away from the "man made climate change" and are going with just climate change. Wonder why that is?

Anyway if these so called scientists are really that concerned with "climate change", why then do they spend all their time on advocating an agenda through political means? Instead of using their scientific minds on research and development of low pollution energy production. If they could develop a low cost energy generator or a cheap cost effective solar panel, which reduces emmisions, people would support it and buy it and use it. I feel and fear that todays scientists are more worried about green as in money then they are on actual scientific studies, most of their so called science has been proven erroneous and misleading.

Instead they spend all their time and energy advocating political schemes that shifts money to fund their "research". If our past scientist relied on strictly government funds for their projects then how would the world look today?

These climate gate scientists in my view are just desk/book jockeys that are looking for a handout, if they cared that much about it all they would use that money they get from certain governments and use it productively in R and D with engineers; instead of Plush offices touting to various governments how much money they should get, while fear mongering the end is near. Hell, anyone can research this crap! Just look at the weather channel and different local municipalities to get the temperature. Why pay for scientists, when I can get the same info as I pass the bank and get the time, day and temp all in one.

Hell pay me the money and I will fly all over the world with a thermometer and a camera taking pictures and recording temperatures, hell I will even write my own thesis instead of cut and pasting crap from a mountaineering magazine.

The entire subject has been made political by commentary such as yours. Believe it or not, there really ARE issues that have the potential to affect the entire earth and its people that have absolutely zero to do with any political agenda.

That said, I believe in the NOAA scientific R&D which confirms in no uncertain terms that the speed with which a natural global warming pattern has emerged is, in fact, due to man's technological advances with no consideration of the after effects of the damage to earth's delicate balance of eco systems.

What you say may be an accurate representation of the PR put forth by NOAA, but that PR is factually incorrect.

The warming over the last century has been pretty consistant and predicting future rate of increase can be easily done by replicating past rates of increase. Adjusting those rates in consideration of increasing CO2 levels makes the predictions less accurate.

The AGW prediction is that increased CO2 will increase the temperature and the rate of increase. The rate is constant and only recently has resumed to increase after years of stagnation.

Yeah, NOAA has an agenda too, just like all them librul university lab scientists.

I'd kinda like to know (a little off topic) why it is that the conservatives rush to defense of the NASA Constellation program and yet are so highly critical of NOAA on the issue of years and years and years of research on global warming as being bogus. You must think that the space travel scientists are smart and the global climate scientists are stupid.