Feb 12 2008
Great, Now The Global Warming Mad-Hatters Are Calling Me A Terrorist
Hyperventilating never works. And ignorant people hyperventilating is just plain ugly. Mike Bloomberg shows once again it don’t take brains to get rich as he compares what is in all likelihood a natural, solar driven phenomena to Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda:
While he acknowledged that scientists are unable to predict its consequences, Mayor Bloomberg yesterday compared the scourge of global warming to the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Although it is a “long-term” fight, he said, reducing gas emissions may save the life of “everybody” on the planet, the same way that fighting terrorism and its proliferation saves lives in shorter terms.
It sucks being scientifically illiterate Mike – but don’t put the terrorist label on those of us who know the man-made ‘science’ is full of holes. Here’s the deal Mike, if the Chicken Littles running with Al Gore looking for money are wrong again (and they have been wrong for coming on 20 years now in all their predictions) then controlling a gas which constitutes a measly 3% of the Green House effect is not going to be the same as saving the world from Terrorism (which is what George Bush is doing).
These panicky ignoramuses who are easily spooked by science fiction are the problem, not those calling for real scientific results and actual predictions! How dare they insinuate those of us who disagree with them are akin to terrorist supporters. Let’s get to some hard facts about the man-made global warming claims.
In 1990 the first round of predictions from these quasi-scientists were produced and the prediction was for 0.3 °C per decade increase.
Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade
Now that we are nearing the end of our second decade from this bold prediction are we 0.6 °C above the 1990 temperature as they predicted? Hell no – we are about the same if you average all the years (as can be seen in the chart below if you focus on the red bars and not the blue ‘trend’ line which someone arbitrarily drew).
To put this in context here is also what they claimed back then:
Our judgement is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 °C over the last 100 years…
They predicted that by now we would have experienced as much global warming in the last 20 years as the world saw in the last 100. Got that? They predicted a 5 fold increase in run away global warming. It never happened folks. Look at the chart (their chart) – it never happened! By their own data the 1900 temperature was around 0.6 °C lower than today. But is 2008 about 0.6 °C above 1990? Nope.
And in fact the 2001 Chicken Little report admits there was not 0.3 °C increase per decade as the 1990 report predicted there would be:
One decade later and the last century’s increase is the same as the decade prior – QED: no increase. And there has been no increase since 2001 either – it has been very flat in the Global Warming arena for the last 10 years. None, and I mean zero, of the predictions made by these ‘scientists’ have ever come true. They look at data from 1950 to 2007 on things such as sea level, detect a +/- 50 mm difference and determine this is Armageddon when in fact it is more likely just more accuracy in our measurements now that we use GPS precision satellites to measure ocean surfaces to within a cm. Go get your rulers folks and measure out 50 mm and tell me that difference in sea levels across the globe is worth panicking about.The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6 °C.
And to equate those of us who know the fanatical claims don’t ‘measure up’ to their own data to terrorists just underlines the lack of hard science underlying these fools. Bloomberg must have missed the whole point of 2008 – get out of the fringes dude.
Facts don’t matter any more……it’s just too much FUN to predict catastrophe.
It’s a lot worse than “fun”, inventing fake catastrophe’s is a time-honored way to make people fear and obey you, one going all the way back to the shaman’s and witch doctors of pre-agricultural times. “The gods will be angry! The world will be destroyed! Repent, o ye sinners!”
And of course if you’re the one with the magic keys to “prevent” the catastrophe from happening, the chastened people will reward you with their obedience and their wealth, of course.
AJ,
First of all, we need to clarify what they meant by “21st Century”. You see, the 21st Century is from 2000-2099. It does not include 1990-1999. So when you say that there predictions about the “21st Century” haven’t panned out based on data from 1990-1999, I think the problem is your confusion about when a century starts.
Second, your theory rest entirely on your interpretation of the graph. You state “focus on the red bars and not the blue ‘trend’ line which someone arbitrarily drew”. That is BS. What is your basis for that conclusion? The trend line was not arbitrary. The trend line is the key data for predicting climate change, which is a long term view of the weather patterns. The experts whom provided the exact same graph you are now relying upon to support your theory don’t think the trend line is irrelevant – maybe you can explain why you are smater than the experts whom prepared the graph. The trend line is much more consistent with the IPCC’s predictions, but that is a small detail that I know you will overlook.
Lastly, your focus on the IPCC report from 1990 ignores the fact that this was the first such report on global warming, when we were just beginning to really study the issue hard. The 1990 IPCC acknowledges that “there are many uncertainties in our predictions particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and regional patterns of climate change, due to our incomplete understanding of: sources and sinks of GHGs; clouds; oceans; polar ice sheets.” We know a lot more about global warming today than we did in 1990. Since 1990, the IPCC has produced three more reports (the most recent one is 2007) that explain why the IPCC continues to believe that global warming is happening. I suggest you read them some day.
While I’ll acknowledge that nobody can be 100% certain if global warming is actually happening, and if so, if it is occuring at the rate that the IPCC is predicting, I’m dumbstruck by the conspiracy theories as to why you conservatives claim this is all bogus. The IPCC alone is comprises of 2,500 scientist from 130 countries in the world, including the United States, that all consented to the conclusions in the IPCC’s 2007 report. The IPCC is hardly the only scientific organization that supports the global warming theory. Yet, you conservatives believe that all of these scientist know the global warming theory is bogus and have conspired together to make up a bogus report so that they can get more R&D money to support their profession? AJ, you often rail on the left for basing their theories on conspiracies, but that one is a real doosy.
Oh, and by the way, I agree 100% that it is completely unfair for Bloomberg or anyone else to ” insinuate those of us who disagree with them [on global warming] are akin to terrorist supporters. ” I just wish you would take your own advise when responding to others whom disagree with you on the GWOT, foreign policy, FISA, etc. I hate to tell you, but Bloomberg took this line right out of the GOP playbook.
Conman,
thanks for showing how a scientifically challenged fool can get so lost so easily. It’s simple – did the temperature rise .6 degrees since 1990 as they predicted? No. All that other stuff – irrelevant. I don’t care how many lines of code, experts, money or countries believe the BS.
Did you know the entire planet and scientific community once believed the Sun orbited the Earth? It wasn’t until they couldn’t use that model to predict the path of planets in the sky that they realized they were wrong. It is that fact, the global warming crowd cannot predict results, that shows their models are garbage. And in science there is not partially right.
LOL! Thanks for showing us how ‘naive’ works in practice. It was educational and humorous!
AJ,
You need to read the second paragraph of my comment again, apparently more slowly this time. The IPCC prediction specifically refers to the “21st Century”. The 1990s are not part of the 21st Century. You are not helping your credibility on this topic by continually confusing the two.
I also want to make sure I understand your comment about the reliability of the scientific community. Since the scientific community wrongly believed hundreds of years ago that the sun orbited the earth, we no longer should believe anything scientist say? If a scientific theory is not 100% accurate, it should be completely disregarded? Even if the majority of other predictions are correct? I’m beginning to suspect that your problem is that you don’t understand how scientific theories really work.
Once again, you are so predictable. I provided you a detailed response showing you the flaws in your analysis. You ignored my points, simply repeat the same thing you already said, and call me naive and think that means you won the argument. Boy, good thing you don’t have to make a living as a lawyer. Priceless!
Conman, I can read. your nit is not worth much now is it?
And no conman – as usual you can’t comprehend what I am writing. Do you by chance of a BS in a science field as I do?
AJ,
If your point is that the person with more educational and work experience in a particular scientific field is more credible on a particular topic in that field, I couldn’t agree more. So, let’s compare. Virtually all of the 2,500 scientist that participated in and signed off on the IPCC assessment reports have PH’ds in a science field and have extensive work experience in the climatology field. You are a software systems engineer with a BS in science. Any questions?
And I’m sorry, but it is clear from your own statements that you don’t know what you are talking about. You continuosly confuse the 1990’s with the 21st century – even though the projection you are claiming is wrong specifically refers to decades in the “21st century”. You ignore the trend line, which you claim is arbitrary, when the IPCC report uses this same trend line and explains why the trend line is the key data point. You use terms like “global mean temperature”, “global mean air surface temperature” and “global average surface temperature” interchangably, not recognizing that they are different things. “Global mean temperature” refers to land and ocean temperatures while “global mean air surface temperature” is land temperature only. And you should know the difference between a “mean” and an “average” of numbers. These are basic concepts that you obviously do not comprehend.
Seriously, you should actually read the IPCC assessment reports rather than rely solely on newspaper articles and other blogs on this topic. Simply reading it doesn’t mean that you have to accept everything in it at face value, and it will help you sound more knowledgeable on this topic in future posts.
Conman,
We were comparing you to me – so let’s just start there. Have a scientific background? If not, what makes you think you are in any position to arbitrate between differing scientific views?
It is called being way out of your league.
Your an idiot AJ, it does matter wether its a decade or century, the rest is just rambling garbage without this. Your about as scientifically illiterate as Al Gore. Conman wins.