published Saturday, February 13th, 2010

Global Warming

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

55
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Clara said...

There are many reasons for global warming.

One or two of them could be a slight wobble in the axis of either the sun or the earth or both of them. It could take 10 years for either wobble to correct, or 10,000 years...or longer.

That the earth is acting somewhat strangely as to its meteorological aspect. The high CO2 emissions, plus other pollution could indeed, with the presence of the wobble, cause the problem.

The ice cap and glaciers WERE/ARE melting at a rapid rate. I haven't heard whether it stopped with the cold weather we had. I haven't heard whether the Ozone Hole over the Antarctic has closed in.

Perhaps it was just a meteorological oddity that Vancouver had to truck in snow for these Olympics.

I do know that deforestation over the entire world is also an influence.

The fact that some scientists "cheated", perhaps for the notoriety, doesn't take away the problem.

I am neither a scientist or meteorologist and I'm just giving my viewpoint.

There have been scientists and their assistants, enough to question all claims by other scientists, that have displayed an eagerness to present false and improper scientific endeavors to gain credence.

I certainly don't think the questions and problems have yet been answered or solved.

One problem is the over-production of humans and their wants, not their needs.

Time will tell!

February 13, 2010 at 1:37 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

"Don't answer that."

Why not?

Somebody better.

Does "Don't" mean "I can't"?

Answer a stupid question, maybe you can stop the stupidity.

A statistic is a collection of anecdotes, and the current local anecdotes do not exactly support global warming.

February 13, 2010 at 6:14 a.m.

Global climate change cannot be proven or dis-proven with the meager empirical evidence scientists have collected to date. Claiming arbitrary weather events do so (which both sides are doing) is just silly.

As Clara states, we are doing damage to our environment. Is the climate change hype warranted or accurate? It's hard to say at this point. It is difficult to imagine that sustained pollution and over-consumption of resources will not have long-term effects on the environment.

February 13, 2010 at 7:40 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Did you hear? It rained in the desert today... Yay! No more desert terrains!!

Time to go plow a dune for a garden...

February 13, 2010 at 7:52 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Never mind that it is wintertime. This is not an important point to the deniers of the greenhouse effect.

February 13, 2010 at 8:14 a.m.
Walden said...

It's gotta be tough for you lefties out there. I mean, in the last year, you have witnessed the thorough debunking of your very religion (global warming), and the unmasking of your messiah (Barry Hussein). Cartoons like this are nothing more than futile death throes, like so many cattle heading to slaughter. I almost feel sorry for the left right now.

February 13, 2010 at 8:45 a.m.
woody said...

Well said, Clara. A lot more diplomatic than I or many others could or would have done. For whatever reason, and I am at a loss to totally figure it out, the whole concept of "Global Warming" went into a deep tailspin because Al Gore took up the cause.

Why? Al is well-educated, was a great senatorial representative of the even greater state of Tennessee and was then asked to serve as the vice-president under Bill Clinton. Now, take away his political affiliations and you still have a well-educated, not to mention, concerned inhabitant of this planet.

If, for some reason, you are still unconvinced (likely, a Flat Earth theorist, as well), keep living your life as you wish. It is also likely, many of us won't be around long enough to actually discover if we were right or wrong.

But don't disavow the message, just because you may not necessarily see eye-to-eye with the messenger. That's just spiteful.

(A slight aside to one and all who visit here; a good friend of mine was airlifted to Erlanger on Friday. His doctor didn't give us much hope. I pray he is wrong, and ask for your prayers as well. Thank you.)

Happy Valentine's Day to everyone, Woody

February 13, 2010 at 8:47 a.m.
OllieH said...

Walden- Maybe you should get out your shovel. And you better make it a BIG one. You say Global Warming has been thoroughly debunked and Barack Obama has been unmasked? What does that even mean?

Oh, it probably just mean that Rush Limbaugh said those things this week on his radio show.

Never mind.

February 13, 2010 at 9:34 a.m.
librul said...

Ignorance based on Fox News or scientific facts based on years of observation ... you choose. As stated in the popular YouTube series "Climate Change Deniers Crock Of The Week," when you look outside at a foot of snow - that's WEATHER. Weather varies and is subject to a variety of factors, chiefly ocean temperatures and movement of air masses. The fact that Chattanooga has had several snow events in the past few weeks only proves that conditions have existed several times to produce frozen precipitation in your yard. When you take into account that your yard is a microdot located on a continent covering 2 percent of the world's land mass and that, while your half of that continent has been colder than usual this season while the western half has experienced unprecedented warm temperatures, i.e. they're having to truck in snow to the winter olympics IN CANADA, that's CLIMATE. Statistics over the years since 1880 when instruments started recording climate data show incontrovertible evidence of climate change reflected in warming temperatures, especially in the arctic polar region. Ice cores from thousands of years ago greatly expand our ability to analyze trends. The deniers can throw all the curveballs they want, but nature bats last. Humans probably will not still be around, but science already knows that when the sun enters its red giant phase, everything we have ever known will go poof and become space dust ... deal with it.

February 13, 2010 at 9:40 a.m.
OllieH said...

I have a question for you, AndrewLohr.

You don't seem to buy into the science that supports the theory of global warming.

What's your position on all of the anecdotal evidence that supports the theory of human evolution?

February 13, 2010 at 9:44 a.m.
EaTn said...

For people who live in one of the most polluted parts of the country, the Tennessee Valley, you'd think we wouldn't watch Fox, Limbaugh or whoever to get pundits to tell us about pollution and global warming/cooling. This area is know as the place to be for the allergy and asthma doctors, so my concern is not what affect pollution is having on the weather, but what are we doing to our kids and grandkids right now?

February 13, 2010 at 10:09 a.m.
toonfan said...

Walden-

I too, was struck by your peculiar take on reality. Global warming has been debunked? How did I miss this news?

The latest figures I've read indicate that the past decade was the warmest in history. NASA (that hotbed of socialist propaganda) studied of the planet's surface temperatures and found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880 (when modern temperature measurement began). The warmest year on record being 2005 and the other hottest recorded years have all occurred since 1998.

A separate analysis of measurements taken on land and sea by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (another radical fringe group), found that 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record. The NOAA study concurs with the the NASA report, that the last 10 years have been the warmest decade ever measured.

And despite the recent rash of cold and winter storms (due mainly to this year's intense El Nino conditions), this past January was the warmest on record. Satellite measurements from a study by the University of Alabama in Huntville (a front group for Greenpeace, no doubt) support this conclusion with January, 2010 being the warmest in its 32-year data record.

But I guess all of this doesn't matter since a few suspicious sounding e-mails on global warming throws the whole theory into doubt. This is not anecdotal evidence, as AndrewLohr describes it. This is research by thousands of scientists worldwide that supports a theory that you folks don't want to believe because combatting it might take a few bucks out of your pocket.

Believe what you want, but please don't condemn the rest of the world to the grim prospects of doing nothing because you don't trust the opinions of the overwhelming majority of experts in this field. Please, don't base our future on the expertise of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Because as far as I know, not one of those pompous blowhards has the seal of approval from the American Meteorological Society.

February 13, 2010 at 10:51 a.m.
OllieH said...

AndrewLohr writes-"Don't answer that. Why not? Somebody better."

What is the guy in the cartoon (obviously a global warming denier) shoveling?

Well, it's a four-letter word that starts with 'S'. (hint: the word is not 'snow')

February 13, 2010 at 11 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Andrew & Walden- "Global warming is a collection of anecdotes" and "thoroughly debunked"? Please explain because I did not know this.
The greenhouse effect was put forth nearly 200 years ago by Joseph Fourier. CO2 measurements have increased dramatically and can be proven by ice core data for the last 800,000 years (yes, that means the earth is older than 6000 years). Other measurements from observatories show a steady increase over the last several decades. CO2 levels for 2009 are about 383 ppm. The lowest ice core figures were at 180 ppm. In 1960, it was 313 ppm.

What facts do you have to refute the greenhouse effect taking place on our planet? Just because it snowed at your home does not mean or disprove anything.

February 13, 2010 at 11:37 a.m.
Walden said...

I'll concede that debunked may be a bit of a stretch, but the science is far from settled.

February 13, 2010 at 11:48 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Okay, thank you, Walden.

February 13, 2010 at 12:04 p.m.
Sailorman said...

A suggestion - look back in the archives for a discussion between ScottyM and another person about global warming - intelligent and well presented from sides.

February 13, 2010 at 12:19 p.m.
Cheezy said...

Scotty will be "beaming" in later. Working his tail off lately. Glad yall are here....it gives my ears a rest every now and then. Smiling greatly right now. Scotty's wife

February 13, 2010 at 12:26 p.m.
alprova said...

Folks, what everyone seems to never understand is that all evidence presented has never been offered as FACT. Global warming, or man-made or caused climatic changes are THEORIES and presented as such in the scientific world.

That, combined with the FACT that just about all of the studies presented, claiming that warming exists were bought and paid for by the United Nations, is enough reason for myself and others to cast a dubious eye upon them.

If this were not enough, the FACT that the United Nations is pushing hard to collect various taxes from Americans, seals the deal in my opinion that this entire thing is a rouse to distribute worldwide wealth, or to transform the United Nations to a superpower of some sort, free from the support of the United States.

Common sense things done to reduce pollution and waste are one thing. Forcing a country to pay money for a masked global financial cause is another.

I'm always open to viewing any independent CREDIBLE evidence that is not tied to the United Nations, but to date, not one person has been able to cough it up.

Someone stated that global warming is a liberal cause. That may be true to some extent, but not all Liberals are on board with all that encompasses the issue.

I know Conservatives who are just as "green" as most Liberals are thought to be, and vise-versa.

February 13, 2010 at 12:45 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Points well made alprova

February 13, 2010 at 12:51 p.m.
rolando said...

And true, to boot.

February 13, 2010 at 1:47 p.m.
Clara said...

Thank you Toonfan, on the 10:51am comment.

Now, if you could explain more clearly than I can about the Ozone Layer not being a "layer" of measurable depth, but only an approximation of the content of Ozone molecules in a 3 dimensional area, I'd appreciate it. It would explain what is meant by the "Hole" over the Antarctic.

I guess it would be easier if we could draw the problem.

Alprova, I had no idea that Global Warming was being studied only by the United Nations. I also don't understand the finances. Does this come under one of the United Nations departments, and which one.

Thanks!

February 13, 2010 at 1:55 p.m.
JohnnyRingo said...

Best. Cartoon. Ever.

February 13, 2010 at 2:23 p.m.
Clara said...

I just ran across this article on a book that is sort of a sidelight to this cartoon. It is lengthy but informative about the demise of all life on this planet, in some millions of years, and why.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0212/The-Medea-Hypothesis-A-response-to-the-Gaia-hypothesis

I'm not endorsing it, just presenting it as comment.

February 13, 2010 at 2:35 p.m.
rolando said...

Clara...uh...you are aware that Ward, the author of your cited book, is saying that we must increase our carbon footprint and release more carbon into the biosphere to ward off "snowball Earth" and thus avoid global cooling and the subsequent extinction of life on Earth, right?

That is the antithesis of the global warmers' argument. And here I thought you supported the global warming hypothesis... Sorry.

February 13, 2010 at 4:38 p.m.
Clara said...

"I'm not endorsing it, just presenting it as comment."

You obviously did not read my first post here!

Sheesh!

February 13, 2010 at 5:02 p.m.
alprova said...

Clara wrote: "Alprova, I had no idea that Global Warming was being studied only by the United Nations. I also don't understand the finances. Does this come under one of the United Nations departments, and which one."

I could post explanations, but there is a must read article on the subject that digests my stance rather well. It was written last year.

http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm

February 13, 2010 at 5:12 p.m.
alprova said...
February 13, 2010 at 5:35 p.m.
alprova said...

And another just published article denouncing IPCC:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE61C1V920100213

February 13, 2010 at 5:56 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

The Aussie's are having a heatwave. U.S. is having a snow storm. Conclusion, there is no 'GLOBAL' warming because we're cold.

Personal, I don't know and I don't care.

February 13, 2010 at 6:21 p.m.
rolando said...

Yes, Clara, I read your previous post [your third, actually]. I read most all of your posts. Your first one up there sure read as supportive of the global warming hypothesis...but perhaps I misread.

So then you are supportive...or not? Un-committed, perhaps? To post something and then step away from it is a bit unusual, but then ladies always have the right to change their minds...as do men, its, and undecideds [to cover all the bases in the interests of sexual equality].

"I'm not endorsing it, just presenting it as comment." is a pretty easy out.

"Sheesh" Unquote.

February 13, 2010 at 7:08 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

alprova,

Good links. In Europe, the IPCC's credibility is shot. The only reason we still have so many believers here in the U.S. is because of the media blackout of the controversies and scandals swirling around the ringleaders of this farce.

With the censoring of information by everyone's favorite search provider (Google), and the media's complicity, I actually feel kinda sorry for all the non-ideological types who are being taken in by this hoax due to a lack of information.


Here is my favorite graph...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif That is the "Adjusted" temps minus the "raw" temps. In other words, that graph shows the adjustment made to the official temperature numbers being distributed by NOAA.

One is well advised to bear in mind that all those claims of rising temperatures are based upon "adjusted data".

Those "hottest year" claims are crap as well. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000

I'm especially enjoying the wackos who are claiming that all the snow is "consistent" with AGW, while the lack of snow at the Olympics is also "consistent" with AGW. This exposes the fact that no matter what happens weather-wise they will claim it is "consistent" with AGW. A theory which is not falsifiable is not science, it is religion.

As for the "weather is not climate" argument, well that is sort of right, as individual weather events don't have much of an effect on overall climate trends. However, climate most assuredly IS a statistical construct comprised of weather data compiled over various time scales. Saying "weather is not climate" is much the same as saying that the grades you receive in individual classes is not your GPA. It's true in the strictest sense but the latter is comprised solely upon a collection of the former.

February 13, 2010 at 7:39 p.m.
Clara said...

Alprova,

The link was broken to the American Policy Center. I tried getting it several times and kept losing the CTFP and got the site once. I tried to respond but when I went back to check some points it was lost.

I looked up the Center and found their home page opening statement was:

"The American Policy Center (APC) is a far-right wing think tank run by PR man Tom DeWeese. The APC, which is based in Washington D.C., describes itself as a "privately funded, nonprofit, 501 c (4), tax-exempt grassroots action and education foundation dedicated to the promotion of free enterprise and limited government regulations over commerce and individuals."[1] APC states that it "focuses on the issues of environmental policy and its effect on private property rights; national federal computer data banks and their effect on individual privacy rights; the United Nations and its effect on American national sovereignty; and federal education policy and its effect on local schools and parental rights."[1]

The quick run-through I managed to make of the article convinced me that its entire purpose was to eliminate the possibility of Global Warming from consideration so that the large corporations would not lose their right to continue their anti-environmental production, and hand their manufacturing to Third World Companies who would have no environmental restrictions placed on them.

As I said, I could not return to the site.

I just haven't time to study the impact of the other two articles. It takes me forever, and I keep losing the CTFP.

I'm trying to be open-minded about the controversy.

I'm just trying to get across that global warming IS a great possibility, which can be caused by many factors besides CO2.

These were interesting articles, and I thank you for the time you've taken to pass them on. Lots of it was an eye-opener.

February 13, 2010 at 10:31 p.m.
Walden said...

Sorry to recycle commentary, but this is what I posted last summer. Still holds... I was responding to an observation made by our lefty friend EaTn...

"EaTn - I agree with your observation. I'm in my early 40's, and I recall much more snow as a youngster than what we receive today. Regarding the summers, they seem to have been drier recently, but this summer seems pretty "normal" to me. The real point is whether or not these apparent deviations from what we remember as children are caused by man, or are just a natural ebb and flow of planetary climate conditions. I for one believe that it is presumptious for us to assume climate changes are necessarily man caused (anthropogenic if you prefer). The science is not settled, despite what nutjobs like Al Gore would have us believe. The Left has performed a mighty spin job around this issue in order to attempt to enact legislation that would greatly harm US competitiveness on the worldwide playing field. You do realize that for the last 10 years global temperatures have actually cooled?? Don't believe everything you see on CNN and NBC Nightly News. I challenge you to read the dissenting views on these matters, and do not immediately run to the Leftist position of calling those of us who are skeptical about Al Gore's rants "deniers." Lastly, I do believe we pollute our planet too much - my particular concern is deforestation - not just in the Amazon, but next door, in our back yard. Trees are very important, and we need to quit cutting them down as fast as we can to build another freaking parking lot. I also believe in eating local foods when possible. I actually buy into the idea that the cost of shipping tomatoes (for example) from the southern hemisphere to TN in January is not worth the "pleasure" of eating a crappy non-homegrown fruit in the winter. We can and should all do things to limit our impact on the planet, but what we should not do is run hysterically towards anticompetitive legislation based on hype, spin, and unsettled science."

February 13, 2010 at 11:29 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

I am wondering why it is so important to prove or disprove climate change that may be caused by global warming?

February 13, 2010 at 11:51 p.m.
Clara said...

I'll be getting back at you men! C:-)

February 14, 2010 at 3:49 a.m.
una61 said...

Unfortunately, Global Warming has become an international "Tragedy of the Commons". Governments of the world, acting in their own self-interests are, over time, degrading their shared resource; OUR Environment.

Global Climate Analysis from NOAA as of Jan. 2010:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global

February 14, 2010 at 9:43 a.m.
samuelduck said...

I have been studying meteorology at one level or another for about 25 years. I've studies astronomy much of that time. Here is a paper I wrote on the subject. I ask at least one skeptic of global warming and one supporter of global warming to read this and post what you think. http://www.duck4gov.com/blog/environm... This paper is 18 pages long, so it's worth a teaser to get you to read it. I am the only person I know of who has made a link between the subsurface solar jet streams and global climate. I even offer a counter argument to the effect of rotational velocity of the sun and sunspot activity. I also investigate a paper from the Council of Foreign Relations on this subject. I think it is safe to say, you will not see a paper like this written by any other candidate in this race.

February 14, 2010 at 2:44 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

samuelduck,

Linky no worky.

"The requested URL /blog/environm was not found on this server."

Try it again, I'll give you a read when I can.


una61,

You aparrently missed my link to NOAA's "adjustments" above. Any organization which would distort data in such a way as to bolster their preconceived ideas has ZERO credibility. NOAA is part of the problem, as they are not engaged in science.


SavartiTN,

There are a few trillion reasons to shove this line of bull back into the stupidhole from which it emanates.

February 14, 2010 at 5:42 p.m.
rolando said...

Well, here it is; exactly what reasonable people [non-ChickenLittlers] have been saying since day one. Read it and weep all you Liberal/Progressive global warmers...

CLIMATEGATE U-TURN AS SCIENTIST AT CENTRE OF ROW ADMITS: THERE HAS BEEN NO GLOBAL WARMING SINCE 1995.

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

It was HIS falsified or "doctored" raw data used in ALL UN and US doubletalk against industry.

Not only that but the professor has LOST the data supporting his infamous "hockey stick" graph! Ya think it even existed to begin with??

I love these Liberal fools who trust anything anyone says that can be used in their "hate America" campaign...that includes Dear Leader and his socialistic everything abuses of constitutional authority.

February 14, 2010 at 8:13 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

rolando wrote,

"Not only that but the professor has LOST the data supporting his infamous "hockey stick" graph! Ya think it even existed to begin with??"

Oh I'm sure something existed, I'm also pretty confident that the data was intentionally destroyed as the man you are speaking of, "Dr.the Data" Jones wrote in an e-mail that he'd rather do so than release it anyway.

From the whistleblower data packet I have stored on a local drive, relevant portion delineated by me with forward slashes:

Document 1107454306.txt

"At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote: Mike,I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc!Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years.

/////If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.///// Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries(sic) within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that..... "

These folks were going WAY out of the way to keep their data confidential. This is a dead giveaway that shenanigans are going on.

In my line of work, if I were to be so sloppy with records, and not share my data when requested by other involved parties, my business would evaporate, my company's reputation would be lost, and I might face criminal charges.

Governments are/were ready to enact trillions of dollars worth of taxes based on the claims of these clowns, and according to their own words they have poor organizational skills and cannot keep up with their own records.

That this has been allowed to proceed is totally mind boggling.

February 14, 2010 at 9:19 p.m.
rolando said...

Here's a thought -- When The Revolution comes [never thought _I_ would say that. lol] we will need a Voice directing it. An offshore transmitter would work as would Sirius, etc. Perhaps even a government-in-exile. "Rally 'Round The Flag Boys!"

Think that comment will get me on Big Sis' Watch List? Just fulfilling my Declaration of Independence mandated duties, Ma'am. No, I have no Iraq combat time.

February 14, 2010 at 9:35 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

I'm sure I'm on some lists as well rol.

What they don't realize, is that some of us keep lists as well.

February 14, 2010 at 9:41 p.m.
Max said...

After all the blather I have yet to hear a reasoned, logical and believable theory as to why those who are trying to do something about our changing climate would be deliberately lying about the science.

February 14, 2010 at 11:57 p.m.
amazonmuze said...

ummm..warmer oceans would put more moisture in the air and there would be more snow..unless those pesky scientists lied...

February 15, 2010 at 12:56 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Max,

First, you are starting from the assumption that: A: There is something unusual about our present climate. There is ZERO evidence to support this assumption. B: Humans are causing the assumed unusual climate. Again, there is ZERO evidence to support this assumption. C: The proposed solutions would have an effect on global scaled natural systems, of which, we have very little actual understanding.

Second, as in many things, follow the money. Governments stand to rake in huge amounts ($trillons$) of revenue via carbon taxes. They are literally attempting to tax the very air we breath. Great amounts of "research" monies have been channeled to those scientists who would whore themselves out in service of this farce. The believers like to point at the 20 million or so spent by fossil fuel corporations to fight the unscientific distortions, but they invariably fail to mention the 50 billion+ spent by governments and NGOs in support of the AGW religion.

Third, who ever controls the flow of energy, controls the world. Right now we have a large group of private corporations and government interests who share control of energy resources. It isn't a perfect situation, but much preferable to giving a single, unelected, global government who answers to no one, absolute control, which is the solution favored by most AGW zealots. In actuality, until AGW was invented, global governance was a favored Statist solution looking for a problem in order to gain justification. It is no wonder that the corruptocrats at the UN are armpit deep in the whole thing.

Fourth, back to the money. There are very powerful financial interests who would just love a new market to manipulate. As an example, Enron was pushing VERY hard to have carbon regulated. It was to be the bright and shiny cash cow which would have covered all the financial shenanigans and kept the company viable, the regulations just did not happen in time to save them. There are others waiting in the wings.

Fifth, scientists are people too. Many of them have made large financial gains, not to mention becoming near-celebrities, and gaining access to government officials due to their support of the AGW dogma. The flip side of this is that many good scientists have had their reputations soiled for speaking out against the group think. When "skeptic" began being used as a derogatory term by those who were on the AGW train, it was obvious that they had run off the tracks of science and into the wilds of ideological partisanship. The people who should be MOST skeptical of any scientific hypothesis are the supporters. They should anticipate any flaws in the hypothesis and see that they get a good airing out. Valid data which does not fit the hypothesis requires an adjustment to the hypothesis, not an adjustment to the data. This is exactly the opposite of what we've seen with climate "science".

February 15, 2010 at 1:04 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

amazonmuze wrote,

"ummm..warmer oceans would put more moisture in the air and there would be more snow.."

Yeah, that's one of my favorites. I guess that is why we had so much snow in the Eastern U.S. in the winter of 98 when the temperature records went through the roof. Oh wait, that didn't happen did it?

Are you referring to the El Nino condition int he Pacific? If so bear in mind that those El Nino/La Nina oscillations have likely been going on for tens of thousands of years, at the least, and have nothing to do with the tiny bit of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere.

"unless those pesky scientists lied"

Well we have irrefutable evidence that they've lied about other things relating to AGW, as far as I'm concerned their credibility is ZIP.

February 15, 2010 at 1:18 a.m.
una61 said...

For those people who are seriously interested in the science of Meteorology and Climatology and global warning phenomena, I suggest you visit the websites of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and American Geophysical Union (AGU)(I once belonged to both). Both organizations have issued policy statements supporting global warming and climate change phenomena. These are the professionals who spend their lives doing real science but aren't invited on the cable news programs.

Scientists certainly disagree among themselves and sometimes make mistakes, which is why peer review is very important. Unfortunately, anti-science bigots and conspiracy theorists seize upon these mistakes and try to use them to condemn the entire science field.

February 15, 2010 at 10:10 a.m.
rolando said...

una61 -- And they based their support decisions on...?

Hopefully not the "adjusted" data of various US and UN agencies and "reports", to say nothing of "Doctor The Data" Jones and his crew. [A tip of the hat to whoever coined THAT phrase.]

February 15, 2010 at 1:45 p.m.

Merry, early Christmas. This is a gift that keeps on givin and givin and givin. So apropos. hotdog should be jumping all over this website by now, like a mad flea on a cat that's being chased by a hounddog.

February 17, 2008

Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

"As a clinical and forensic psychiatrist, Lyle Rossiter has treated over 1,500 patients and examined over 2,700 civil and criminal cases. Turning his hand to political psychopathology, the author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, has diagnosed an alarming percentage of the population as suffering from the grotesque form of mental derangement known by some as moonbattery.

Among Rossiter's observations:

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave. A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity — as liberals do. A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population — as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state — as liberals do. The roots of liberalism — and its associated madness — can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind. When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious. Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health professional will facilitate the search for a cure".

February 15, 2010 at 3:48 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Ho-Hum, is this what you refer to as scientific research??

Refer to my link to see what scientific research truly consists of. Hint: it consists of experimental studies, resources cited, observable and measurable evidence etc.

It does not consist of rambling, biased, opinion exhibited by the "study" of your referenced "phychiatrist".

Yawn

February 15, 2010 at 6:23 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Here is the link Canary..http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf

This is whats called research. Let me know if you see the difference between research and political opinion.

February 15, 2010 at 6:28 p.m.
rolando said...

Translation of a hyper-liberal's mouthings: "It doesn't fit MY theory so it is junk science."

February 15, 2010 at 7:43 p.m.
Max said...

I still have yet to hear a coherent reasoned theory for why there is supposedly a great conspiracy to fool the world about climate change.

February 15, 2010 at 9:52 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Max,

Can't read, eh?

February 15, 2010 at 10:06 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.