Oh the Irony

[Kaos]

Preparation.

There's a hurricane coming.  It's normal.  Does that mean we shouldn't provide news coverage?  Not board up the windows?  Not evacuate?  Not devote extensive scientific inquiry to understanding hurricanes fully?  Not devote resources to better preparing for the future of hurricanes?

But that's crazy. It's gonna change. Will change again. It will even out.

Pangea.

We don't control it.

Here's the thing.  These same so-called "experts" in the 1970s were convinced that the sun was growing weaker, pollution was blocking the rays from reaching the earth and the planet was headed for an ice age the likes of which we could not fathom.  There would be no farmland to speak of, we'd all have to crowd into the meager arable land that would remain and humanity was at stake.  Would our race survive?

So we formed the EPA. We added emissions controls. Factories were regulated into extinction. We cleaned this, scrubbed that, sent our union and mid-wage jobs off to Mexico because companies couldn't afford to meet the ridiculous regulatory requirements.  We spent trillions putting up nuclear plants.

Ice age averted!!  Oooooops.  Beach Age coming.  Same experts, interpreting data in a different way to keep themselves employed, keep their research funded, keep sucking off the taxpayer teat.

It's smoke and mirrors.  Consider this:

This winter, the maximum total Antarctic sea ice extent was reported to be 19.47 million square kilometres, which is 3.6% above the winter average calculated from 1981 to 2010.


There's your fact. 

But rather than looking at that basic fact and trying to determine why they may be WRONG, "scientists" instead are searching for ways this could possibly actually support their erroneous and unsupportable "global warming" stance.  Rather than examine the facts as they are, they start with a statement of fact (erroneous) and then try to force everything else to fit that statement -- while disregarding/jettisoning anything that contradicts it.  It's the same principle they used to write their doctoral theses. Take only the information that supports their document and either ignore or discredit the rest. 

The entire process is flawed. 

One day those of you beating the global warming drum will wake up and see it for what it is.  A money and power grab.

[Kaos]

The left’s use of pseudo-science as a means to seize and centralize control has a colorful history.

Let’s fast forward to the 1970s, when we were entering a new ice age and the only possible solution was – surprise - more government power. The global cooling panic morphed into the global warming panic. Suddenly, temperatures were inexorably rising and the ice caps were melting. In fact, they should be melted by now.

But “global warming” is problematic when the uncherry-picked evidence shows that the Earth is not getting significantly warmer. The hockey stick is stuck. Now, one might take this new evidence and revise one’s conclusion to conform to the observed data. We call that science. But we are dealing with “science,” and when the evidence doesn’t support your conclusion you change the name of the phenomenon.

Hence, “climate change.” Its goal was stop us wacky literalists from being able to point to a lack of warming to disprove global warming. Apparently, we were fools to expect that what the scammers called “warming” might involve warming.


“Climate change” is useful because it minimizes the dangerous possibility of negating the theory through observation. Any kind of change in the weather is “climate change.” That means literally any evidence supports the theory. If you really want to tick off a scammer, ask him what piece of observable data would lead him to conclude that his climate change theory is incorrect.

Of course, in science, an unfalsifiable theory isn’t a theory at all. But in “science,” you aren’t really talking about theories. You are talking about politically necessary conclusions that are beyond question. “Science” is a religion, and we’re the heretics.

But even “climate change” has become problematic. What if the climate is not changing for the worse? Recent years have seen fewer hurricanes, and of less intensity. The Antarctic ice the penguins stood on while laughing at the trapped ship of fools was manifestly still there. Polar bears continue to wander the northern wastes uncooked.

So the left has now moved to an even vaguer, less empirically assessable concept – looming “climate collapse.” It’s a beautiful notion, at once evoking some sort of horrendous catastrophe while offering absolutely no way to evaluate its accuracy. The “climate collapse” remains off in the future, vague and ambiguous, an unspecified disaster where something bad might happen and no one can prove the negative, so there is no way to judge it to be fact or fiction.

This is “science.” And if you doubt that something of an undefined nature might possibly occur at some unknown point in the future and maybe have unexplained negative effects, you reject “science” in all its forms. You also probably believe in God and are definitely racist.

Climate change scam arguments pique my lawyerly interest as exemplar tactics, techniques and procedures in the art of obfuscation. But the nomenclature isn’t the only bit of dissembling. The scammers attempt to intertwine the idea that human activity has some sort of impact on the climate with their demand that we transfer to their control trillions of dollars and much of our sovereignty. They intentionally erase the distinction between the cause of the alleged problem and the proposed solution, neatly skipping the effect.

Scammers tell us that 97% of scientists believe humans have an effect on the climate. Of course humans have some effect on the climate. A butterfly’s flapping wings have some effect on the climate. But the mere fact of some effect of some unknown intensity does not lead to the conclusion that we must undertake an anti-carbon crusade that will jack up our utility bills several grand a year, force us to drive tiny boxes, and empower yet another army of prissy unionized bureaucrats, this time to tell us we can’t roast marshmallows in our own backyards.

If you believe in science, you can’t make that quantum leap of logic. But if you believe in “science,” you and your media pals will paint anyone who refuses to do so as a mouth-breathing halfwit “denier” who is simultaneously an evil genius in the service of Big Oil.

Oh, how “scientists” hate deniers for actually applying the scientific method to the scammers’ political propaganda. And, as fiascos like Operation Mocking Penguin pile up, and as the coming climate collapse never actually comes, they’ll get even more desperate. The Los Angeles Times and Reddit recently barred dissenters from their pages – there’s no better concession of defeat than silencing your opponent.

The science is settled that “climate change” was a lie from the beginning. And every day without the long-promised climate catastrophe is one day closer to the day leftists will have to find themselves a replacement scam.

[Stone Tiger]

Just so I can chime in on this topic and make myself feel smart...

I would advocate living in holes if they were Hobbit holes.  Those seem pretty comfy.

If getting rid of styrofoam will benefit the planet, make it so.  In fact, I vote that we ban styrofoam that is not covered in plastic and serving as the insulation in beer coolers.  Cups, gone.  Raw syrofoam coolers, gone.  That shit florists use?  Gone.  Styrofoam gets on my nerves.

The Saints (except Ben and Will) cheated.

We are currently in an ice age here at my house.  That is because it is January, not because of the fact that I drive an SUV.

[AUChizad]

Jus' lahk ever' other year.

http://www.abc3340.com/story/24509249/noaa-world-in-2013-was-4th-hottest-on-record

NOAA: World in 2013 was 4th hottest on record
Posted: Jan 21, 2014 1:07 PM CST Updated: Jan 21, 2014 1:15 PM CST
 


By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Last year was tied for the fourth warmest year on record around the world.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday released its global temperature figures for 2013. The average world temperature was 58.12 degrees (14.52 Celsius) tying with 2003 for the fourth warmest since 1880.

NASA, which calculates records in a different manner, said Tuesday that 2013 was the seventh warmest on record, with an average temperature of 58.3 degrees (14.6 Celsius).

Both agencies said nine of the 10th warmest years on record have happened in the 21st century. The hottest year was 2010.

A global insurance firm says there were 41 billion-dollar weather disasters last year. Unlike 2012, most of the heat and disasters were outside the United States.

Top 10 Warmest Years (1880–2013)

The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 10 warmest years on record.
Rank
1 = Warmest
Period of Record: 1880–2013    Year    Anomaly °C    Anomaly °F
1    2010    0.66    1.19
2    2005    0.65    1.17
3    1998    0.63    1.13
4 (tie)*    2013    0.62    1.12
4 (tie)*    2003    0.62    1.12
6    2002    0.61    1.10
7    2006    0.60    1.08
8 (tie)*    2009    0.59    1.07
8 (tie)*    2007    0.59    1.06
10 (tie)    2004    0.57    1.04
10 (tie)    2012    0.57    1.03

Click to enlarge

[Snaggletiger]

2010?  Must have been Cam's smile that melted the polar ice caps.

[WiregrassTiger]

According to your own reference material, the world does appear to be flat.

[Kaos]

Cows. They do fart.

So WHAT if its "warmer". You're still talking about a data sample that goes back to only 1880. That's completely insignificant in the history of the world. 

Things go in cycles.  Period. If we are in a warming cycle -- so be it. It's worth nothing that in the 1970s these same scientists were talking about the coldest weather since doo and dah.

It gets warmer. It gets colder. It's a CYCLE.

You're just making yourself look foolish.

[CCTAU]

[AUTailgatingRules]

So now global warming DECREASES storm activity and extreme weather.  I don't know what to believe anymore :thump:

And it's even peer reviewed

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/new-study-suggests-global-warming-decreases-storm-activity-and-extreme-weather/

[AUChizad]

James Spann said there would just be a "light dusting" in Birmingham and mocked the "hysteria" of being prepared for the weather.

Currently it is pure chaos in Birmingham. Thousands of people stranded in frozen cars on the highways. People abandoning their cars to hike dozens of miles through the snowstorm. A multitude of cars in ditches, flipped over, and even at least one on fire.

Clearly, listening to Spann's infinite meteorological wisdom and scoffing at the idea of preparation in the face of disaster is a good idea.

[AUTailgatingRules]

James Spann said there would just be a "light dusting" in Birmingham and mocked the "hysteria" of being prepared for the weather.

Currently it is pure chaos in Birmingham. Thousands of people stranded in frozen cars on the highways. People abandoning their cars to hike dozens of miles through the snowstorm. A multitude of cars in ditches, flipped over, and even at least one on fire.

Clearly, listening to Spann's infinite meteorological wisdom and scoffing at the idea of preparation in the face of disaster is a good idea.

You told us to be prepared for Global warming.  Now you scoff that we are not prepared for the cold. Thanks

[AUChizad]

You told us to be prepared for Global warming.  Now you scoff that we are not prepared for the cold. Thanks

I could repeat myself for the 200th time in this thread, but you'll ignore it again.

A new link for you to ignore so you can think you don't sound like a complete idiot when you sarcastically snark "global war in' mah ass!"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/28/sneauxmageddon_polar_vortex_why_snow_s_melting_in_alaska_and_pelting_the.html

[Kaos]

I could repeat myself for the 200th time in this thread, but you'll ignore it again.

No. It's not ignored.  You've just been wrong 200 consecutive times and refuse to acknowledge it.

If it's too hot? Global warming
Too cold? Global warming.
Too wet? Global warming.
Too dry? Global warming.

You're not looking objectively. You've taken a position and are making everything adapt to that position rather than looking at the facts and forcing whatever occurs to fit that position.

Two of the coldest years on record in Antarctica have been in the last five. The ice isn't shrinking, it's actually growing.

And "peer reviewed" is utter dogshit.  It's like asking a panel of bama fans to review Sabans performance and choose the teams to play in the championship game.

[AUChizad]

No. It's not ignored.  You've just been wrong 200 consecutive times and refuse to acknowledge it.

If it's too hot? Global warming
Too cold? Global warming.
Too wet? Global warming.
Too dry? Global warming.

You're not looking objectively. You've taken a position and are making everything adapt to that position rather than looking at the facts and forcing whatever occurs to fit that position.

Two of the coldest years on record in Antarctica have been in the last five. The ice isn't shrinking, it's actually growing.

And "peer reviewed" is utter dogshit.  It's like asking a panel of bama fans to review Sabans performance and choose the teams to play in the championship game.

You: "Stars are the spirits of our dead ancestors looking over us at all times to keep us safe."

Me: "No, scientifically speaking they're actually luminous balls of gas held together by their own gravity. You see, the luminescence is formed through the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium."

You: "Blahdy blah blah. Science schmiance. Just because it's in one of those fancy "Science books" don't make it so. How are you going to tell me it's some made-up "nuclear fusion" thingamabob when I can SEE them in front of my face. I ain't never seen a hydrogen! I've popped one-a-them helium balloons and didn't see ANYTHING come out!"

It is a fact that the Polar Vortex is caused by polar jetstreams dipping lower than normal due to decreased speeds. It is also a fact that these jet streams are driven by the difference in temperature between high latitudes and low latitudes. You can choose to believe that these decreased speeds are due to the wind fairies choosing to intentionally slow them down. Or you can believe that George W. Bush got drunk and started fucking with his weather machine again. Or you can believe that Santa is behind it all in some elaborate rouse to relocate out of the North Pole. Or you could believe what 99.9% of climate scientists believe, which is that the melting of arctic sea ice is warming the higher latitudes at a greater rate than the lower latitudes, which weakens the stream, and causes the dip.

Actually take the 7 minutes and 10 seconds to watch this video that clearly explains this at a level a third grader can understand, or continue to be an idiot.


But aside from all that, I find it particularly hilarious that you choose to rally behind the lone voice in the wilderness of meteorologists who refuse to accept the science climate change, because today he's been proven to be a fucking idiot. Not only was he wrong about it, he was equally as brazen about it as he is about climate change. He mocked those trying to prepare for the storm and said it would be nothing more than a "light dusting". When asked on Twitter if Tuscaloosa would get any snow and if people should prepare, he responded: "We do not expect accumulation in Tuscaloosa. http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=78447  People often don’t listen to what we say." (Link) Well, for good reason people don't listen to your stupid ass. Because this is what happens when they do.

This was "no accumulation" Tuscaloosa today:


Here's others from Birmingham:







My facebook timeline is littered with stories just like THS's where people are having to spend the night at work, many leaving babies at home. Would not be surprised if there is a death toll when all is said and done.

Because James Spann told everyone to chill out. NBD. Go to work. No need to freak out. I don't care what those other "meteorologists" say, it's not gonna be anything to worry about.

If you don't see the irony in this being a microcosm of his position on climate change, and the dangers of stubbornly maintaining said position, then your brain is broken.

[AUTailgatingRules]

Hey Chizad, here is the $200,000 question:

1.  Is the earth going to warm over the next 100 years
2.  Is the earth going to cool over the next 100 years
3.  Is the earth simply going to change over the next 100 years

By choosing #3 (which is what all your peer reviewed climate scientists have done) you can be right either way and continue to get funded ad infinitem.

I would have much more respect for your climate changers if you would just pick a side and go with it. 

[Townhallsavoy]

Hey Chizad, here is the $200,000 question:

1.  Is the earth going to warm over the next 100 years
2.  Is the earth going to cool over the next 100 years
3.  Is the earth simply going to change over the next 100 years

By choosing #3 (which is what all your peer reviewed climate scientists have done) you can be right either way and continue to get funded ad infinitem.

I would have much more respect for your climate changers if you would just pick a side and go with it.

But that's not science.  You don't pick a side and go with it.  You try to accumulate observations, formulate hypotheses, and test them for a conclusion. 

It's K's type that picks a side and goes with it.  He's decided there is no climate change and if there is, it's not worth studying.  It's not worth preparing for.  It's all a scam. 

[GH2001]

But that's not science.  You don't pick a side and go with it.  You try to accumulate observations, formulate hypotheses, and test them for a conclusion. 

It's K's type that picks a side and goes with it.  He's decided there is no climate change and if there is, it's not worth studying.  It's not worth preparing for.  It's all a scam.

I don't think Kaos said it didnt exist. He's looking at the bigger picture in that this stuff has been happening for years and not caused by man and his modern inventions. Natural and cyclical is different than saying it's caused by f 150s, coal and styrofoam. It's not hard really.

[Kaos]

Natural.

Normal.

Cyclical.

Period.

[Townhallsavoy]

Natural.

Normal.

Cyclical.

Period.

Still.

Worthy.

Of.

Being.

Studied.

With.

Studies.

That.

Are.

Funded.

And.

Overseen.

By.

Reputable.

Scientists.

In.

Order.

To.

Help.

Prepare.

For.

The consequences of climate change.  Tornadoes are natural.  I'm sure you're happy and supportive of the technology that helps tell you to get into a shelter prior to it blowing over your house.  Hurricanes are natural.  Normal.  Cyclical.  I'm sure you're glad that we understand them well enough to know when we need to evacuate. 

[WiregrassTiger]

Because James Spann told everyone to chill out. NBD. Go to work. No need to freak out. I don't care what those other "meteorologists" say, it's not gonna be anything to worry about.

If you don't see the irony in this being a microcosm of his position on climate change, and the dangers of stubbornly maintaining said position, then your brain is broken.

So, is it global warming or James Spann? I'm not following who is officially at fault here. But, hell, anyone should be able to see how global warming caused this ice storm. I guess.