Comments on: Cold wars

By: Daveon

Daveon — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:48:28 +0000

One of the predictions of the Global Warming theory is that cold water run off from melting glaciers would disrupt the Atlantic Conveyor and potentially stop it. If that happened then Northern Europe would flip to a climate rather more like Labrador (with which it shares latitude) than further South. So, while it means it will rain more, it will also be a LOT colder in winter if you’re unfortunate to live 52 degrees North.

So the weather fits what you’d see if the Atlantic Conveyor is shutting down – hopefully it’s just a weird winter.

OTOH – even for Seattle, about the same as Paris, the weather is unusually wet, even for Seattle and according to the weather forecast I just saw there’s a series of record breaking depressions forming in the Pacific at the moment which is going to make next week really nasty for anybody unfortunate enough to live in Forks.

Of course it might just be a weird wetter winter than normal…

I’d be more sanguine if last winter hadn’t been “weird” and “unusual” too, and if the winter 2 before that hadn’t been the…

Still that’s purely anecdotal, means nothing.

By: Laird

Laird — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:33:45 +0000

Sort of like this, Pa?

By: Pa Annoyed

Pa Annoyed — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:37:40 +0000

Regarding Miskolczi – I saw it discussed on one of the ClimateAudit forums, and I believe the conclusion there was that there was an invalid (or at least unexplained) step part way through. (He relied on something called the Virial theorem, but I don’t personally believe it can be used in that way and Dr Miskoczi didn’t explain in the paper how the step was supposed to work.)

But as I can’t really give an explanation comprehensible to the layman, I suggest that you don’t take my word for it. Let’s just say that true or not, I don’t think it’s likely to be very effective at convincing most physicists until the gap in the argument is plugged.

By: Kate

Kate — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:46:53 +0000

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate

Can someone comment on this?

By: lucklucky

lucklucky — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:55:26 +0000

Climatologists=Sovietologists

Why were Sovietologists wrong?

“According to Kevin Brennan:
“Sovietology failed because it operated in an environment that encouraged failure. Sovietologists of all political stripes were given strong incentives to ignore certain facts and focus their interest in other areas. I don’t mean to suggest that there was a giant conspiracy at work; there wasn’t. It was just that there were no careers to be had in questioning the conventional wisdom…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_Soviet_collapse

By: Adrian Peirson

Adrian Peirson — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 07:10:59 +0000

How did Western Civilization end up being undermined like this, and God knows what else, humanity has been hampered for decades by nonsense like this.quite possibly centuries.

By: Kate

Kate — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:26:18 +0000

The next step is to destroy – or at least try to cut down to size – the various Evil Empires that have been erected upon the fraudulent foundations of the AGW argument.

Please go to Richard Black’s Earth Watch and post a rebuttal. There are two Cerberus dogs keeping the gate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html

I appreciate your help.

By: Frank S

Frank S — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:45:53 +0000

A fine piece of work. You will find it very hard to engage a warmist in debate, much as it was hard with the communist hard-nuts. They do not have arguments, they have positions. Positions dear to their hearts, and reinforced by hatred and a highly-strung defensiveness that leads to shrieking and denouncements, and of course much labelling with whatever is really bad for a leftie at the time. ‘Wall Street Runner’, ‘Capitalist Lackey’ and such are of course relegated to the pantomimes and concert halls of comedians. Now we have ‘Denier’, and even in this area, very shortly the once heavy guns of ‘Fascist!’ and ‘Racist!’ will be deployed as a matter of course. No, the warmmongerers have lost every public debate I’ve ever heard of, and I have yet to meet one who can handle his or her side the ‘argument’ for more than five minutes.

By: John Catley

John Catley — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:14:27 +0000

Good insight into this issue. The tide is turning, albeit slowly. The majority of AGW believers are conditioned to think that any sceptical view is sponsored by energy companies and as such their comments following on from articles such as this barely contain their rage at the heresy that is being uttered.
It’s unfortunate that these people don’t take the time to look into the facts before spluttering their rage against the “deniers”.
I applaud John Redwood, who has shown considerable courage in speaking out.
Incidentally, the Institute of Physics has just cancelled a planned talk by Lord Lawson after a few “open minded” people decided against.
Unfortunately it is going to take time before such naked prejudiced is stamped out, but let’s make sure such examples of “closed minds” is brought to the attention of the public.

By: Stonyground

Stonyground — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:35:35 +0000

I have to say that I have enjoyed the snowy weather just simply for traditional reasons. For once our Christmas actually looked like the pictures on the Christmas cards. We got to build snowmen, throw snowballs and go sledging. The roads out my way have not been bad at all, although that hasn’t prevented some idiots from driving everywhere at fifteen miles per hour. Snow is just so much more cheerful than the usual diet of cold rain.

By: manuel II paleologos

manuel II paleologos — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:02:36 +0000

Don’t know if you’ve seen them, but Little Green Footballs has been posting links to a series of videos by a blogger called Peter Sinclair attempting to de-bunk, in a rather sneering and sanctimonious tone, the “canards” of the “deniers”.

I watched one of these, and the argument went as follows:
1. Deniers like to go on about Vikings and the Medieval Warm Period
2. That nice Michael Mann chap has looked into this and found that the evidence for the “medieval warm period” comes from a single set of tree-ring data from England
3. Mr Mann has got together lots of evidence showing that the MWP never existed
4. Some federal science board agrees with this
5. Therefore the climate has always been stable until the hockey stick (he actually points to this) and the Viking warm period is all nonsense.

Seriously, you couldn’t make this up. There are more but I haven’t been arsed to watch them – this one was the laziest bit of analysis I’ve ever seen, and I work in investment banking, for heaven’s sake.

By: veryretired

veryretired — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:45:27 +0000

I was speaking of emphasis, not exclusion of one point in deference to the other.

Wars have been fought, and won, on two fronts before.

I appreciate the two well reasoned criticisms, and will consider their points at length.