GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Some Declines You Just Can’t Hide

by

US in Grips of Long-Lasting Cold Spell:

Dangerously cold weather had much of the United States in its grip early Monday morning, with no relief in sight for the rest of the week.

Long-lasting? Is this part of some kind of trend? Have we seen the end of the Post-Industrial Warming Period and are due for some akin to the decline in temperatures seen in the late Medieval/early Renaissance period?

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Heliotrope alerts us to these links on Drudge:

Temps Plunge to Record as Cold Snap Freezes North, East States…
CHILL MAP…
Vermont sets ‘all-time record for one snowstorm’…
Iowa temps ‘a solid 30 degrees below normal’…
Peru’s mountain people ‘face extinction because of cold conditions’…
Beijing — coldest in 40 years…
World copes with Arctic weather…

Hmmm. . . . record cold all over the place.  Lots and lots of temperature declines to hide.

So, where is Al Gore now?   Vermont?  Iowa?  Peru?  He does seem to visit those places experiencing cold and storms.  So, so, many places to choose from.

UPDATE from Bruce (GayPatriot):  Here is a great (and related) column from Neil Frank, the former director of the National Hurricane Center with his take on “Climategate” (h/t – Instapundit)

The revelation of “Climate­gate” occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth’s temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?

Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.

Comments

  1. At the top of Drudge:

    Temps Plunge to Record as Cold Snap Freezes North, East States…
    CHILL MAP…
    Vermont sets ‘all-time record for one snowstorm’…
    Iowa temps ‘a solid 30 degrees below normal’…
    Peru’s mountain people ‘face extinction because of cold conditions’…
    Beijing — coldest in 40 years…
    World copes with Arctic weather…

    Did the hockey stick just droop?

  4. I have a co-worker who is a climate change (nee global warming) zealot. Take a good guess at what she’s blaming on these record freezes and snowfalls. Why global warming, of course! It’s like what those fanatics who keep shouting “THE WORLD WILL END ON (INSERT DATE HERE)!” When the date comes and goes, they don’t question their belief system. They simply change the date. I’m seeing a creepy pattern here.

  9. Imagine being a liberal Democrat right now.
    Global warming, climategate blows up in your face.
    Obamas poll numbers.
    The two legislative iniatiatives are opposed by 70% of voting Americans.
    Terror, the war on terror raises it’s ugly head while incompetents are in charge of obamas departments.
    How’s all that hoax and change working out for ya? hehe

  12. The models that they “tweek” scrub and change, then throw away the raw data so no one can dbl check. Haha, I wasn;t fooled by Obama and I wasn’t fooled by the sky is falling global warming nonsense. Some were fooled by both. Imagine being them, grasping at straws trying to prove we are all gonna die soon. While they themselves continue to burn just as many fossil fuels as the rest of us, sometimes more!
    Fools, dupes and idiots.

  15. I love it when to defend the accusations of doctored data, Tano links to the data in question.

    Surely then, Tano must accept that there was no torture under the Bush administration, after all the Bush administration said so!

  18. A)What self-declared conservative isn’t reading Drudge every day?

    B)What sort of unique blog perspective or new information are you adding to the blogosphere by just reprinting Drudge?

  19. Bruce,

    First off, the data i linked to is not doctored. They show exactly what all of you have been claiming – that the hottest year in recent history was a decade ago. I don’t know on what basis, or in what sense, anyone could question these data.

    And the models? How exactly do you imagine they are “fraudulent”? Models are, by nature, best estimates of all the factors that go into a situation. The models are what they are, they were run, and the results are there on the graph. What do you imagine is fraudulent about them?

    As for Frank’s article, it is an absolute embarrassment. After his introductory spiel, the meat of the article starts with his assertions about the number of scientists that are skeptics. 32,000 people signed an online petition – out of what, an online pool of several billion? 9000 were, or claimed to be PhDs – but who knows? And PhDs in what? Who knows. Any links to this site so that we could even begin to see if there is anything there? No.
    700 scientists have endorsed a minority view. What kind of scientists? And how many subscribe to the consensus? I’ll guess something in the tens of thousands. There was a document produced by 40 authors with outstanding credentials. Wow. 40!! Who were they? Where is the document? Can I read it? Does it have a title?

    60 German scientists seem to be skeptics. Wanna hazard a guess as to how many scientists there are in Germany? 200 members of the American Physical Society called for a poll of members. How many members are there of the APS? (actually, about 46,000).

    Not a single link or even a reference to back up any one of his assertions. And yet you soak it all in without question…

    “What do skeptics believe?”
    Well right off the bat you can tell this is going to be sketchy. The truth is that skeptics believe a very wide range of things – and so Frank is trying to impose his view on a lot of people who disagree with him on important issues. But leaving that aside…

    “they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming ”

    HAH! So all your talk about fudging data and fraudulent models is contradicted by the very authority you rely on. Frank admits the warming – his only dispute is with what CAUSES the warming.

    “Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life.”

    This is an illogical statement. The second half is not a contradiction of the first, nor is it a position taken by skeptics only. Everyone understands that CO2 is vital for plant life. No one wants to do away with CO2. The problem is the speed at which CO2 levels are increasing in the atmosphere. It is unbelievable to consider that Frank doesn’t know that, so is argument here is deeply disingenuous.

    “More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor.”

    That is simply factually false. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, but CO2 has a disproportionate greenhouse effect. If we were somehow forcing new amounts of vaporized water into the atmosphere, then water vapor would be a problem too. But what we are doing is digging up fossilized carbon, burning it, and pumping that into the atmosphere. That is the problem. The amounts of water are relatively stable – except that as things get warmer, we may, secondarily, cause more evaporation, and thus an upward spiral.

    “We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 year…”

    And this is just plain dumb. That is like saying that a model of long-term economic growth, that tells you that the Dow is likely to go up X% over the next 50 years, is somehow invalidated by the fact that it cannot predict what the Dow will do tomorrow.

    Seriously, this is dumb beyond belief. The climate models have nothing whatsoever to do with his little 5 day weather models, and they certainly are not a simplification of them. I know this guy was a weatherman and a bureaucratic administrator, but he seriously does not understand the first thing about what he is talking about.

    “Over the last decade Earth’s temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period”

    Go look at the graphs I linked to. Frank here, and all of the skeptical community, hangs their hat on the admitted fact that there was one anomolously hot year about a decade ago. So yeah, we haven’t beaten that high again, but the underlying trend is still very apparant.

  20. Mike Adams on Townhall had a great article today – It’s impossible to argue with these folks because they unilaterally change the meaning of words to mean whatever the heck they want it to mean!

    And, they then hear only what they want to hear (or read) – and change the premise to fit their pre-conceived notion. Words have meanings – sometimes. . .

    Which, tangentially is why the much-acclaimed health care bill deals so much with health insurance, while the distinction between insurance and care is blurred and obfuscated intentionally!

  22. See you can’t educate liberals.
    It’s the public school system I’m convinced.
    So Obama spends over a Trillion dollars in porkulus and unemployment goes from 7% to 10.2% and they tell us it worked! Liberals were duped and agree! Temperatures drop for the last 10 years, the so called experts say they can’t explain it….then alter data and still liberals believe them and continue the lie. It doesn’t occur to liberals that the scientists who still claim there is global warming are getting funds, grants and millions of dollars to “study” the climate. If all scientists agreed that the models were frauds, all the donations, grants monies would dry up immediately and some would go to jail for fraud. DUHHH what does it take for a liberal to not see what fools they appear to be?

  24. #21 I AGREE. If we can change the climate, let’s all start running our lawn mowers, char grills and fill up our gas tanks all at once, poof….
    It’s got to raise the temperture for tomorrow. It’s 18 degrees and we’ver gotten 14″ of snow here in central PA.

  26. Lets not forget debunking the glaciers <a href=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/03/swiss-eth-glaciers-melted-in-the-1940s-faster-than-today/here

    The blue line is reality. the Black line is Tano, here.

  27. What self-declared conservative isn’t reading Drudge every day?

    And what would the liberal media report on if Drudge wasn’t handing them stories everyday? Think they would get off their asses to find out what’s going on out there?

  28. When the models take into account the PDO, the AO, Clouds, precipitation, the SUN and a score of other effects / influences / cycles that they currently IGNORE…. then we might begin believing them tammy.

  31. #19: Tano, I don’t care if you believe that plants have feelings, or that when it rains, it’s some pagan, mother-earth deity that is actually crying. All I ask is that you take a moment to learn how to spell the word “apparent.” It’s not “apparant.” And don’t try to play it off as some typo because you’ve NEVER spelled it right. Not once–or if you did spell it “apparent,” THAT was the typo.

  32. Well Sean, I congratulate you on getting to the very end of my long spiel, and I am gratified by your implied admission that there is nothing there for you to criticize but the spelling of the last word.

    It is so stunning to see such a lack of skepticism coming from the side that claims to be skeptics on this issue – when it comes to reading things that they wish to be true. I am going to assume that you are resisting falling into that trap. Cheers.

  33. i believe that there some form of Global Warming but it’s not because of you and me like the liberal media always try say. I believe this is just a scam so they can keep adding new taxes and limit are civil liberties. It’s so freaking cold here in the northeast. Frosty!!!

  34. I read the article about Peru’s mountain people yesterday in the Guardian. I just knew that AGW was to blame.

    Sure enough: In a world growing ever hotter, Huancavelica is an anomaly. These communities, living at the edge of what is possible, face extinction because of increasingly cold conditions in their own microclimate, which may have been altered by the rapid melting of the glaciers.

    Uh-huh.

    It’s interesting to note that there is precedent for populations “living close to nature” being forced to migrate in the past. The Anasazi, for example, may have migrated due to climate change in the 12th and 13th centuries.

  36. #32: Talking Points Tano, I know how excited you get when you temporarily entertain the fantasy that I agree with you on anything, but the reality is that you forfeited any credibility you might have had on environmental matters a long time ago. If you really gave a crap about the burning of fossil fuels, greenhouse gasses, US dependence on foreign oil, the development of alternative energy, or man-made climate change, you would not have praised Obama so lavishly when confronted with the fact that he committed billions of US tax dollars in the form of loan guarantees to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance a massive off-shore drilling project in Brazil’s Tupi oil field (and in which George Soros coincidentally has an investment worth $811 million). Consequently, all of your arguments supporting laws and regulations designed to wreck the US economy in the name of the environment are a FRAUD, as are you.

    P.S. One more thing Talking Points. Applying your own rule of implied admissions, since you didn’t deny being ignorant of the correct spelling of “apparent,” I think we can safely assume that you learned a valuable lesson here tonight.

  39. What’s amusing is when you consider the eeeeevil corporations the watermelons are BFF with. They even palled around with Enron until they figured out how to smear Bush with them.

    Also interesting, the oil companies have spent more on alternative energy than Washington has. So what’s the obvious solution? Steal their money and funnel it into Washington (windfall profits taxes).

  41. I think the critics, the anti global warming people, the skeptics, are the speak truth to power people on this issue.
    The rest were sheep just going along because it felt good. None of us has the data, the thousands of years of temperatures, the ice cores. We depended on the “scientists” to give us accurate measurments and conclusions. But inherently we knew, if you can’t predict the weather 4 days from now, how can you judge mans impact on the climate. If we can warm up the globe, why can’t we cool it off. If we can cool it off, why can’t we make it rain. If we can make it rain why can’t we stop snow storms. And if liberals believe we can stop global warming….go ahead, liberals have wasted 20 years debating it…go ahead….start. Don’t drive, don’t use A/C, don’t mow your lawns, don’t use washing machines….go ahead start saving the planet. But they haven’t. The biggest global warming fanatics actually burn more fossil fuels that 1000 average people.

  42. What’s the big deal if we do use up all the fossil fuels? We have alternative energy in place, so why not gulp down all the oil, and then move on? The planet can run without fossil fuel, and will have to someday. Why not sooner than later?

  43. I wish that was true, Ashpenaz. Because if it were, we wouldn’t need to rely on rogue nations for energy. We need more time to develop the alternative energies. In the meantime, we should probably tap more of our own fossil fuels.

  44. Dan, you seem to be falling into the same trap that many in both camps fall into. Yes, we are definitely having cold weather here. But that doesn’t even come close to being an argument against global warming, just like having record heat during a summer does not come close to being an argument for global warming. Even if global warming (more than what would be “normally” expected) was happening, there are still going to be periods of cold weather and snow like this.

    Further, with these types of cycles, changes are quite small at the maximum and minimum points. For example, the change in the amount of daylight per day is very small at the winter and summer solstice.

    With climate, there can be fluctuations (hotter or colder periods) like we are having now. They provide very little clues as to what is happening in the long term. If it turns out that we have finally hit the peak of the current warming period, it’s going to be quite a few years before we really see any evidence of it.