Tuesday, March 25, 2008

The Earth is Cooling!!!

One of my hobbies, as you all know, is listening to right wing talk radio. Especially when they mumble about global warming. Today was an interesting day in the news because there was a gigantic ice shelf which collapsed off of Antarctica that experts attribute to GW (one denier I debate actually said that this was evidence against AGW because the earth was warming more at the poles and not everywhere equally). One scientist predicted that this shelf would break off in 30 years at current warming rates. He said that around 10 years ago. He was too conservative in his estimate by around 20 years.

Another news stories was how Lake Tahoe is expected to change and lose it's crystal blue color due to warming. I pictured Rush Limbaugh at the yearly golf tournement there trying to explain how the Liberals ruined the water.

But the funniest thing I am hearing lately on right wing talk radio is how global warming has stopped, thus disproving the theory of anthropogenic causes. You won't find this claim anywhere other than right wing talk radio and right wing news. Why? Because it's fucking laughable. This winter has in fact been the coldest one in a number of years, partly due to La Nina. What they forget to mention is that it is still something like the 16th warmest winter this century.

But this same shit has happened before. They never learn their lesson and they prey off the ignorance of their listeners. Take a look at the graph below:

The talk radio host I heard today coming home from work was going on and on about the incredible cold snap, and the media conspiracy not to mention it as overwhelming evidence of the failure of global warming theory.
The fact is that the same thing happened in 1982, 1991-1992, 1999-2000 during the period of the most accelerated warming! EVERY TIME the warming came back stronger than ever, as can clearly be seen on the graph.
These fucking people can't even understand basic elementary school trend analysis for Christ's sake. If every year isn't substantially warmer than the one before, that's perfect evidence for them and their beliefs.
Nothing stops these people from misinforming the public. They are just like the creationists (wait, many of them are the creationists). Their hypocrisy knows no limits. And once again, I just can't believe I live in a world full of this many stupid and brainwashed people.


Anonymous said...

Whoa there, genius boy! How does a biology major become a world class expert in meteorolgy? Sorry you have to live in a world of idiots. So now global warming is global cooling. Whatever. Hey, I heard that Chris Hitchin's took a right turn, and Ben Stein has a new movie out called "Expelled."
It documents how teachers and scientists alike are being ridiculed daily, denied tenure and even fired believing there is evidence of "design" in nature and challenging the current orthodoxy that life is entirely a result of random chance.

For example, Stein meets Richard Sternberg, a double Ph.D. biologist who allowed a peer-reviewed research paper describing the evidence for intelligence in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings. Shortly after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution, where Sternberg was a research fellow, began a coordinated smear-and-intimidation campaign to get the promising young scientist fired. The attack on scientific freedom was so egregious that it prompted a congressional investigation.

In the film, Stein meets other scientists like astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure at Iowa State University in spite of an extraordinary record of achievement. Gonzalez made the mistake of documenting the design he has observed in the universe. And there are others, like Caroline Crocker, a brilliant biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university for briefly discussing problems with Darwinian theory and for telling the students that some scientists believe there is evidence of design in the universe.

Unlike other popular documentary films, "Expelled" isn't one-sided – it confronts scientists like Oxford evolutionist Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," influential biologist and atheist blogger P.Z. Myers, and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education. In fact, the creators of "Expelled" spent two years traveling the world and interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers and public leaders for the film.

According to the New York Times, Dawkins, Scott and other evolutionists are now claiming the film's producers deceived them into going on camera by hiding the "Intelligent Design" orientation of the film.

But Stein denies misleading anyone. "I don't remember a single person asking me what the movie was about," he told the Times.

In the end, say the film's publicists, the production delivers to viewers "a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly funded high schools, universities and research institutions."

"The incredible thing about 'Expelled' is that we don't resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the 'shock effect,' something that has become common in documentary film these days," said Walt Ruloff, co-founder of Premise Media and the film's co-executive producer. "People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale. Premise Media took on this difficult mission because we believe the greatest asset of humanity is our freedom to explore and discover truth."

Sounds like you boys are in for a serious pounding}:-

Aaron said...

Yes, in fact I do feel like a genius when I converse with you.

Christopher Hitchens hasn't changed his mind about anything I'm aware of in years. I respect his opinions about everything, but don't agree with everything he says. Interesting you would bring him up in this context, since he is more emphatically opposed to your beliefs than I am.

Did you watch Charlie Rose recently? Shell oil company says "the debate is over" concerning anthropogenic global warming, and they refuse to even acknowledge those who deny it. Looks like your head is firmly up your ass on this one when the oil companies and the republican candidates don't even buy into that BS anymore. Keep straightening those deck chairs on your Titanic. How does it feel to be part of one of the greatest problems in the history of humankind? What a life well spent.

It is infinitely amusing listening to Limbaugh, Beck, and all their duplicitous duplicates dig their graves deeper and deeper. Their religion of right wing economics is more important for them to defend than the planet itself. Go figure.

I have known about Stein's film for a long time now because Richard Dawkins was tricked into being a part of it. Archskeptic Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine (BTW, who was once outspokenly skeptical about anthropogenic global warming but has since changed his mind and now accepts it due to the overwhelming evidence) relates how the interviewers tried desperately to get him to say specific things he had no intention of saying.

Dawkins and Meyers came to attend an early showing of the movie. Meyers was asked by the film producers to leave the theater during an open public showing for no reason, despite the fact that Meyers was in the film and was thanked for being in the film in the credits! Apparently they didn't see Dawkins standing there also, who got to watch the movie and said it sucked and was pitiful with low production values. All this, when the theme of the movie is about the blackballing of people with opposing views. What hypocrisy.

You can see the interview of Meyers and Dawkins discussing the events at the theater and the film here:


You can read an overview here:


Unanimous opinion from the good guys, the elite scientists (the best in the field) is that the film is a joke. Which is no surprise because it would be very difficult to make a good film on such a fringe viewpoint which has no real science, or even a testable hypothesis to go by. It's easy to cherry pick a handful of people from academia who support the discovery institute and have them bellyache on camera. And who better than right wing economist and game show host Ben Stein. Wow.

In the end, if supporters of ID want to be acknowledged more by the scientific community, they need to come up with a testable hypothesis. Without one, there's no science. These are people, like yourself, who simply insist that nature is designed intelligently and have no way to test such an idea. Every time they come up with some argument like irreducible complexity of flagella motors or blood clotting cascades, their case is shut down by evidence. Then they simply invent something else and come back again like a stomped on weed as if nothing ever happened. The perfect example is the Dover trial where the conservative judge ruled against the intelligent design proponents. He not only ruled against them, but he openly denounced their disingenuous and misleading tactics as reprehensible. One of them was almost seriously charged for lying to the court in his attempt to defend crap "science".

Keep digging Mike. It's sad and amusing. Your religion of far right political ideology has blinded you from obvious realities.

Aaron said...

Concluding Thoughts from Josh Timonen

"Expelled seems to mark a shift in the Creationists' tactics. Everything they've tried to do so far has failed, so now they're trying to claim it's a conspiracy. 'Big Science is trying to keep God out of the classroom, and you'd better do something about it fast or we're going to have another Holocaust!' Of course, god-did-it is not science, but I don't think this matters to the film's target audience. Expelled is simply a rallying call to religious Americans. It will probably be shown in church basements, and will further insulate those who fear the seed of doubt. The film's message is so appalling (teaching evolution = the Holocaust) and is presented so crudely that any sane person will see it for the propaganda it is. There was virtually no real scientific content, and I felt stupider for having sat through it. "

upinVermont said...


For hundreds of years, conservative forces in the Church immolated anyone who insisted that the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

For centuries crackpots denied that the earth was round. The last flat-earth association, to my knowledge, disbanded in the 1990's.

I can't think of a single scientific discovery of any significance that hasn't been denigrated by some crackpot. Even the washing of hands, and hundreds of postpartum women died for it.

There have always been crackpots and there will always be crackpots. Know why? Because there will always be people like you, Mike, who are gullible enough to believe them.

Unlike Aaron, I just can't be bothered to respond to your blather. Educate yourself. I can't be bothered to do it for you.

Every piece of evidence is out there. Just get through your ideological backwash and you'll see it.

Anonymous said...

I get it now. It was obviously Republican's driving their suv's which melted the last several ice ages, and the 11,500 year cycle of the "Procession of the Equinoxes" and the Malakovich Wobble are merely science fiction. I feel much better knowing you guys have the real facts in your box along with Michael Moore and The Daily Koz. I'll contact all the fake PhD scientists who disagree with man made global warming/cooling and tell them about what you two believe so they'll stop insisting that maybe Gore and co. are just in it for the money. Did I mention that Gore was flat broke when he left office, but now he has $10 million from selling carbon credits among other things. Good thing that only real heroes like Gore and Arafat get the Nobel prize. I would'nt want any terrorists or phonies to get such an award. Geez. Gore's own home state didn't even vote for him in 2000, so I'm glad some Europeans felt sorry enough for him to give him a prize. Oh, yea, I do feel pretty bad that you refuse to educate me, Pat, since you know so much about the TRUTH, huh?
So guys, how does it feel to have people plastering stuff like this all over your list? Sucks, don't it}:-

Anonymous said...

A warming trend proves global warming, now a cooling trend also proves same. This type of reasoning is commonly referred to as "madness." Not to be unexpected from people who reject the most famous man in human histroy, yet embrace the biggest hoax in human history. Here is a link from some fake PhD's who will provide proof of why your meterological fly is unzipped.
Maybe you can contact them and "educate" them as well, huh?


Aaron said...

Basically, by linking to this relatively tiny list of "scientists" (are they all climatologists or mere weathermen like Coleman?), you are saying to me that as long as there remains one human being standing on this earth with a science degree who is skeptical, you'll be on board.

Your list is less than a mole-hill compared to this mountain. I have almost as many whole societies as you have individuals.

1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
1.2 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
1.3 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
1.5 InterAcademy Council
1.6 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
1.7 Network of African Science Academies
1.8 U.S. National Research Council, 2001
1.9 American Meteorological Society
1.10 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
1.11 World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
1.12 American Geophysical Union
1.13 American Institute of Physics
1.14 American Astronomical Society
1.15 American Physical Society
1.16 Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
1.17 National Center for Atmospheric Research
1.18 American Association for the Advancement of Science
1.19 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
1.20 American Quaternary Association
1.21 Geological Society of America
1.22 American Chemical Society
1.23 Federation of American Scientists
1.24 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
1.25 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.26 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.27 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
1.28 European Geosciences Union
1.29 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
1.30 International Union of Geological Sciences
1.31 International Council for Science
1.32 European Science Foundation

Rush Limbaugh versus the world.

It's a losing poker hand Mike, and I'm fascinated with why you continue playing it. Who is to say that the list of people you gave still even believe what they originally stated? More evidence has accumulated since the first time I saw that list a long time ago.

Real skeptics like Michal Shermer- founder of skeptic magazine, have already changed their tunes. He started out skeptical and looked at the data and agreed with concensus. Newt Gingrich agrees, all the republican candidates agreed (except for grandpa Thompson maybe). You are severely brainwashed. Your arguments about volcanoes and sunspots are ridiculous.

Look at this graph for fuck sake. We are in a trough for sunspot activity and the temperature went up. Do you think that scientists are so stupid that they haven't already considered all your lame conspiracy theories? They thought about it already and studied it and realized in masse that it was utter horseshit. All you can do now is cry out about Al Gore and how it's a big left wing conspiracy.

Your arguments are different today than they were 4 years ago which shows that you are completely committed to finding news ways to deny reality. The ignorance of your supposed evidence betrays the fact that you have not seriously looked at the opinions of the masses of the elite scientists who all agree, but the fringe piddly bullshit scattered across the internet from skeptics with outdated and misleading info that nobody of any standing takes seriously anymore. Of course, the internet is great for giving people access to "proof" for anything they already wish to believe. All thats changed in the years since we started this debate is that more people agree with me, and less with you. And this has been due to accumulating evidence. Even Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh don't bother talking about it as much as they used to and they are starting to hedge their bets, because they know their wrong. But they know shills like yourself will suck the pablum from the orifices of their asscracks.

upinVermont said...

//Oh, yea, I do feel pretty bad that you refuse to educate me, Pat, since you know so much about the TRUTH, huh?//


Don't flatter yourself.

It's just a question of your ignorance. It's not a matter of anybody knowing the TRUTH, it's just that you're gullible and a strident hypocrite as well.

You, who used to posture and get teary eyed when talking vegetarianism. Oh... how you loved the tender-hearted eyes of cows. And yet species after species is going extinct as a result of *us* pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

And where's Mike?

Mike who? He's AWOL. He's the ideologue who would rather see an ocean of species go down the drain before he gives up one iota of his ideological pride and arrogance - all while he righteously eats his Tofu.

Feel good, Mike, being a vegetarian? -- while all the frogs in Borneo boil in their skin?

You're a classic hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

Gee whiz, a peeing contest. OK, it's my turn, but I gotta warn you, mine's bigger}:-

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2007-- A new analysis of
peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have
published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global
warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a
natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen
global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our
Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.
"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that
a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global
temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow
Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise
importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder
with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that
human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many
people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies
are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and
Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media
attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as
global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is
there for all to see."

The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer,
the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500
Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The
researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites,
lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and

"We've had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a
moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have
never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the
other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle
averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million
years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the
trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm
periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark
Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost,
widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus
of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models
only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of
the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not
caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals
only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year
record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and
thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the
Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The
physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and
pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice
cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been
analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures
during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must
have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S.
Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that
grew above today's tree line.

Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the
telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot
cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated
that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of
the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying
small variations in the intensity of the sun.

Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional
peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will
publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that
their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without
any corporate contributions.

Anonymous said...

Hey Pat, yea, I still refuse to have innocent animals mercilessly slaughtered merely to satisfy my tongue. Hypocrite? Your conclusion is BEYOND hubris, and if you had ANY IDEA whatsoever how meat consumption contributed to the depletion of rain forests for ranching and how much of our valable resources are consumed to produce pretty packages of meat you so convieniently purchase at your grocery store while listening to "symphonic Pink Floyd" muzak, you would shut your piehole and stop feasting on blood.

You two really don't get it, do you?
I'm not debating you,I'm PRACTICING on you, and I'm almost finished. I can promise you proof of what your'e wrong on and how your'e wrong about it, and now that you stuck your pathetic little prick out regarding meat consumption, I have yet another subject which needs attention, and I didn't even bring it up, YOU did. Hypocrite? You DEFINE the word!

Fact: One of the biggest sources
of global pollution is corporate pigfarms and cattle ranches.

Fact: We are daily losing our precious rain forests to livestock ranches.

Fact: animals are brutally slaughtered in ways you can't imagine and suffer unbelievable misery in the name of corporate hambuger clowns and golden parachutes for McCEO's. Enjoy your flesh feast, boys}:-

Aaron said...

Mike, you're such a bleeding heart liberal. Haven't you read your bible? God put the animals here for us to subdue and make food with. Why do you think so many things taste just like chicken?

Aaron said...


your solar radiance pet theory has been utterly refuted. Almost NOBODY in the climate science community believes this anymore. That is not an opinion but a fact. This debate is dead and you are drawing from old information. Now what? You have already been proven wrong but you don't realize it. If not solar irradiance then what? When faced with real science, your conspiracy theories force you to either fold or continue lying to yourself. I already referenced the report in a prior message. Here it is again:


"A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change. "

"It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen. "

"The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures."

The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.

"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

Cosmic relief

upinVermont said...

//I still refuse to have innocent animals mercilessly slaughtered merely to satisfy my tongue.//

And in your entire response not a word about the thousands of species that are going extinct. It's called global climate change. All you do is thump your chest and posture over your vegetarianism. You're a piece of work Mike - a classic hypocrite.

Aaron said...

Update Mike. In case you didn't believe me the first time. There was a new report in the news just last thursday:


"Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity. "

"The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.

But UK scientists found there has been no significant link between cosmic rays and cloudiness in the last 20 years. "

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its vast assessment of climate science last year, concluded that since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s, the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed that of solar variability by a factor of about 13 to one. "

Once again I ask you, now what? What will you come up with next?