Winter Storm Misinform

[PoliCon]

or Al Gore.

or the MSM. :D

[Rebel Yell]

or the MSM. :D

or.......

Prince Albert of Monaco
Sir David Attenborough
Ed Begley Jnr
Sir Richard Branson
Pierce Brosnan
Louise Burfitt-Dons
David Cameron
Rachel Carson
Prince Charles
Bill Clinton
George Clooney
Sheryl Crow
Ted Danson
Laurie David
Cameron Diaz
Leonardo diCapricio
Morgan Freeman
Zac Goldsmith
Al Gore
Tom Hanks
Jim Hensen
Scarlett Johanssen
Diane Keaton
Jude Law
Jared Leto
Sir David King
James Lovelock
Mark Lynas
Sienna Miller
Barack Obama
Brad Pitt
Jonathan Porritt
Natalie Portman
Robert Redford
Julia Roberts
Susan Sarandon
Sting
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Trudie Styler
Margaret Thatcher
Charlize Theron

[hazlnut]

lol And when we do it and point out the obvious bias of your chosen sources you say it's wrong. You can't have it both ways. :p That's a common LEFTIST argument technique. Would you like to come out of the political closet?

First of all, what obvious bias have you pointed out? I wouldn't want to have it both ways. So, tell me how are the WMO and IPCC bias??

They're a bunch of liberals from Europe who want to bring down the U.S. Really, how do you know this? Cause they're from Europe. All of them? Even the one's from CalTech, NASA, MIT, and all the other top American Universities? They're all liberals, too. And the decades of rigorous peer-reviewed research, that's liberal, too? Their research is all liberal junk science.

Wow, I see you're point. How could I have missed it. The demanding and strict disciplines of scientific research, publishing, and peer-review is really a liberal conspiracy to bring down the U.S. Let me humble myself and now that I'm an expert, let me sign that Oregon Petition thingy...

[hazlnut]

lol And when we do it and point out the obvious bias of your chosen sources you say it's wrong. You can't have it both ways. :p That's a common LEFTIST argument technique. Would you like to come out of the political closet?

Question: Why did you ignore the Newscorp link? They're bias, too?

And... do you ever bother to read the entire post? Out of the closet? I thought I was pretty clear on my position regarding the Dems and government control and regulation...

[FlaGator]

These man made global warming parishioners amuse me to no end. Produce a source they claim it is bunk but any source they produce is unimpeachable Armies of climatologist could claim that man made global warming is fiction and yet they'll cling to the one geology graduate student who says he has evidence.

February 13, 2009
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Testimony
Filed under: Climate Models, Climate Politics —
On Thursday, February 12, 2009, Dr. Patrick J. Michaels provided testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Environment during their hearing “The Climate Crisis: National Security, Public Health, and Economic Threats.”

Dr. MIchaels’ general message was that the recent behavior of global temperatures is starting to push the (lower) bounds of climate models’ expectations of such behavior and that if the current slowdown in the rate of global warming continues for much longer, we must start to question the reliability of climate projections of the future state of our climate.

Some specific quotes from Dr. Michaels

The primary drivers of the impact models are therefore the models for climate change itself. I must report that our models are in the process of failing. When I say that, I mean the ensemble of 21 models used in the midrange projection for climate change by the IPCC. I am an active participant on this Panel, providing extensive reviews and comment on several iterations of their scientific summaries, as well as invited text for their Second Assessment.

If it is demonstrable that these models have failed, then there is no real scientific basis for any estimates of the costs of inaction. I will now perform that demonstration.

Remember this: a climate model is really nothing more than a scientific hypothesis. If a hypothesis is consistent with observations, then it is standard scientific practice to say that such a hypothesis can continue to be entertained. In this case, that hypothesis can then serve as a basis for other subsidiary models or, in reality, subsidiary hypotheses.

One implicit assumption in calculating the “costs of inaction” is that we know with reasonable confidence indeed what climatic changes will ensue as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase. With regard to climate, we often assume a common Washington mantra: with regard to global warming, “the science is settled”.

This demonstration shows how far from the truth this oft-repeated sentence actually is. One can say this. “The science is settled” inasmuch as surface temperatures have increased from the late 1970s. That this is shown in the surface record has not been in dispute, so claiming some finality for such a truism is hardly noteworthy. What is true, however, is that the rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the midrange suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled. In fact, judging from these results, it’s time for climate scientists to get back to work and generate models which will be able to estimate the recent past and present within their normal confidence ranges.

The above references can be found here at World Climate Report

What about the all too familiar cry of the melting of Antartica and how we're all going to have to move to the Rockies or drown?

Antarctic sea ice extent and concentration for January 2009 were up significantly over 1997, 34.8% for ice extent & 22% for ice concentration. Jan 2009 sea ice was also up 23% over 1980.

Source is from GlobalWarmingHoax.com

And yet more commentary

While many planets in our solar system are warming without any human intervention, the Earth has been experiencing dramatic cooling. Last year, dramatic global cooling was measured by all four agencies that track the Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California). It is now estimated that the Earth cooled by about 0.7C in 2007 which is the fastest temperature change on record. In addition, the global cooling trend has continued into the first five months of 2008.

The preceeding was from www.versusview.com

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who said: " 'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak in favor of man made global warming and remove all doubt."

OK, it might have been Hugh Lincoln that said it but it realyl doesn't matter. It's the truth.

[patriot45]

Hey, make up my mind! It was chilly this morning and its hot right now C'mon, cooling or warming ! :D

[patriot45]

Did some digging and found proof of glowball warming! Its true!

[FlaGator]

Did some digging and found proof of glowball warming! Its true!

Or it could signify the direction of the country's morality...

[hazlnut]

These man made global warming parishioners amuse me to no end. Produce a source they claim it is bunk but any source they produce is unimpeachable Armies of climatologist could claim that man made global warming is fiction and yet they'll cling to the one geology graduate student who says he has evidence.

The above references can be found here at World Climate Report

Okay, you want to talk about that hearing, let's talking about it. I suppose if you presented your evidence to someone who didn't watch the hearing or wasn't willing to go to Committee on Energy and Commerce website and review the hearing, your points might seem pretty valid. And, if the person wasn't already familiar with Dr. Michaels and the Cato Institute, they might be convinced that you know what you're talking about. Case closed. The thing is, I'm not that person.

Did you even bother to review the hearing? Or just copy/paste something from some blog...Stop doing that.

Six other people gave testimony. Here some highlights:

1- Gen. Gordon Sullivan (Ret.), President and Chief Operating Officer, Association of the United States Army

First, climate change is a serious threat to our national security. Second, climate change will be what we called a “threat multiplier”. Many areas of the world that will be the hardest hit by climate change impacts are already being stressed by lack of water, lack of food, and political and social unrest.
Adding climate change to this mix will only serve to exacerbate the existing
instabilities. Third, projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the
world. And fourth, that climate change, national security and energy dependence are a
related set of global challenges.

In the two years since I appeared before the Committee, we’ve seen no evidence to
contradict those findings. In fact, we’ve only seen them reinforced.

Dr. Kristie Ebi, Lead Author, Public Health Chapter of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

Climate change poses health risks for U.S. populations, both direct impacts on health as
well as through altering the systems on which human health and well-being depend.
Although data in the U.S. are limited, health impacts due to climate change may already
by occurring, with the magnitude and extent of impacts expected to increase with
increasing climate change. The health risks of current and future climate change in the
U.S. include greater numbers of illnesses and deaths due to (Ebi et al. 2008):
• Increases in the frequency, intensity, and length of heatwaves, with the highest
risks among older adults, those with chronic medical conditions, infants and
children, pregnant women, urban and rural poor, and outdoor workers. With
limited mitigation or adaptation, heat-related mortality is projected to increase
several-fold.
• Increases in the frequency and intensity of other extreme weather events,
including floods, droughts, wildfires, and windstorms, with the risks highest
among the poor, pregnant women, those with chronic medical conditions, and
those with mobility and cognitive constraints. Projecting additional health
burdens is difficult because these events are, by definition, rare. However, the
impacts can be large for single events.

Professor Daniel Schrag, Harvard University

Humans are changing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, mostly
from burning of coal, oil and gas, with deforestation also playing a significant role.
The current level, in excess of 380 parts per million (ppm), is higher than it has
been for at least the last 650,000 years, and perhaps for tens of millions of years.
To put it differently, we are experiencing higher CO2 levels now than any human
being has ever seen in the history of the earth

Dr. Frank Ackerman, Stockholm Environment Institute U.S. Center, Tufts University

Damages that will result from inaction include (but are not limited to):
• the impacts of increasingly severe hurricanes
• more coastal property at risk from rising sea levels and storm surges
• increased energy costs for air conditioning as temperatures rise
• growing scarcity and rising costs for water
• losses in agriculture due to hotter and drier conditions
• losses of tourism revenue as weather conditions worsen

And, yes, of course, the good Dr. Michaels made an appearance....You've already quoted what he said in his sworn statement, so let's just get some more background on this man of science, shall we...

Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels. A furor was raised when it was revealed in 2006 that, at customer expense, Patrick Michaels was quietly paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association.

Michaels was previously a Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virgina. While Michaels referred to himself as the State Climatologist for Virginia, in August 2006 the Governor clarified that the appointment was one by the University for its accredited climatology office but not an appointment by the state administration.

And what does the scientific community think of Michaels??

Peter Gleick, president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security:

"Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence."

Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University:

"Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."

Dr. Tom Wigley, lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climate scientists:

"Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."

And an article in the journal Social Epistemology concluded

"...the observations upon which Patrick Michaels draws his case are not good enough to bear the weight of the argument he wishes to make."

[JB]

I think I'll go start a tire fire.