Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam."

Don't forget, Lithodid-Man, the amount of oil in ANWR is a piddling amount...about six month's worth of US consumption that will take a decade to start extracting and will probably be sold to China.The idea that drilling in ANWR will help the situation is disingenuous at best.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

He has meteorological experience to start with.

---

Irrelevant. Meteorology is not climatology. By your logic, we can ask a paramedic about the details regarding open heart surgery and expect to get valid results.I should point out: He got fired from the Weather Channel. That's right...he was fired from his own network.

quote:

---

Secondly, he's backed by a panel of other eminent climatologists.

---

Incorrect. ICECAP is the climatological equivalent of ICR. The executive director of ICECAP is Joseph D’Aleo, formerly of "Frontiers of Freedom" which bills itself as, "an educational institute (or think tank) whose mission is to promote conservative public policy based on the principles of individual freedom, peace through strength, limited government, free enterprise, and traditional American values as found in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."In short, not an actual science group but one who thinks that politics trumps evidence.It doesn't matter how many other people say, "I agree." The question is: Have they managed to get their views past peer review?In a survey of all papers regarding climate change of the last decade, not one concluded that global warming wasn't happening or that man-made processes weren't the primary driver.In short, we've got the same situation with regard to evolution: Not a single piece of countervailing evidence and yet people seem to think that we're supposed to fall all over ourselves whenever somebody with the letters P, H, and D after the name says, "But I disagree!" as if that were a sufficient counter.It's not enough to disagree. You have to show why. So far, nobody has been able to show why.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

Problem is, Gore, among other global warming touters, unfortunately have not practiced what they preach.

---

Except Gore does. Sean Hannity? You actually think anything he says is true?Question: Do you think Hannity did any investigative work into why Gore was on a private jet? Gore has never claimed that he only flies commercial. Instead, he flies commercial where he can.Be specific about why Gore was on that plane. Think carefully. I'm sure you know what the schedule was. F'rinstance, Hannity claims that Gore should have driven from Tennessee to California in order to reduce carbon emissions.A four-day trip? Was that feasible? Gore needed to go from Tennessee to Camarillo to San Francisco the same day. Is that possible in a car?Then why did Hannity bring it up except as a distraction and an attempt to smear Gore? Gore has never said that we should never drive or never fly. So why is Hannity making a big deal about Gore practicing what he preaches?Oh, but there were over a hundred commercial options that day!Really? And he was capable of taking them? Over a hundred commercial options means every flight...but not every flight is available. If you need to be in California by 10 am, the flight leaving Tennessee at 2 pm isn't really an option. Nor is the early flight that doesn't actually get you there by 10 am. And if you can't actually leave until 6 am today, the red-eye can't be used, either. Since Hannity doesn't know what Gore's schedule was, his claim that there were over a hundred commercial options is nothing more than a number he pulled out of his ass.And notice the end...with absolutely no evidence that Gore didn't do what he does and pay the carbon offset for the trip, Hannity implies that he didn't. Notice how quickly he glosses over it, too: Gore pays for the carbon he emits when he travels. So if he takes a private jet rather than commercial or a car or a bike, he pays to make sure he remains carbon neutral.But we won't talk about that and we'll hint that he's not really doing it.It's Fox, NJ...it isn't news. Surely you know that by now. If you see it on Fox, assume the opposite is true.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist responds to crashfrog:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why is it that the best scientific models are always taken with the caveat that "hey, they might all be wrong"

---

​

Isn't that the caveat that all scientific models should be taken with?

---

Do you truly not understand the point?Yes, all scientific models are accepted tentatively. But the point is that they are ACCEPTED. The reason why they are accepted is because the evidence forces us to do so. If there were any real question about it, it wouldn't be accepted but would still be under investigation.It may be that we're wrong, but we don't have any reason to think that we are. F'rinstance, Newtonian physics is wrong. At every level. At every speed.However, we accepted it at the time because by the best instrumentation available at the time, it was right. When you couldn't make anything move more than a few hundred miles an hour and your instruments aren't as sensitive as they are right now, the discrepancy between what Newtonian mechanics tells you the answer should be and what you actually measure can't be detected because it's so small.And yet, that error is there. Newtonian mechanics is wrong but at the time, we had absolutely no reason to think that it was. Everything pointed to it being true. It was only when we had evidence that there was something wrong, when our instrumentation got better, did we start to question what we thought was right.You seem to be saying that if we can find somebody somewhere with the magic letters P, H, and D trailing the name, then that means we should take his pronouncements just as seriously as all the evidence we have showing him to be wrong because...well...because "all science is only tentative."It is not sufficient to be contrary. You have to show your evidence. You have to have it analysed. In a survey of all climatology papers of the last decade, not a single one concluded that global warming wasn't real or that human factors weren't the primary driver.So yes, it's possible that it's all wrong. It's possible that we've overlooked something. But that's not good enough. You have to show what was overlooked and how it affects the conclusions drawn from all the other evidence.

quote:

---

If you can't take it seriously then piss off.

---

Then I guess we'll miss you, because you certainly aren't taking it seriously.Your equating all the evidence that shows it is real and is primarily driven by humans with people who merely claim it isn't and can't provide any evidence to justify their claims, all because "it's possible" that all the evidence we have is wrong.

quote:

---

Isn't his the kind of shit you accuse Holmes of doing?

---

You mean avoid the question?Let's try it again: Where is all the human-produced CO₂ going to go?Personally, I do not find it coincidental that this claim was made now. Not too long ago new evidence showed that things are actually worse than previously thought: We're outpacing our carbon sinks.That is, there are processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere. So long as we don't put more carbon into the air than can be removed from it, we'll be at a stable point. But it seems that the carbon sinks are being overrun and can't pull as much carbon out as previously thought.So what better way to cause distraction than to have "the founder of the Weather Channel" (*glint!*) claim it's all a hoax?But I'm cynical.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

Then, for one possibility, we are unnecessarily hindering our technological advancements in the effort to mitigate an effect that is negligible.

---

Huh? In order to become less dependent on oil, we need to advance our technology. There is enough sunlight falling on the earth in a single minute to power the entire global energy demand for over a year. But solar power isn't very efficient at the moment. If I recall correctly, maximum efficiency is under 20%. If we could have some "technological advancements" to increase that efficiency and lower the cost, then we could reduce our use of oil, reduce our carbon emissions, and reduce the man-made effects of global warming.How would work on a technological advancement "hinder our technological advancements"? Did we cross over into conservative-land where everything is backwards?

quote:

---

One point is that the people who are benefiting for the Global Warming "hoax" are using the scare as a tactic to make money off the green scene.

---

How? Be specific.Besides, isn't it good business sense to develop a market? Especially one that reduces our dependence upon foreign oil? Which will result in lower prices due to the reduced fuel cost to transport goods across the country (you did notice that oil is pushing $100 a barrel, yes? When it was less than $30 less than a decade ago, yes?)

quote:

---

The point is that if nothing that we do matters WRT Global Warming, then those things are the "hoax" that others are getting rich off off.

---

And shifting our economy from a foreign-oil-base to a local-energy-base is bad? People aren't allowed to make money at the expense of the oil companies? Exxon-Mobil just posted the largest business profits in all of history. They're already getting rich off of it.Why are they the only ones allowed to get rich? Why can't the replacement technology for oil allow people to get rich?

quote:

---

Plus,. if it is a hoax (and we are the only one "doing anything" about and thus the only ones "falling for it" then we will be putting ourselves in the back of the pack.

---

Huh? Do you seriously not see the potential of developing energy technology that is not dependent upon foreign oil? How on earth are we putting ourselves "in the back of the pack" if we're the ones on the forefront of developing the technology?How much do you think India and China are willing to pay to not have to buy oil?It sounds like you're saying that if we work on energy independence, we won't discover...what...the cure for cancer?It's not a zero-sum game. We can do both.

quote:

---

One good reason is that China and India are going to make negligible the effects that the U.S. has on the global ecology

---

But imagine how better it would be if we developed technology such that they didn't have to buy oil. We solve the problem of their pollution and get an economic boost in the process as they buy the technology from us.Where is the downside?

quote:

---

limiting our technological advancements

---

Huh? How does working on technological advancements "limit" it? Have we wandered into conservative-land where everything is opposite?

quote:

---

That's just one interpretation.

---

And you were just recently passing out admonishments to take this discussion seriously.An interpretation that advancing technology is actually "hindering" the advancement of technology isn't taking it seriously.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Legend writes:

quote:

---

But permafrost, glaciers, allergens and animal ranges have been regularly fluctuating for hundreds of thousands of years.

---

No, not "fluctuating."GONE.Do you really not understand this? You're behaving as if this were nothing more than getting eleven inches of rain in a year rather than ten.The glaciers are GONE. The permafrost is GONE. The animal ranges are GONE. This is not a question of variations. This is a fact of obliteration.

quote:

---

Are there any *specific* predictions that have been verified so far ?

---

What part of "loss of glaciers, permafrost, and animal ranges" are you missing? They were predicted to disappear.They have disappeared.What more is required?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Legend writes:

quote:

---

Taz & jar instead present regularly occurring phenomena

---

Incorrect.You are confusing variation with absence. Variation is that the rainfall of the area tends to be between 8 and 11 inches per year.Instead, we're seeing no rainfall at all.The glaciers are [I][B]GONE[/i][/b]. The permafrost is [I][B]GONE[/i][/b].Just as predicted.What more is required?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

Variation of mass surface features can include absence.

---

True, but misleading.A desert is an area that receives less than 10 inches of precipitation per year (thus making some parts of Antarctica a desert...lots of snow, but it's old snow. Very little new snow falls in the area.) Thus, we should expect that every now and then, there will be years where there is no rain at all.But the rain forest? They're conceptually the opposite of deserts. Where deserts are defined by their lack of rain, rain forests are defined by their lack of dry. While we would expect there to be fluctuations such that some years there isn't as much rain as there was before, we do not expect them to have a year that would classify them as a desert. That would mean something drastic has happened and the rain forest is [I][B]GONE[/i][/b].

quote:

---

Does that make sense?

---

Yes.You're trivializing, equivocating, and engaging in the same error as what you are trying to deny:Confusing variation with absence.It is the same logical error creationists use when they try to make the false distinction of "macroevolution" and "microevolution" but in reverse: You are assuming that because there can be variation, then variation of any degree is to be expected.

quote:

---

The question would be if the temp changes we are seeing are a natural variation, that is from largely non-natural sources. The mass results are most definitely natural variations brought on by the temp changes no matter the source.

---

You do realize that those two sentences contradict each other, yes? If it is a non-natural source, then it is not a "natural" variation. That doesn't make it supernatural, but it does mean that it is being artificially driven.The evidence makes it quite clear that the temperature changes we are seeing are not a natural variation. A single hot year? Yeah, that's not so bizarre. A decade of hottest years on record? A century of hottest years on record? And not a gradual buildup but a sudden spike? That's something else.Your argument is that because things can vary, then they can vary to any degree desired without it being considered unusual.

quote:

---

You can't point to an unusual/extreme variant, and from that inherently deduce an unnatural cause.

---

If one is being trivial, pretending that one is looking only at a single data point, then you're right.However, we aren't dealing with trivial, one-off data points.

quote:

---

I hope this is clear.

---

Indeed.You are trivializing, engaging in the very fallacy you are trying to deny.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

Can we please keep debate civil?

---

You reap what you sow. Stop playing dumb and perhaps we'll be able to get somewhere.

quote:

---

I certainly was not insulting you.

---

Playing dumb is insulting.

quote:

---

Given that global temps are increasing, I suppose that could be linked to atmospheric disruptions leading to this unusual occurrence. In this example then the loss of rainfall being a natural occurrence due to the temp rises. However, in theory it is also possible to be linked to something else besides global temp change

---

Trivia! Yes, "in theory" there's an alien sending icemelt rays to the Arctic causing the opening of the Northwest passage even though the temperature couldn't possibly be causing the icemelt.But let's not play dumb.

quote:

---

which might not be natural process (for a hypothetical say some mean corporation is seeding clouds outside the area and preventing sufficient humidity for rainfall in that area).

---

You whine about not being able to engage in a "civil" discussion and then you come up with this? Conspiracy theories?Do you think we're stupid?

quote:

---

Okay so assuming that is found... such a link does NOT allow a conclusion that the raise in temps are not natural.

---

Huh? That was the entire point! We know that there are natural variations. They don't result in what we see. Ergo, something else is going on.

quote:

---

But it was from detailed analysis of atmospheric factors, not whether an unusual rainfall event has occurred.

---

And there you go, playing dumb again.Let's see...what was it that I said? Oh, that's right: Now, wouldn't slogging through decades of climate data indicate "detailed analysis of atmospheric factors"? Nah, couldn't possibly be. I was obviously talking about a single thunderstorm.Do you think we're stupid?

quote:

---

In other words one event can have more than one source

---

And more playing dumb.Let's see...what was it that I said? Oh, that's right: Hmm..."A century of hottest years on record." Is that "one event"? Why of course! It's "one event" of a century!Do you think we're stupid?

quote:

---

One last time, an unusual event says something has changed, not necessarily what the exact mechanism is.

---

But we're not talking about an unusual "event." We're talking about a complete reworking of everything. The glaciers didn't just "recede." They're GONE. Within a space that natural factors cannot account for.

quote:

---

Predictions which would have been true regardless of source of the rising temps cannot tell us what was the cause of those rises.

---

But that isn't what the prediction was. The prediction is not, "Glaciers will disappear if the temperature rises enough." The prediction was, "Glaciers will disappear because the temperature is rising beyond what would normally happen. Normal fluctuations would not result in the complete disappearance of glaciers."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

I asked you to be civil in another thread.

---

You reap what you sow. If you want a civil discourse, then it would behoove you to be civil.

quote:

---

I've grown tired of your accusations of playing dumb and asking if I think you're stupid.

---

Then stop playing dumb and treating the readership as if they were stupid. You claimed that you were trying to explain your use of the word "universal" when you didn't use the term. How is that a hallmark of "civil discourse"?You got caught making a silly argument. The appropriate response is to say, "Oops. I'm sorry. I'll try not to do that again," not come up with cockamamie excuses that are easily shown to be false in an attempt to save face.Same old same old with you.

quote:

---

Apparently you did not understand what I was doing.

---

On the contrary, I understood it all too well. That's why your actions have been to obfuscate and distract at every opportunity.

quote:

---

I was using rainfall in a rain forest of an example of how an examination might proceed

---

Ahem. The rainforest example was something that I brought up, not you. Once again, you try to come up with an excuse that is easily shown to be false.

quote:

---

just to show that the existence of the phenomena does not mean what kind of specific factors were related.

---

Indeed, but you wandered away from the example to focus on trivia. The example presented to you was not a diminished rainfall in the rainforest. It was the complete absence of rain thus meaning that it is no longer a rainforest but rather a desert.Thus, it is not a question of "variation." "Variation" means that there are some expectations for maxima and minima. When you blow through those boundaries, it is no longer "variation" but something that is being actively driven.

quote:

---

You avoided this point I made and discussed multiple phenomena. That makes no difference to ascertain the specific causative factor.

---

That makes no sense. If the specific causative factor should result in multiple phenomena, how does the existence of those multiple phenomena make no difference to whether or not the specific causative factor occurred?

quote:

---

Hot weather is not a factor in rising global temps, it is the result of factors.

---

Of course. Nobody said otherwise.

quote:

---

One more response from you like this and I will have to assume you have no interest in rational conversation.

---

Coming from you, that's rich. Since when have you ever been interested in "rational conversation"? You claim you've changed, but by your actions will you be known and so far, you haven't shown a single shift.Same old same old.Welcome back, holmes.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It may be that we're wrong, but we don't have any reason to think that we are

---

​

Okay then, even with out any reason to think so, what if “Global Warming” is wrong?

---

That makes no sense. All evidence points to it being an actuality and despite repeated attempts to show that it is false, we haven't managed to find any evidence against it......and you want to treat the question of it being wrong as just as legitimate a possibility as it being right?What if 2 + 2 = 5? I mean, I know all the evidence shows that it's really 4, but what if it's 5? Shouldn't we change our public policy to allow for the possibility? I mean, think of all the benefits we could get if we got 5 instead of 4! If I put in two bucks and you put in two bucks, suddenly we've got five!

quote:

---

And by “wrong”, the question means “not catastrophic”.

---

What part of the vanishing glaciers in just a few years is not "catastrophic"? What part of the hottest years on record happening continuously is not "catastrophic"?

quote:

---

Or, we could just discuss it as a hypothetical situation.

---

Oh, let's not play dumb. This isn't just an exercise of curiosity. We wouldn't have people treating Mr. Weather Channel as a legitimate source if it were just a way to wile away a couple hours.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

Companies like Green Seal charge shit-tons of money

---

What does that have to do with anything? You're wandering off into trivia as if the existence of people who want to bilk people out of money means that there's no there there.There are plenty of scam artists out there who claim they can get you to lose weight. That doesn't mean there's no benefit to dropping excess weight. It means you have to be careful and pay attention.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Especially one that reduces our dependence upon foreign oil?

---

​

It’s not only about oil.

---

You're right. There's coal. Considering that electricity in the US is significantly generated by coal, don't you think that the development of other energy sources such as solar, geothermal, tidal, and wind would allow us to reduce the amount of coal we burn?And then there's natural gas. Again, if we could figure out a way to generate heat without releasing carbon dioxide, wouldn't that be an advancement?Are you really nitpicking over the source of carbon dioxide?

quote:

---

Are you trying to make me sound stupid?

---

Seeing as how I can't post for you, it is impossible for me to make you sound stupid no matter how hard I try. That responsibility lies squarely on your shoulders.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Mr Jack writes:

quote:

---

If weather was truly random then improvements in short term prediction and measurement would not help long term prediction. This is not the case.

---

Actually, the opposite is true. In a random system, long-term predictions are easy. It's the short-term ones that are impossible.If I have a fair die, the long-term prediction is that the results should break down equally among the faces and that prediction is very accurate. It's what the next roll of the die will be that is so difficult to predict.Chaotic systems are those that are sensitive to initial conditions. They are, in some sense, the opposite of random systems: Short-term predictions are easier than long-term. The logistic map is a good example:x_n+1 = r_n(1 - x_n)When x starts between 0 and 1, we see interesting effects as r increases from 0. The sequence converges until r passes 3 when it suddenly starts oscillating between two values. As r increases, it bifurcates again into an oscillation around four values, then eight, and then when r hits about 3.54, true chaos happens. There is no way to predict what the long-term outcome will be. Short-term, we have a very good prediction of what the next result will be. We've got a formula to tell us. But the only way to figure out the long-term result is to run through it.As mentioned elsewhere, the reason why we are getting better at our weather predictions has to do with our ability to take more precise measurements and a more complete model.But just to be clear, weather is not the same thing as climate.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Taz writes:

quote:

---

The problem is with chaotic systems, there are just too many variables to account

---

That's not true at all. That's a problem of complicated systems, not chaotic ones.Again, the logistic map is quite simplistic:x_n+1 = rx_n(1 - x_n)We know all the variables, but when r is about 3.54, the system is chaotic. It isn't that we don't know all the variables involves. It's that the system is so sensitive to initial conditions that being off by a tiny amount will result in vast differences down the line.

quote:

---

I don't know where you got the idea that knowing more variables in the initial condition makes little to no difference in the prediction of a chaotic system.

---

Because chaos has nothing to do with the number of variables. You can get chaos from a single variable. It has to do with the sensitivity of the variables.A system can be both complicated and chaotic.And weather is not climate.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.