Saturday, November 26, 2011

More "Science of Climate"

Coyote links to Small Dead Animals who posts a couple of news stories.

Canada's Beverly herd, numbering more than 200,000 a decade ago, can barely be found today.[...]
From wildlife spectacle to wildlife mystery, the decline of the caribou — called reindeer in the Eurasian Arctic — has biologists searching for clues, and finding them.

They believe the insidious impact of climate change...  AP, 2009

Oooops.

A vast herd of northern caribou that scientists feared had vanished from the face of the Earth has been found, safe and sound -- pretty much where aboriginal elders said it would be all along.   CP, 2011

Bbbbbbbbbbuuut it's CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!

17 comments:

Deekaman said...

Contrary to what many of your Lefty commenters might claim, I do not doubt that the climate is changing. They believe it should not change and the ONLY cause of change is evil humans. See, humans are extremely powerful against nature....except when they aren't. Our ability to influence climate is crazy small, but since the Left doesn't believe in the existence of God, they MUST attribute these changes to humans, which are one of their many gods.

Ba'al would be pleased.

Jim said...

the Left doesn't believe in the existence of God

What a moronic statement!

I haven't heard anybody, lefty nor looney, who claims that climate doesn't or shouldn't change without anthropomorphic cause. But to assert that climate change has not accelerated as humans have rapidly added CO2 and other substances to the atmosphere is simply naive at best.

Try some science, Deek. Changes in ocean temperatures of less than a degree can have profound affects on currents and organisms.

The science is there and obvious. Did you think that there was no cause and effect to the ozone layer CFCs, HCFSs and others? Did you find it interesting at all that the ozone layer is improving since the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act?

How can you look at polluted rivers, belching smoke stacks, the air in any city in China and believe that man can have no effect on climate?

What is your reason for NOT trying to do something to stem the onset of catastrophic changes in sea levels and food sources?

Are you afraid that it costs too much? You know that those costs are actually jobs, don't you?

Or are you afraid that somehow trying to clean up after ourselves and lessen our impact on climate challenges the omnipotence of God and is therefore heretical?

Deekaman said...

Horseshit, Jim. El Nino, La Nina, AMO,PDO, etc have profound effects on ocean temperature and zero effect on ocean life.

You *absolutely* claim climate shouldn't change. By definition. You are making the claim that there is some optimum climate and that bad, bad humans are changing it. For you to say otherwise is bogus. By saying so, you believe you can quantify what part of a changing climate is natural and what part is (allegedly) human-induced. You can't. Or at least it hasn't been shown.

To make claims such as you do, based on (relatively) short time spans with reliable data from only about 50 years is absurd.

The bans on CFC's were done with nearly no evidence, since there was no reliable measurement of the ozone layer prior to about 1980. We had no idea if the cause was CFC's or not.

Pollution in china does not change the "climate", but rather local conditions. The science is neither "there" nor "Obvious", since the "believers" have made no attempt to disprove their work and have politically stifled any dissent as you do now. "The science is settled", "the debate is over". That's not science. In true science, the debate is never over.

If you all are correct about "climate change", why the secrecy? Why the changing theory to fit existing conditions?

Again, the Left does not believe in the existence of God. If they did, they would not hold man (government) as god.

Feel free to call me "moronic". It is the last gasp of scoundrels, unable to make an argument other than "it is because I say it is". I say, test your theory and see if it fits. "Climate science" can't even accurately model past climate. You can model the future? I say, bullshit.

TerryN said...

Anthropomorphic global warming, or climate change is Mann made.

Jim said...

El Nino, La Nina, AMO,PDO, etc have profound effects on ocean temperature and zero effect on ocean life.

Now you're talking horseshit, Deek.

According to NOAA or the California Department of Fish and Game and Marine Science the are plenty of affects on marine life.

You *absolutely* claim climate shouldn't change.

More horseshit. I've never claimed any such thing and I challenge you to provide a source for some credible source who has.

You are making the claim that there is some optimum climate and that bad, bad humans are changing it.

Horseshit, Deek. Never have; never will, and I challenge you to site a credible source that has.

For you to say otherwise is bogus.

And for you to say that is insane.

To make claims such as you do

I'm not the one making the claims. Scientists worldwide in peer-reviewed work are making the claims.

there was no reliable measurement of the ozone layer prior to about 1980

Ozone has been measured since at least the 1930s - Source.

We had no idea if the cause was CFC's or not.

Not so. - Source

If you all are correct about "climate change", why the secrecy?

What secrecy?

Why the changing theory to fit existing conditions?

Who is doing that and how?

the Left does not believe in the existence of God.

And you are full of crap, Deek.

I say, test your theory and see if it fits.

I'm not a scientist. But I read articles about the science. What makes you think that the theories and models are untested?

Deekaman said...

I *am* a scientist. Engineering to be exact. when you have something other than "peer review" by a bunch of people who all believe the same stuff and don't question any of it, let me know. Further, you offer nothing other than "the science is settled". I will continue to wave the bullshit flag on any "settled science". If science was ever "settled", we'd still be calling the Earth the center of the solar system and claim it was flat.

Stratospheric ozone has only been accurately measured since the 70's. Pretty sure you have access to Google. Feel free to use it. I see anywhere from 1956 from one source to "accurately" from NOAA in the 1970's. Take your pick.

Oh...Google "scientific method", too. You might learn what you missed in grade school.

Dad29 said...

Jim might also explain for us the warming period of the Middle Ages while he's at it.

Jim said...

a bunch of people who all believe the same stuff and don't question any of it

Says who?

If science was ever "settled", we'd still be calling the Earth the center of the solar system and claim it was flat.

So it's not settled that Earth revolves about the Sun? Is it possible that the earth is a cube?

Stratospheric ozone has only been accurately measured since the 70's.

So what? It has been measured and was shown to be being depleted. Depletion-causing substances were known to be released into the atmosphere with a measured growth of the ozone hole. Or do you deny the link between CFCs and similar substances to ozone depletion?

You still haven't answered my question about why you resist cleaning up after ourselves. Is it the cost or the heresy?

Deekaman said...

I don't resist cleaning up after ourselves. I resist doing something that impoverishes everyone, kills many because they lose access to cheap, plentiful fuel, destroys world economies and does absolutely zero to change anything all on the "precautionary principle". This Global Warming religion is enriching people like Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri and the other warmistas have palatial homes and fly around the world in private jets while telling you and me to "suck it up" and do with less. Does that not tell you anything? Does it not make you the least bit suspicious that Al Gore, while preaching the evils of energy consumption consumes as much as a small city? That he preaches of rising sea levels and buys an ocean-front home? You don't question why the likes of Michael Mann, et al resist with every fiber in their being, the release of raw data to people other than those with whom they agree? You are not the least bit concerned that IPCC itself says any action we take will precisely zero effect? You don't question the need for Global Warming meetings that take place in resorts that everyone flies their private jets to? They then catch private limos to the confab? When it is so easy to have a web-based conference now? How much "greenhouse gas" do you think that might save? None of that makes you suspicious of motives?

Then, Jim you are dumber or more gullible than I thought.

Jim said...

That he preaches of rising sea levels and buys an ocean-front home?

I can see the Sierra Nevada mountains from my home, but I wouldn't say I live in a mountain cabin. Gore can SEE the ocean from his villa, but he can't walk out his back door and frolic in the surf. There is a difference between ocean-"front" and ocean "view".

destroys world economies

And which economies would those be?

does absolutely zero to change anything all

How do you know? Because the thought that man can effect climate one way or another is blasphemy against God?

I've noticed no sources for your claims. Do you have some?

IPCC itself says any action we take will precisely zero effect?

Do you have a source for that? Preferably from the IPCC.

Does it make you hard when you use ad homimen attacks to "make" your point?

Deekaman said...

I will never convince you with whatever evidence I bring up. You have Google and seem to think you are a pretty smart guy. Do your own research. I did.

Or are you just a Gaia zealot?

(Nice ad hominems yourself)

Deekaman said...

Oh....and feel free to look at *both* sides of the argument. You will see that your side is "wanting".

Jim said...

You will see that your side is "wanting".

And "your side" isn't?

What were my ad hominems, Deek?

You are asking me to research to prove you right? I have given sources. You have given none.

Deekaman said...

Jim, all you have looked at is your side. I have looked at both. I've read all the IPCC reports, I've even listened to Heidi Cullen, the High Priestess of Global, er Climate Ch...uh...this week it's climate Disruption, right?

Have you looked at Anthony Watts? Maybe Joe D'Aleo? Or do you "bother" with "denier" sites because they're just a bunch of "Koch-sucking idiots" funded by "Big Oil". And of course, any industry-related study is automatically tainted, right? while Universities, that live off government grants, can't possibly have an agenda, right? And Government research is always better than private because governments are always benevolent and would never injure a soul - well, except for those millions murdered by their own governments in the name of stuff like "Great Leap forward", "Cultural Revolution", "Ethnic Cleansing". But that's no reason to distrust government power, right?

No ad hominems? Let's see, you started by calling me "moronic", continued with inferring that I cared nothing for science (I care far more about science than you do....I question). Your inferences that I neither care about the environment nor about future generations are as far off-base as anything you've stated.

You fail to look past your own biases. Go ahead. California is going to freeze in the dark anyway. A couple degrees of warmer climate is nothing compared to having no heat in the cold, no light in the dark, no refrigeration, no transportation (except for the trains the government allows you).

So please, please don't bother to look at ALL the evidence. Don't bother to follow the money. And by all means, believe in the benevolence of a government that is going to make sure you are well taken care of, because that has worked so well in the rest of the world. Be lazy and expect others to give you "citations" so you don't have to bother finding them, because, well...somebody else will pay your freight, so why not this, too.

I've looked at your side and I've looked at the opposing side. I fall on the side that makes sense to me, based on scientific evidence which I, as someone schooled in science understand and make sense of.

There is not enough evidence to convict.

Jim said...

you started by calling me "moronic". No, I said that your statement that the left doesn't believe in God was moronic. If I had said you were a moron, that would be an ad hominem attack. I didn't.

continued with inferring that I cared nothing for science No, you inferred that. I did not. If I had implied that, however, it would not have been an ad hominem attack.

A couple degrees of warmer climate is nothing compared to having no heat in the cold, no light in the dark, no refrigeration, no transportation (except for the trains the government allows you).

Is this what it is all about? You fear there will be no gas for you to drive to the store?

TerryN said...

It's hard to argue with a sophist. Hence so many wars throughout history.

Al Gore is a rich lying bastard who is reveled by his followers.

TerryN said...

It's hard to argue with a sophist. Hence so many wars throughout history.

Al Gore is a rich lying bastard who is reveled by his followers.