Monday, December 27, 2010

The Faith of Gore's Apocalypse

What Does "Global Warming" Mean?
Initially, it was all about the science. We were told that the leading scientists from around the globe were in total agreement that Man was destroying the planet. We were admonished that to deny it was pointless and foolish, and that further debate was unnecessary because, as they said, the "science is settled".

When some started to doubt them, they were cast as heretics and dangerous lunatics. Some of the disciples even went so far as to try to have the doubters treated as criminals. The strange paradox that resulted was that Science became the arch enemy of Faith, or vice versa, and became the glove that fit my affinity for the ironic perfectly.

While I rarely rely on Wiki-anything for information, a simple definition of the term "science" seems like a harmless diversion. "Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world. An older meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained."

In other words, science is rigid, and must follow rules that are either so, or not so. If X=Y and Y=Z, then X must equal Z. There is no room for ambiguity. Faith, on the other hand, is exactly that; a belief in something that cannot be either proved or disproved. You either believe, or you do not.

Whenever some horrendous event occurs and innocent people die, atheists always ask, "If there was a God, how could He let this happen?" The faithful try to explain that God gave Man free will, and they will be judged at the End, not as a running commentary.  That's when the atheist usually snorts and dismisses the explanation as rubbish, and touts science as a pure and provable way of life.

The irony lies in the fact that now, these same stuffy people are trying to say that sometimes X doesn't equal Z because Y is sometimes moody. This is precisely why the global warming alarmists changed shirts, and are now known as "climate change" alarmists, although they loath the term "alarmist". They claim that they are just trying to prevent us fools from destroying ourselves.

Quite naturally, with the extreme cold currently ravaging most of the Northern Hemisphere, and snowstorms raging out of control, people who doubt the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are now even more skeptical. We were told that the planet was heating up. How could we huddling for warmth, then?

From a wonderful article in Investors Business Daily:

  Based on global warming theory — and according to official weather forecasts made earlier in the year — this winter should be warm and dry. It's anything but. Ice and snow cover vast parts of both Europe and North America, in one of the coldest Decembers in history.
A cautionary tale? You bet. Prognosticators who wrote the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we're experiencing now, weren't even listed as a possibility. 

 But the New York Times' Judah Cohen insists on carrying the water of the alarmist crowd, telling us that this cold and snowy winter weather is...global warming! Writing on the Times' Opinion pages on Christmas Day, Cohen offers this gem:
That is why the Eastern United States, Northern Europe and East Asia have experienced extraordinarily snowy and cold winters since the turn of this century. Most forecasts have failed to predict these colder winters, however, because the primary drivers in their models are the oceans, which have been warming even as winters have grown chillier. They have ignored the snow in Siberia.
Last week, the British government asked its chief science adviser for an explanation. My advice to him is to look to the east.
It’s all a snow job by nature. The reality is, we’re freezing not in spite of climate change but because of it.
Got that? We don't have to worry about frying to death because of global warming. We have to cool the Earth in order to stay warm. Further, as the Cancun Summit recently reinforced, the only way to accomplish this is for "wealthy" countries - like the United States -  to begin transferring $100 billion per year to developing countries. Ask any "climate change" expert how this could possibly be, and they are now likely to tell you that "you've gotta have faith".

My, how times have changed. Brr.

Sphere: Related Content

18 comments:

CommonSense said...

Forecasting weather is something entirely different than seeing long-term trends in the changes of GLOBAL climate, yet Woody doesn't discern between the two.

Woody goes on to claim that people "have been told" that the WINTER weather in the "Northern Hemisphere" was an impossibility for this year, which is a rather laughable strawman. Nobody has pretended that LOCAL cold spells of WINTER WEATHER won't occur within a warming period that happens on a GLOBAL scale.

The notion that this is somehow a blow to the global warming theory likens to the redneck author of this absurd opinion blog looking at his thermostat and, after realizing that today is in fact colder than yesterday, concludes that global warming can't be happening at all.

Woody obviously does not understand the difference between SEASONAL WEATHER and LONG-TERM GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. LOL!!

"snowstorms raging out of control"?? Woody, how does one "control" winter season weather? LOL!!! You are absurd, and your opinion post is void of valid facts to support your absurdities as "science".

Climate Denial Crock of the Week- "It's cold. So there's no Climate Change" ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM&

Woody said...

CommonSense (a misnomer if ever one existed), I can always rely on you to bring a knife to a gunfight, with your reading comprehension "skills" being the figurative knife.

I didn't make the claim that "people have been told" anything. I was quoting an article in the Investors Business Daily, which made that claim. I even included a link. Gosh, I know how you love them links.

Another reliable staple of your writing is your gratuitous use of CAPS and a multitude of punctuation marks, which is a wonderful visual aide in enabling the reader to nearly hear your hysterical shrieks.

"Snowstorms raging out of control" was a figure of speech (much like the "knife to a gunfight" analogy). But I did enjoy your rationale in making that argument.

Of course I don't think we can control winter season weather, nor any other climate event. For you to even have the audacity to attempt to scold me over something so ridiculous is nothing short of sublime, however.

Ye, of the Liberal Cult, who wanted Bush to steer Katrina away from New Orleans, and who make the ludicrous claim that Man is either causing - or can stop - global warming is irony at its most delicious.

The coup de grace is the method by which your ilk claims this can be accomplished; sending truckloads of cash to Nigeria and Tunisia, e.g.

Fudgester, as always, it's been a pleasure having you weigh in, but you really should change your comment name. Common sense is not a trait with which you were graced.


Oh, almost forgot...LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

CommonSense said...

Woodhead states: "I didn't make the claim that "people have been told" anything. I was quoting an article in the Investors Business Daily, which made that claim."

Indeed, you are making that claim as a basis for your article. Of course, in your second post, you STILL fail to comprehend that LOCAL SEASONAL WEATHER is not the same as GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (even though I tried to make it easier for you to see your absurdity by emphasizing it): "Of course I don't think we can control winter season weather, nor any other climate event."

That you don't think humans can effect factors that influence GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE is every bit as nonsensical s your trying to equate WINTER SEASONAL WEATHER with GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

Then you try to morph the meaning of what you said in your lead post by stating: "Snowstorms raging out of control" was a figure of speech (much like the "knife to a gunfight" analogy)."

You did not use it as a "figure of speech", you were using the SEASONAL WINTER WEATHER as proof against "GLOBAL WARMING": "Quite naturally, with the extreme cold currently ravaging most of the Northern Hemisphere, and snowstorms raging out of control, people who doubt the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are now even more skeptical. We were told that the planet was heating up. How could we huddling for warmth, then?"

"Snowstorms raging out of control" is not a "figure of speech", as it too is nonsensical...snowstorms cannot be controlled.

Your lead post's inference, "I looked outside, and it was snowing, therefore, there is no climate change.", is nothing more than a crock of foolishness. NASA scientists don't agree with your posted opinion and their data deems you errant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM&

You are free to remain ignorant, but why would you choose to do so, given that the facts from folks like NASA scientists are pretty clear and contrary to your opinion?

Woody said...

I find it amazing that you ridicule the notion that Man can control the weather on the one hand, and then accuse me of being "nonsensical" for refusing to believe that Man can control the entire climate of the Earth.

Was it you who advised the Russians that cloud seeding could prevent snow from falling on Moscow last year? LMAO.

That you cling to the idiotic ravings of James Hansen, et al, as proof is just hilarious. And you no doubt dismiss out of hand the over 1,000 scientists who have been growing steadily in number in opposition to your insane beliefs.

Incidentally, you run the risk of losing your badge and secret decoder ring if you continue to use the term "global warming". You must have received the memo...see if you can find it. It clearly states that the proper term du jour is "climate change".

And by golly, Jimmy Hansen is determined to make every single day sunny and mild!

CommonSense said...

Woody said...

"I find it amazing that you ridicule the notion that Man can control the weather on the one hand, and then accuse me of being "nonsensical" for refusing to believe that Man can control the entire climate of the Earth."

CommonSense: I find it amazing that you look at your thermostat and, after realizing that today is in fact colder than yesterday (it's winter...go figure), conclude that global warming can't be happening at all.

"Was it you who advised the Russians that cloud seeding could prevent snow from falling on Moscow last year? LMAO."

CommonSense: No. But then you knew that.

Can you prove that the "snowstorms raging out of control" were being controlled by cloud seeding?

"That you cling to the idiotic ravings of James Hansen, et al, as proof is just hilarious. And you no doubt dismiss out of hand the over 1,000 scientists who have been growing steadily in number in opposition to your insane beliefs."

CommonSense: Then you should be able to prove it and identify those "over 1,000 scientists" by name. They are in the minority and most are probably receiving funding from the likes of ExxonMobile. More important: I noticed you failed to counter the data from the NASA scientists that was posted in the video.

"Incidentally, you run the risk of losing your badge and secret decoder ring if you continue to use the term "global warming". You must have received the memo...see if you can find it. It clearly states that the proper term du jour is "climate change"."

CommonSense: Maybe you wouldn't be confusing seasonal weather with long-term global climate change if you weren't reading comprehension challenged: my posts refer to "climate change".

Local seasonal weather is not an indicator of global climate change, as you would like folks to errantly believe. What folks reading your nonsense need to remember: NASA scientists' are experts...Woody is not...and their data does not support the claims Woody tries to propagate as accurate and factual. That is why Woody dances around with his reply posts but FAILS to counter-prove the NASA data and statements that render his opinion as based on falsehoods.

CommonSense said...

Just one more skeptic that changed his mind when confronted with facts:

4. Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic Magazine   In 2001, Shermer hosted a Skeptics Society debate on global warming, prompted by Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist. He sided, predictably, with the skeptics. Then he looked at the science, and in 2006 reached a "flipping point," acknowledging the "overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic global warming."


Before quote: "Scientists like Bjorn Lomborg in The Skeptical Environmentalist have, in my opinion, properly nailed environmental extremists for these exaggerated scenarios." (
2008, referring to 2001)


After quote: "Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism." (
2006)

CommonSense said...

Woody, are you deleting my posts or is your freebie blogger site screwing it up? I posted the following first but only the second part post is showing.

Speaking of converts. Indeed, skeptics are changing their minds as they see mounting evidence. It is amusing that some of them were the main sources quoted by the likes of Woody in earlier forum exchanges.

September 2010
“6 global warming skeptics who changed their minds”
Climate change doubters have just lost one of their leading lights, as writer Bjorn Lomborg calls for a worldwide carbon tax. But he's not the first high-profile defector http://tinyurl.com/2fjsqbh

Snippets (links in original article):

With 2010 shaping up as the warmest year on record and unprecedented heat waves gripping the planet, global warming skeptics have suffered another blow with the defection of the "most high-profile" member of their camp, author Bjorn Lomborg. But Lomborg isn't the first doubter to accept the scientific consensus that human carbon emissions are warming the planet and need to be curtailed. Here, a review of several prominent cases:

1. Bjorn Lomborg, Danish academic  Lomborg made waves with his 2001 book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, which argued that global warming was no big deal, and fighting it would be a waste of money. This month, he's publishing Smart Solutions to Climate Change, which argues that a global carbon tax should be imposed to raise $150 billion a year to address global warming.


Before quote: "In 20 years' time, we’ll look back and wonder why we worried so much." (
2002)


After quote: "We actually have only one option: we all need to start seriously focusing, right now, on the most effective ways to fix global warming." (
2010)

Woody said...

Michael Shermer? You're touting a magazine publisher to bolster your argument? Do you have any really, really smart singers to throw into the mix? LMAO.

Actually, I see that you did.
Let's see, among the six skeptics-turned-alarmists that have you feeling that Matthews tingle are:

Shermer (Mag Publisher)

Dmitri Medvedev (Russian President)

Michael Hanlon (Science journalist)

Bjorn Lomborg (Danish academic)

Gregg Easterbrook (Journalist and Author)

Stu Ostro (Weather Channel senior meteorologist) Hey, meteorologists are weather dudes, right? You're too funny, Fudge.

Woody said...

I have the settings the way they are to prevent obsessive compulsives from flooding the site with comments (as you have attempted).

You asked, "Can you prove that the 'snowstorms raging out of control' were being controlled by cloud seeding?"

My answer is an incredulous, why would I want to when I never made such a ridiculous claim?

And if you think I am going to post over 1,000 names to satisfy your curiosity, you may want to take a deep breath and hold it. However, being the kind-hearted Conservative that I am, I will provide a url that you may feel free to peruse at your leisure.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

Edisto Joe said...

The Global Warming crowd seems to view the science on their subject in the same manner that liberals view the Constitution...a living document, never meant to be absolute and subject to change and interpretation as the situation requires. First the data pointed to Global Cooling, then data was analysed to show we had Global Warming, and now after all the scandals and some rather chilly winters, we are faced with just plain old Climate Change period. That is the "convenient truth".

CommonSense said...

And yet, you both still persist to insist localized SEASONAL weather is the same as GLOBAL climate change.

And...more important...

You both FAILED to prove the NASA scientists' data in the video to be errant.

To conclude: Your global change/warming opinions are not based on facts, as indicated by the NASA scientists and the majority of world scientists who have effectively disputed your nonsense in peer reviewed scientific studies.

CommonSense said...

EdistoJoe, I suggest you watch the video and pay close attention to the NASA scientists' data. Or...choose to soapbox your ignorance. After all, this is America and you have the right to be stupid.

Woody stated: "Stu Ostro (Weather Channel senior meteorologist) Hey, meteorologists are weather dudes, right? You're too funny, Fudge."

He understands that localized SEASONAL weather is not a sole, or accurate, indicator of global CLIMATE change/warming. He does not define seasonal weather as global climate...you do.

And that makes you pathetic, not "funny". Your nervous laughter (because you FAILED to counter the NASA data as errant) is what I find amusing.

Edisto Joe said...

To CS:
Ignorance? My, my...must have tweaked a nerve, my apologies.

CommonSense said...

BTW, Woody...your linked source is funded by ExxonMobile. No surprise there.

ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow's Marc Morano, a Con global warming skeptic who previously served as environmental communications director for Sen. James Inhofe. Morano already has an established record for using misinformation and so-called experts (many are not even credentialed)in his earlier reports. If you want info on Inhofe, you'll have to allow for multiple postings. ;0)

Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.

From 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

CommonSense said...

EdistoJoe states: "Ignorance? My, my...must have tweaked a nerve, my apologies."

Yes, ignorance. The only thing you "tweaked" was my humor because you feel the need to apologize for your ignorance.

Facts are:
"1) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;

and...

2) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

And...Woody uses an ExxonMobile funded site as his source. One that is already on record for using deliberate misinformation and less than credible "experts". Same as usual right-whine play. Too funny!

Woody said...

EJ,
"CommonSense" and I go way back, and I can assure that it is pointless to try to reason with her. Me, I'm a stubborn SOB, and I make no apologies for my antagonism LOL.

We're dealing with a woman convinced of her intellect due solely to the fact that she is quite adept at linking Google-sourced articles as her alleged proof, regardless of their merit. If she reads it online, it is true. (Unless, of course, it is funded by the dreaded "ExxonMobile"!

Fugdemeister, I do not care who funds Climate Depot or Marc Morano. Much of his sourcing is from easily searchable articles in so-called mainstream journals. No, you won't find them in your Socialist haunts like HuffPo, et al, but I just know you can do it if you try.

Rather than waste your time on my site, I would suggest that you and your fellow stooges form a line and begin passing full pails of water to the scene of your precious IPCC, engulfed in flames.

Anonymous said...

As usual, when Woody FAILS to counter factual peer-reviewed data by non-political sources(NASA scientists, not HUFFINGTON, as he lied) he resorts to morphing the thread topic into being about the poster who has challenged his absurd misinformation.

Yes indeed, Woody, your source's articles of ExxonMobile funded deliberate misinformation, and use of "experts" who are not credentialed, is well established.

Of course, the main point I made: your claim (that seasonal winter weather infers there is no global climate change/warming) is errant and absurd.

Woody said...

This is precisely why I write; to counter the lies spouted from your side of the debate.

The only premise that wreaks of absurdity is the dogma relentlessly pounded upon by people like you, who have a large swath of the populace convinced that those lies are now fact. (See Goebbels).

"...non-political sources(NASA scientists, not HUFFINGTON, as he lied)..." Non-political, as in James Hansen? The same James Hansen who, in 2008, appeared before Congress in an attempt to get chief oil executives to be tried for "high crimes" against humanity?

The same James Hansen who, in 2008, said, "The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a clear sign that the climate is changing."

I can't believe that a NASA guru doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.

I never said that the climate wasn't changing. That would be absurd, as the climate is always changing. In fact...it was actually changing long, long before Man was here. Hmm...