MSNBC complains about - wait for it - mocking. AGW is not to be mocked. Those who mock are anti-science and believe that Jesus will return. And they're all in the pay of certain evil corporations. There’s a great interview with Michael Mann The Persecuted, and two toadies from the uberLeft. Oh yes, this: cold is just "winter"; Colorado wildfires are "climate change". Oh yeah: now I see the light.
But I have the answer: burn more dirty coal. Getting that good sulfur and soot into the atmosphere will solve all the problems of heat retention by preventing the original insolation. Sort of a sulfur-soot umbrella or heat shield. China is doing its part. What's a little acid rain when we're SAVING THE EARTH? Besides, the effluent could be pumped directly into the outer atmosphere with 30 mile high inflatable smoke stacks (you read it here first).
But as for direct mockery, the facts serve that end without embellishment: The chinese ship which now has the "rescued" Global Warming researchers aboard is now stuck in the ice. This self-mocking expedition might provide fodder for its own ridicule all summer down there, just by reading the news.
8 comments:
>But as for direct mockery, the facts serve that end without embellishment
Since the fact is that warmer air holds more moisture and thus snow and ice will actually increase in some areas, then how do the facts serve that end "without embellishment?" It seems that embellishment is precisely what one needs for this mockery to work. Or more accurately, misinformation.
These researchers were obviously not aware of the warmer air theory. Had they been so informed they would not have been caught out as they obviously were. This just appears to be another case of having a theory with no differentiating outcomes being possible. If the seas had been open: warming. If the seas were closed: warming.
If it is hot in Colorado: warming. If it is cold in Colorado: warming.
If there are hurricanes: warming. No hurricanes: warming.
If there are many tornados: warming. Few tornados: warming.
If there is no sea ice in the arctic (antarctic): warming.
Plenty of sea ice: warming.
When all possible evidence (even contradictory) proves Q, then Q is a tautology, not an objective fact.
Just like evolution and particle physics and string theory.
Over at the People's Cube, a great parody site, we all chipped into to give shape to the AGW eschatology and Al Gore their savior (PBUH). It was quite a good thread and then someone came up with "The Weather Stone" to be the AGW believer's crucifix. The starting image can be found here:
Weather Stone
We changed it up of course. If the stone is wet it's Global Warming. If the stone is dry it's Global Warming and so on. Just as you said, and it is embarrassing to watch frankly, no matter what the outcome, no matter how many time Al "The Gorealce" Gore shows up at a AGW rally where it is 15 degrees colder than everyone expected, the answer is always the same. It's man's fault.
It still makes me cringe to think I was such a mouthpiece for the same crowd when I was a teenager and I was yelling that a new ice age was coming.
I'm surprised you don't use nighttime to argue that the Sun doesn't exist.
Warmist,
Ridicule is not an argument. And your analogy - if that is what it is - is merely an absurdity which you think will confer absurdity upon opposing viewpoints, merely because you say it.
So. You'll have to dredge up better cliche's than that ol' hackneyed nonstarter. It doesn't even come close to the argument being made, which is this: if an argument discriminates against nothing, then the argument also proves nothing. This is just the falsification criterion which Popper demonstrated, and it is an indicator for the types of issues which can vs cannot be addressed by objective observation.
However, Global Warming can be falsified, but as with the confirmation/verification, that will take decades. So the claim that the science is settled, or any claim of that nature, is rationally considerable to be premature. Especially considering the brand new information regarding the ridge under the iceshelf which has prevented its motion, indicating that the modellers actually do not have all the information, contra their claims.
When creating models, the underlying (often hidden) assumptions can make the model either useful or useless. Unfortunately, these assumptions are usually not reported when the model results are reported in the media. In fact, it is often the case that the assumptions have never been given any serious thought by the model developers.
The underlying major assumption of the AGW model is that human activity (burning of fossil fuels, for example) are the PRIMARY cause of Global Warming (presuming that it actually exists). If the math formulas in the model are created predicated on this one assumption, then it is not surprising to anyone knowledgeable of computer software modeling that the end result "proves" that global warming is occurring.
Any sufficiently complex model REQUIRES simplifying assumptions, especially (as in this case) where no one actually knows all of the variables and the various complicated interactions between the earth systems, the solar system and the activities of human beings. It is INSUFFICIENT to simply ASSUME that human activities are the "root cause" of supposed global climate changes, and then proceed to the fun task of whipping through draconian laws to force all the Neanderthal retards who disagree with "settled science" (an oxymoron, if ever there was one, given that scientific findings are ALWAYS contingent) into shape to save the planet.
Does the old adage "Garbage in, garbage out" ring any bells?!?
Unless you know all of the assumptions underlying a model and have access to the raw data associated with the model AND the math sophistication to understand the MEANING of the math model, I submit that you cannot trust any results derived from that model, especially if the results are being trumpeted by people who by their very ideology cannot be trusted to tell any unbiased truth.
Stan,
>When all possible evidence (even contradictory) proves Q, then Q is a tautology, not an objective fact.
Of course, that is not the evidence for global warming. The evidence for that is that A) we are digging carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere, B) carbon is a greenhouse gas, C) other climate forcings are currently of a lesser degree than carbon dioxide greenhouse effect.
Also: A) the carbon in the atmosphere is of an isotope known to be associated with fossils rather than volcanoes, B) satellites measure more heat coming than going. And more.
So, there is no "if it is cold then it is global warming, if it is hot then it is global warming" used as evidence, apart from the hysterical media.
Yes, of all of those items, the only one that matters for warming is the second item B). If there is truly more energy entering than exiting, there will be excess energy build up.
I personally doubt that the ability of satellites to provide conclusive information in this regard, for several reasons, including but not restricted to the irregular emission source which is the earth. Satellites do not cover all portions of the earth (or there would be an umbra caused by satellites). If satellites measure horizon to horizon, then they are averaging and not accounting for potential peak sources of emission.
Measuring input from a distant point source is far different from measuring an irregular near source. Perhaps they can compensate for that, but I sincerely doubt it. I suspect that there are unstated presuppositions which are built in, and are unaccounted for because they are unaccountable.
Global Warming is a swarm of such assumptions, and as with any claim of objective knowledge, only testing and replicability which is available for independent, unbiased reproduction can produce inductive validation which can suffice.
Yes, the media is a hysterical mess. But the science itself is not up to empirical standards in my opinion. The modern rush to unsubstantiated and/or unsubstantiable claims being called "science" goes straight against my grain.
Post a Comment