published Tuesday, January 7th, 2014

The Skeptic

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 ...

80
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.
nucanuck said...

The temperature is mild and normal where I am so I assume all these stories about severe winter weather are fabricated. A hoax!

January 7, 2014 at 1:19 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

**What a fool ... everybody knows that any change in the weather is the result of "Climate Change". If you don't believe it then check you favorite MSM source for info. on how this short term cold "weather" is caused by the "Change".

January 7, 2014 at 1:27 a.m.

Unless man has devised a way to control the jet stream, and the sun then shut up.

The ships that went to rescue those "global warming" promoting aholes on their ships in the antarctic are stuck in the ice too.

Stupid "climate change" aholes are just part of their own religion. The religion revolves around controlling other people and squeezing money out of them.

January 7, 2014 at 1:39 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

You do know that the recent immensely increased occurrences of hurricanes and tornadoes and their greater destructiveness are caused by the "Change". Just like the models predicted they would.

January 7, 2014 at 1:43 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

You do know that the hot "weather" in Australia is caused by the "Change" ... Right?

January 7, 2014 at 1:46 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

You do know that typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines was caused by the “Change”? Yes it is very acceptable to identify a single “weather” event as proof how else are we going to convince the public that there is a “Change”?

January 7, 2014 at 1:55 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Nice try Clay! So predictable. Trying to pre-empt what he knows the obvious reaction will be to the latest weather pattern.

Prediction: In mid-July when temps are 100+, "global warming" people will be out in force telling us the end is near from the warming.....again.

This deep-freeze is a big disappointment to the believers, And this is just a way for Clay to soften the blow.

January 7, 2014 at 1:57 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Any answers on just how the dinosaurs flourished for 250 million years with 10 times the Co2 in the atmosphere than there is now?

January 7, 2014 at 2:02 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Zab and Toes, It can only be assumed that intellectual laziness could allow you avoid the knowledge that is so easily available on carbon and climate change. Ignorance persisted in ought to be culpable.

January 7, 2014 at 2:12 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Still no answer for my question?

January 7, 2014 at 2:22 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

HOW NSIDC GOT ITS FIGURES WRONG AND THEN KEPT QUIET

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html#ixzz2phEBPp8N

"Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading".

January 7, 2014 at 2:44 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Let's see, A bunch of global warming nuts went to the south pole to document the melting sea ice there, and ended up getting frozen in the sea ice that wasn't suppose to be there. All the while putting rescuers lives at risk to come and save these global warming nuts.

Do you think their report will include drastic reductions in sea ice at the south pole?

Talk about "intellectual" stupidity.

And why do 98% of the stories about the incident fail to mention the ship was on a mission for global warming? Why no mention that the ice is actually growing in the middle of an antarctic summer?

January 7, 2014 at 3:24 a.m.

"intellectual laziness" you mean to not accept a fraud? When you have the biggest proponent of that theory flying in "fuel guzzling" planes to give lectures where he receives disgusting amounts of money to bitch about our insignificant "carbon footprint", then the cause has no credibility. That volcanoe in Iceland that erupted a few years back shot more crap into the air than anything man has come up with since the industrial revolution began. It's typical of the liberals alive now to believe they're the most important people that ever lived. Anyone with any knowledge of history can tell you that there have been periods of warming, and periods of cooling. It's all cyclical.
"climate change/global warming" idiots are about control, and that means over everything: what we eat, drink, wear, drive, say, etc, etc, etc. You're not fooling anybody.

January 7, 2014 at 3:32 a.m.

Nucanuck, why don't you go around the countryside and put a cork in the asses of every cow you grazing. Maybe we'll be better off.

January 7, 2014 at 3:35 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Toes, you may be hoping for a return to conditions favorable for dinosaurs, but most of the 7 billion humans are more concerned about sustaining the biota of today's planet earth. Humans didn't live then and couldn't live today in extreme conditions.

If we add enough CO2 to warm the earth past human and animal endurance do you simply assume that humans could adapt? Do you really believe that earth could avoid massive heat induced crop failures long before any massive CO2 induced forestation took place?

You 3%ers can talk all day about what happened hundreds of millions of years ago, but you can't make it relevant to the next two thousand years or predict a return of prior conditions. You can't address food production to feed us when we have summer temperatures 20F warmer than now. You are hanging on the fringe arguments that don't disprove what current science believes will come within decades if we persist in the rapid escalation of carbon production.

I repeat, it is intellectual laziness not to better understand the very real nearly immediate consequences of continuing to burn and deplete huge amounts of carbon with a near certain outcome over the coming decades.

Or do you just want an environment suitable for some other life form after we are gone?

January 7, 2014 at 3:40 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

roflmao!!

January 7, 2014 at 3:41 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Sorry Zab, I must have hit a nerve mentioning laziness.

January 7, 2014 at 3:43 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Simple people are easily amused.

January 7, 2014 at 3:47 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

" According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

"A high-priority government report warns of climate change that will lead to floods and starvation. ‘Leading climatologists’ speak of a ‘detrimental global climatic change,’ threatening ‘the stability of most nations.’ The scenario is eerily familiar although the document — never made public before — dates from 1974. But here’s the difference: it was written to respond to the threat of global cooling, not warming. And yes, it even mentions a ‘consensus’ among scientists." -- Maurizio Morabito

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age. "-- Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

You people don't know WHAT to flip out about next.

January 7, 2014 at 4 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

After Missing 5 Predictions, IPCC Cuts Global Warming Forecast

"A recent survey by Der Spiegel showed that only 39 percent of people say they're "afraid" of the effects of global warming -- down substantially from the 69 percent who responded they were afraid in 2006."

http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm

January 7, 2014 at 4:07 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

The birthplace of the global warming hoax:

"The First Global Revolution"

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." --The Club of Rome

The liberals jumped all over this idea and began one of the largest schemes of mankind.

January 7, 2014 at 4:21 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Alex Jones on the Club of Rome

you liberals have been hi-jacked and duped.

January 7, 2014 at 4:30 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Those Stubborn Facts: 35-Year Cooling of South Pole Confirmed By NASA - Antarctica Ice Sheets Safe

".....despite over 845 billion tons of human CO2 emissions being added to the biosphere since 1978, that predicted dangerous warming, and associated catastrophes, have yet to materialize."

http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/12/those-stubborn-facts-the-cooling-of-the-south-pole-confirmed-by-nasa-antarctic-ice-sheet-safe.html

January 7, 2014 at 4:35 a.m.
EaTn said...

God has chosen to give the lowly insects like the wooly-worm or yellow-jacket more knowledge about global weather forecasts than the narrow-minded and denier human.

January 7, 2014 at 7:14 a.m.
rick1 said...

What the media has not told you about Climate Scientist Chris Turney who was struck in the ice in the Antarctic.

The following is from his own website on how he describes himself.

I am an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow and Professor of Climate Change at the University of University of New South Wales where my team and I are focussing our efforts on using the past to better understand the changes we are seeing today. To do something positive about climate change, I helped set up a carbon refining company called Carbonscape which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels.

http://www.christurney.com/

January 7, 2014 at 7:34 a.m.
rick1 said...

For all of you non-believers of global warming the debate is over.

Global Warming is man made. The issue is man made, the data is man made, the crisis is man made, and so is the consensus.

January 7, 2014 at 7:41 a.m.
conservative said...

Hey Nucanuck:

Are you still consuming those 2.3 earths you claimed?

Have you been in contact with those global warming kooks stuck in ice?

Good job rick1!

January 7, 2014 at 8:05 a.m.
Maximus said...

Typical girly man Clay Bennett liberal messaging. Create a crisis then ask the guvment to solve the problem via class warfare and taxation of the evil rich. Sustainable, green, electric cars, Bla, Bla, all a way for Barry The Green Welfare Pimp to pay back his political cronies. That's all.

It is winter.....man up!

January 7, 2014 at 8:05 a.m.
Maximus said...

Is Snow Flake gay? I bet his parents are disappointed. Where is the rainbow scarf? Nothing like a rich double income no kids global warming believing Obama loving gay man. Right Clay? Everyone hopes you get lost in the snow and then go to gay heaven and I don't mean prison. Lol!

January 7, 2014 at 8:16 a.m.
gjuster said...

A couple of cold days does not mean global cooling, a few hot days does not mean global warming - not even a year of it. However, 17 years of no warming is a real trend. If you study the science not the consensus, you can only conclude that there is no man made warming going on. We have now witnessed years of the least extreme weather this planet has seen in a long time. These are facts, not models. If you want to know what is driving the warmists, follow the money - billions are being spent trying to prove a theory that has not come to fruition, and you only have access to that money if you toe the company line. You know they are either fools or lying by looking back at how the goal posts have changed over the years. Warmists predicted no more snow and severe droughts - wrong. They predicted more hurricanes - wrong. They predicted islands would disappear - wrong. According to those pushing AGW, what ever happens is the fault of climate change. More rain - climate change, less rain - climate change. Warm weather - climate change, cold weather - climate change. Less arctic ice - climate change, more arctic ice - climate change.

January 7, 2014 at 8:27 a.m.
conservative said...

Good job gjuster!

About 15 years ago the kooks at Nation Magazine sponsored a cruise to Alaska in order to see the icebergs "before it's too late."

January 7, 2014 at 8:37 a.m.
LibDem said...

You had to know this would bring out the exhaust fume breathers. Hope it's not too cold to go out for more of those cute little water bottles. Bad air, bad water, big profits.

January 7, 2014 at 9:41 a.m.
jesse said...

Clay's been holding back this toon just waitin for a mess of real cold weather before he laid it on us!!

January 7, 2014 at 9:46 a.m.
nucanuck said...

The selective science crowd believes in the virtuous scientific conclusions about what happened 250 million years ago while finding nothing but fault with the far greater scientific conclusions about the heavily studied present. Believing that 97% of climate scientist have been bought off should qualify for wing-nut heaven. Selective thinking may gain you a few moments of blather time in the locker room of life, but not much respect for due diligence elsewhere.

Interesting that the heaviest concentration of deniers can be found in the region with the lowest academic performance. Is it the water or the gene pool?

January 7, 2014 at 10:17 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

nukelalooshcancuck says "Interesting that the heaviest concentration of deniers can be found in the region with the lowest academic performance. Is it the water or the gene pool?" Very cheesy thing to say, Nuke…you weren't always such a snark-ass.

January 7, 2014 at 10:27 a.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck said:

"Believing that 97% of climate scientist have been bought off should qualify for wing-nut heaven"

Better:

Believing that 97% of climate scientist believe in man caused global warming should qualify for wing nut heaven!

January 7, 2014 at 10:32 a.m.
nucanuck said...

PT,

You are right, I shouldn't have let some of the earlier gibberish affect my level of civility. An old man should know better.

January 7, 2014 at 11:16 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

I suspect you fellows missed the point of the editorial cartoon. gjuster, you have your facts wrong intentionally or choose to talk about something that you know nothing.

If you enter the fray of scientific discussion on climate change (not relying on the consensus of experienced scientists) get some serious scientific education. Or if lazy, rely on your political pundits who are hawking a particular agenda, and just think, "ignorance is bliss" and sip some more beer or your favorite intoxicant. See next post

January 7, 2014 at 11:29 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

Every scientist knows the problem of scatter associated with experimental and natural fluctuations. Trends emerge over the long term, for average global temperature 100's or 1000's of years, not days or years.

An example: Average temperature may not be as important as whether or not weather patterns change to increase the prevalence of early winter warming forces budding and late spring freezes kills back, forcing bud regrowth that weakens them. If the variable incidence of late killing frosts continues at the same or increasing frequency after a few seasons they can no longer sustain growth and the northern extent of a species moves Southward. Such a change might appear when we happen to have such killing frosts every couple years for a decade.

A fully melted Arctic ice sheet allows the underlying water to heat (dark water is an efficient adsorber of IR) contributing to ocean heating and heat circulation towards Greenland, for example. It might happen once due to climatic variability, but when the circumstances happen several seasons in a row, a long term reduction in sea ice may begin.

On the other hand, an ice sheet can form and grow rapidly when an unseasonable cold season or two and a snow does not fully melt it in summer. This raises many interesting question about how fast ice sheets formed in the" ice ages" because ice/ snow sheets influence adsorbed and radiated infrared energy from the sun.

Warming depends on how the heat load influences atmospheric circulation patterns and other phenomena that influence things like total ice content of the seas, accurate predictions depend on the sophistication of models of heat transfer from all combined sources and importantly the effect of hidden variables that might mitigate the warming.

Find a supercomputer, some good mathematical programmers and a few years of work to run your simulations and refine your models if you choose not to rely upon other scientists (note use of plural "scientists" because among scientists are the same kind of folks who cannot escape their internal political biases in the face of data.).

The trend in temperatures in Alaska lead to concluding that counter to the lower 48, average temperature is falling. Quick, write an editorial debunking "global warming!" But wait, a closer at the data shows the northern Alaska actually has a long term warming trend due to the absence of winter sea ice in the Bearing Sea.

My point is to show the importance of real observations, the complexity of the evaluation and how easy it is for a politico to play on the susceptibility of minds to political and religious dogma. Could the educated consensus be wrong on warming? Sure, but playing personal Russian Roulette is one thing and playing it with something that may take 100's and 1000's of years to correct and impacts the way of life for billions of people is another. I prefer to rely on a conservative interpretation of the scientific data.

January 7, 2014 at 11:31 a.m.
conservative said...

Wow!

I hope someone reads your tome.

January 7, 2014 at 11:39 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

IQM = Leo Tolstoy Hayzoose, IQ. Are you related to Alpo?

January 7, 2014 at 11:42 a.m.
jesse said...

Well said IQM but your wasting your time!Buyum books and sendum to school and they eat the pages out ofum!!

January 7, 2014 at 11:45 a.m.
AgentX said...

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 10^9 years ± 1%)

We are looking at such a small fraction of time. While I do not think that what we are doing is helpful (with the amount of pollution), I also think that you can't take such a small period of time, and say you have undeniable proof of whatever.

You can't base a person's life on what they were doing during a single second that you decided to observe. If the human race is allowed to continue to grow and expand, then we will kill this planet. We will reach a tipping point in which the resources cannot support us.

January 7, 2014 at 12:04 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

Agent of the earth =about 4.5 billion years is irrelevant, much of that time was spent the emergence of the existing geographic and climatic state. We are interested in time scales of 1-1,000 kyrs where in fact dramatic change can and does occur. So far we have about 20% of the first 1 kyr accumulated (time of industrial revolution) time to start seeing indications ofchange.

January 7, 2014 at 12:14 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

IQM+Nucan= Chicken little

January 7, 2014 at 12:17 p.m.
conservative said...

Years ago the Atheist evolutionist claimed the earth was millions of years old, then ten of millions, then hundreds of millions then billions headed toward tens of billions.....

Wickedpedia is free because kooks are allowed to contribute to it.

January 7, 2014 at 12:31 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Again, the only "fringe" nutcases here are you global warming tards. I'll post it again for you fringe lefty nuts.

"A recent survey by Der Spiegel showed that only 39 percent of people say they're "afraid" of the effects of global warming -- down substantially from the 69 percent who responded they were afraid in 2006."

January 7, 2014 at 12:34 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

A little journey through the lists of global warming "scientists" assures they are mostly all lefty big government libs. constantly changing their reports at the whims of the governments which pay their salaries.

Why would they deny global warming when it has become their bread and butter? The truth is that people are getting worn out by you global warming preachers. Only a die-hard lefty would preach global warming at 7 degrees Fahrenheit.

January 7, 2014 at 12:47 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

conservative and toes please continue to give me laughs - your fears are quite entertaining.

January 7, 2014 at 12:59 p.m.
conservative said...

Hey nucanuck, I talked to a young guy last year who also owned a "Smart car." I didn't let on to him my personal opinion of the thing.

It had tiny little tires and during our conversation he told me that he had to replace one. He said the only company that made tires for it was Continental and the tire cost $300 bucks!

Now I have to admit that would have been a hard decision for me, I mean buy the tire or just throw the car away.

January 7, 2014 at 1 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Calculated Mean Global Temperatures 1610-2012

http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/

January 7, 2014 at 1:03 p.m.
conservative said...

You are very mistaken inquiringmind, I have no fear whatsoever of the fiction of man caused global warming.

I know who made the worlds and all that is in them. He also sustains the same.

January 7, 2014 at 1:10 p.m.
limric said...

My fundamental head scratching moments regarding the Climate Change hypothesis are the temperature/weather measurement data and how it’s compiled. The first part of my diatribe is an attempt to use what little critical thing is left in this geezer brain, while the second is the cynic in me rearing its usual ugly head.

Weather stations are by and large sparsely located throughout the world, and too many are near densely populated areas (this is where weather reporting becomes economically motivating) As any meteorological scientist is well aware, weather around cities, due to localized effects of pollution (NOx, SOx, CO, smelly bus fumes or Suburban driving big haired Texas women), is usually warmer than in the country side. The technical terms being thermal pockets, or heat islands. And their effects extend somewhat outside their specific environs.

What about 500 or 5000ft altitude? Or 50 or 500ft below the sea surface? There’s no 18 or 19th century comparative weather balloon temperature records or detailed oceanic measurements. And make no mistake; these are VERY important data points.

I posit that the accuracy of weather measurement is not entirely accurate (for the planet) until there are standardized weather stations placed around the whole planet.

Thus - While I agree with the following true statement, ”While there are uncertainties in climate projections, it is important to realize that the climate projections are based on sound scientific principles, such as the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer, with measurements of optical properties of gases.” I wonder if it’s also true that somewhere between said observations (and a lot of guessing) a “mother of all averages” methodology has been arbitrarily applied to an unphysical reality and submitted as fact - instead of a hypothesis. Which is what the study of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ is…isn’t it?

January 7, 2014 at 1:11 p.m.
limric said...

HOWEVER

Is there a side issue? (hidden in plain sight) A political/pecuniary agenda for financing climate change research?

I’m sure most posting here would agree that the list of ‘solutions’ to Anthropogenic Global Warming involve the creation of taxes that solve…um - nothing, or the huge scam known as ‘Carbon trading/credits; thus creating new sources of revenue for political/financial institutions (Goldman Sachs for instance). Can you say conflict of interest?

What I think we're seeing is a blush of Malthusianism (whose theory hasn’t quite panned out); AGW provides a nice cozy home for those.

Of course, we in the western part of the world are guilty of massive over-consumption of finite resources; along with widespread pollution of land, air and sea … AGW provides a single, easy to use public scare tactic for everyone to focus on. And some are going to make a heap of money from it.

So, what the current research papers seem to point to is that there is a research-granting schema for AGW, due to either of the previous points. If not, please point to ANY climate researcher who does not depend on a political body for financing.

OR..It's Obama's fault!

January 7, 2014 at 1:12 p.m.
conservative said...

Did you ever notice that the mankind is causing global warming crowd just blame others and NEVER specify what they themselves are doing to cause it?

January 7, 2014 at 1:18 p.m.
limric said...

No Conservative I haven't. That's a blatantly specious statement. Geesh.

January 7, 2014 at 1:24 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

What I find funny is that we have some fine Meteorologist right here in the Tn Valley that can't even get the weather for tomorrow correct. And it is their job all day to study the real time data in front of them to make a prediction for tomorrow. I will be the first to say that they are pretty good but they are wrong quite a bit. So how can we expect to be able to predict what is going to happen 5, 10, 15, 20 yrs from now.

I believe like Limric that our data is too shallow to be conclusive. (at least that is what i got out of his post).

Saying that, I do believe that we as humans, especially Americans, Europeans and such, do abuse this planet. I do believe we need to make changes and adjustments to the way that we live in order to prolong the demise of our resources.

January 7, 2014 at 1:25 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

IQM-(inquiring mind is a fallacy, because you don't inquire anything, you think you already KNOW everything.):

Fears-lol! You're the one running around yelling the sky is falling. Everything is a crisis with you libs. It's funny how, out of all your proposed problems in the world, it ALWAYS seems to be that limiting our freedoms and/or taking more money from us is your answer.

Just remember that every time you start your car, every time you flip on that light switch, every time you turn up your heat you are being a hypocrite. And as such, you are devoid of credibility.

Your cockiness and smarmy "I'm so much better than you people" attitude confirms that you believe yourself to be in the elitist class. You do try, but you fall much short. As far as elitists go, you're no match for the big dogs. They'll never let you in.

January 7, 2014 at 1:34 p.m.
LibDem said...

Nicely done, inquiringmind. Unfortunately, this is not a rational debate. We will fight for our right to poop in our nest.

January 7, 2014 at 1:36 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Well put limric.

January 7, 2014 at 1:39 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

The mark of a good scientist is appreciating what they do NOT know. Keep it up Toes, I've not yet had my fill of laughs today (...limiting your freedom? tell us more) and besides you might make a good scientist, people might believe you if you remained convinced your original position is right - but most likely it won't. :-)

nurseforjustice you may want to re-read my long post because you raise one of a very good example of trying to achieve a local prediction based on a macroscopic phenomenon, or trying to generalize a local observation to a macroscopic effect.

I know someone who smokes tobacco and says the data are wrong, cigarettes don't cause cancer because their grandpa smoked until he died at 90 (they also say the lunar landing in 1970 was filmed in a hanger of Lockheed in Area 51). Another guy sez I am going to keep drinking a fifth a day because my liver numbers look ok right now so alcohol can't be that dangerous. Another sez hey, i'm not wearing my seat belt, I heard someone who is a friend of my aunt died because they were trapped in the car by their seat belt. She was drunk and trying to light a cigarette while talking on the cell phone on I-75. go figure.

The cabal behind the Council on Foreign Affairs must be involved.

January 7, 2014 at 2:51 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Not much about conservation. All a political ploy by the Left for more control. That is, IF there is global warming, and IF it is caused by man, it gives the govt "the right" to carbon tax, car tax, fuel tax, animal flatulence tax,and tax tax. In other words, more Big government. A tenet of the Left. Plain Truth and plain and simple.

January 7, 2014 at 3 p.m.
Hunter_Bluff said...

When I was in the Philippines last month it was 10 degrees above normal - 90F during their winter. Data has scatter and a cold blip doesn't mean the trends aren't there. Where the trend will lead I don't know but the trends remain. Anyone notice it's going to be 60 in Chattanooga on Saturday January 11?

January 7, 2014 at 4:01 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Let's cut to the chase boys and girls. One argument is that we can continue doing what we are doing until the resources run out and by then maybe we will have found other alternatives. The other argument is that only by reducing carbon consumption, can we avoid destroying our living habitat.

Should we continue doing what we are doing and we are wrong, we will have made a mistake from which recovery may well be unlikely. Should we conserve resources now and we are wrong, we will have conserved useful resources for future generations. Which is the riskier behavior?

One approach spends our finite resources until they are exhausted, the other conserves and saves for future use.

Only one of those courses of action could be considered conservative.

January 7, 2014 at 4:21 p.m.
LibDem said...

Conservatives are really liberal with our resources.

January 7, 2014 at 4:38 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Hunter_Bluff said...

Anyone notice it's going to be 60 in Chattanooga on Saturday January 11?

Exactly ! ... That’s got to mean something ... doesn’t it?

January 7, 2014 at 4:58 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

LibDem said...

Conservatives are really liberal with our resources.

Our ?!? ... Really? .... Communal ownership of all resources ... What a concept.

January 7, 2014 at 5:38 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

You do know that typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines was caused by the “Change”? Yes it is very acceptable to identify a single “weather” event as proof. How else are we going to convince the public that there is “Change”?

January 7, 2014 at 5:40 p.m.
gjuster said...

Inquiring - never assume - you know what it makes you. I have researched the science, and continue to do so - here's my point. So far, the models have been shown to be incorrect. The reason I don't believe the warmists at this point, is that they keep changing their story and keep wanting to dig into our pockets to give our money to other countries. (Over 7 billion recently). The other problem I have is that the original hype through Al Gore and his power point have been proven to be wrong in a court of law. Just like the "hockey stick" from Michael Mann which much of the hype is based on. Man definitely affects the climate. Urban areas are warmer because of the effect of asphalt, concrete, buildings and other factors. My main point is that there needs to be real science, not faux consensus science like there was when scientists all agreed that the earth was flat. Consensus science has been proven wrong constantly throughout the ages. There has never been a true debate from the two sides. We hear that 97% of scientists agree on AGW - that is a very flawed study and has been debunked, yet is always mentioned as proof - it is not. Many real climate scientists believe that the earth is not warming but cooling. While I like Rush - he is not a source I use for my opinions.

January 7, 2014 at 5:53 p.m.
rick1 said...

What Catastrophe? MIT’s Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist.

A very good article.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=1

Scientists reject claims of record cold being caused by ‘global warming’ – Time Mag. blamed ‘polar vortex’ on ‘global cooling’ in 1974 – Special Report

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/07/scientists-reject-claims-of-record-cold-being-caused-by-global-warming-time-mag-blamed-polar-vortex-on-global-cooling-in-1974-special-report/

January 7, 2014 at 6:12 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

gjuster - flat earth -consensus science ??- all scientists believed the earth was flat??? Try on the fact that consensus Catholicism in a prescientific age said the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. Then as now, religious fanatics tried to hang the bearers of scientific truth. As for consensus science, what in the world is consensus science?? Do we all get to vote?

I suggest you might want to write up your analysis proving global warming is erroneous and have several of "qualified scientific peers" review it for technical accuracy and logic. You may be qualified for a Nobel Prize, you never know.

Do reviewers make mistakes, you certainly can be sure the answer is yes and there are some recent articles in the scientific press that point them out; but overall, if a theory or experiment does not stand up to peer-scrutiny it is a real red flag to be careful. I've never encountered a group of my professional colleagues who vote on a consensus, they enjoy arguing too much.

It is hard to get bad science out into the public eye unless you go the route of Time Mag, the radio talk shows and obscure web sites like "climatedepot.com." And, it is not the least unusually that a theory is found inaccurate as a general theory, Newton's Theory of Gravity being a great example. That is exactly what science is about. Right now, please point me to your work that shows "the models are incorrect."

You are simply passing false information, it is a commonly used strategy seeking to win an argument by deflecting the interest to an unrelated issue, e.g., Al Gore, and by hopefully convincing others to refute the first argument that is unrelated.

January 7, 2014 at 7:10 p.m.
fairmon said...

One prediction is certain to be accurate. Things will change. Some men before recorded history claimed the ability to affect weather. Since recorded history they have documented various ways that were claimed to work such as rain dances etc. etc. The accuracy of how man is now affecting the climate may be accurate and surviving species will adapt and survive, humans may not. The mother of invention is need and that need will be filled and those "the world is flat" naysayers can find a new cause to champion in order to take away liberties.

January 7, 2014 at 7:35 p.m.
dude_abides said...

toes said... "Only a die-hard lefty would preach global warming at 7 degrees Fahrenheit."

I think I'm catching on now! If it's 7 degrees in January, global warming cannot exist. Of course, by extension, we must then deduce that President Obama has ended terrorism. It was safe as hell out there today!

January 7, 2014 at 7:53 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

I have never heard of all of the earth's scientists ever agreeing that the "earth was flat". Ancient Egyptians knew the Earth was round (though they did think it was smaller).

Look, I am not an expert (or even a novice) in the field (and I would suspect that none of you know anything on the field other than what you have read/heard on your choice for news), but I did briefly review Lorenz work (particularly the Lorenz system of equations) in a math course. It lead me to a review of his work in chaos theory and (in layman's terms) how a minuscule change in the initial conditions lead to drastic differences in the results of the system. This is why it is practically impossible for any long-term meteorological forecast to be 100% accurate. This may or may not hold water with regards to the predictions made by scientists in the field and some erroneous results, but I cannot just say it is bunk science because of some of the inaccuracies. I believe that smoking kills, but not everyone that smokes for an extended amount of time dies from smoking. So should I then conclude that smoking doesn't kill?

I believe preserving the planet benefits mankind. Whether or not climate change is real, the planet is harmed when humans pollute.

January 7, 2014 at 8:01 p.m.
yddem said...

gjuster said:

"My main point is that there needs to be real science, not faux consensus science like there was when scientists all agreed that the earth was flat."

What have you been putting in your tea? Is that the science you researched? Please post a link to your authority for your claim that there was an agreement among scientists that the world is flat. Before the common era, scientists generally agreed the earth is round. Even religious writers early in the common era considered the earth to be round.

January 7, 2014 at 8:11 p.m.
nucanuck said...

If you think about it for a minute, you will think of two more reasons, apart from climate change, that humans may go on a strict carbon diet in the near future.

January 7, 2014 at 8:20 p.m.
yddem said...

You got me, nuck. A concern for climate change might result in a strict carbon diet for some of those with the means to curb their appetites, but the global effect would not be measurable. So I disagree with your premise, i.e., that climate change might cause humans to go on a strict carbon diet in the near future.

January 7, 2014 at 9:02 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

GI, you make some good points about "consensus" science. I do want to point out that chaos theory is not a true theory. You are on the right trail, small changes can have massive macroscopic effects in certain systems (e.g., positive feedback, turbulence certain conditions of damped oscillators). But the idea of a butterfly flapping its wings in Madagascar and a hurricane forming in the Bahamas is junk science.

Local weather is exceedingly difficult to predict with high accuracy because it is a result of turbulent phenomenon at the atmosphere/earth surface boundary among other things. Turbulent phenomenon related to something similar to chaos processes such as when a swirl will occur on a seemingly smooth surface and create a turbulent vortex (sound familiar?). One reason very powerful computers were developed is to solve differential equations that comprise the equations of perturbed motion that model turbulent flow. A tornado might be a good example of a difficult problem of a turbulent eddy, how easy is it to predict its liftoff/touchdown behavior? It is chaotic only in the sense that it is resists closed form solutions and requires iterative methods to solve equations of motion.

Unfortunately the solution typically requires an intensive iterative process and methods such as finite element modeling that benefit from large computer memory, massive parallel processing and extremely detailed characterization of boundary values. Folks were doing this decades ago to understand how to control turbulence at the tip of aircraft wings to improve lift and stall characteristics, as well as creating some other novel technical innovations. If you can't control where an eddy forms, control it after it forms.

Keep studying you are on the right track. :-)

January 7, 2014 at 9:53 p.m.
nucanuck said...

yddem, I was referring to reasons for carbon cutbacks that may well happen with or without a push from climate change. Sorry if i was unclear.

January 7, 2014 at 11:50 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.