"A GW prayer to “fix” your local weather?
[sigh] What a surprise, another science iliterate christian.
—A Quantum Liberal "
(From Porno Christian's Can I Get a Little Global Warming Over Here?)
"And the -21 reference is a silly one, if thats what you're trying to use to promote the Fraser Institute's (er, Exxon) line that Global warming doesn't exist. There will always be days like this where it feels like winter should.. but it took 2 months to get to it; December and January temps were way above normal for most of the country, and we've had a long cycle going many years back now where temperatures continue to rise and unpredictable weather increases..."
(From Stephen Taylor's Liberal vs. Conservative Narratives.)
And right here in comments, I jokingly made a reference to the plus side of global warming on a day when going outdoors forced me to cover up so much of my face, that they would have banned me for life from Herouxville. The response at 11:59:00 AM was:
"Global warming is a concept that applies to the AVERAGE increase (not day-to-day increase) in global temperatures around the world."
For anyone who is actually confused on this point, the very knowledgeable Lorrie Goldstein gives us the straight goods in today's column, It's the Weather, Stupid!
The unusually mild temperatures we were experiencing a few weeks ago were no more indicative of "global warming" (contrary to many hysterical media reports at the time) than the recent cold snap is evidence of "global cooling."
In fact, these are both examples of "the weather" -- not "climate change." Climate change is not about day-to-day, month-to-month or even year-to-year weather events, no single one of which can be blamed conclusively or exclusively on man-made global warming.
Rather, it is about long-term changes in the earth's climate, brought about by both natural and (it is now believed) man-made phenomenon, spanning decades, centuries, millennia, even millions of years.
Thank you, Lorrie.
Most Blogging Tories are aware of the important distinction, but the Environiks do not tolerate any kind of humour or irreverence directed at this very serious crisis. In fact, we should probably refrain from using any levity at all or else we may be inviting a Global- Warming Jihad. We risk having George Bush and Stephen Harper burned lockstep in effigy by dry ice.
Obviously, this issue is far too volatile for humour or sarcasm.
Thank you. Now, back to your regularly scheduled blogging.
17 comments:
Cons aren't so funny.....
You hit the nail on the head.
My advice for any Blogging Tory talking about global warming or IPCC reports is always use logic.
People that react from the right side of their brain always have trouble with logic.
Lefties like to point to funny posts and say "This is what the cons think" YUCK!
My advice for any Blogging Tory talking about global warming or IPCC reports is always use logic.
- and facts.
"and facts"
Exactly.
KC - I think we are all learning here. It's important not to 'shoot from the hip'. We all need to keep reading from various sides of the issue in order to stay balanced. For every report stating one thing, there is one stating the opposite, and all are so-called 'experts'.
I think columnists like Goldstein are rare in maintaining a non-biased, rational approach to a very complex topic.
Global warming burnt my steak....grrrrrr
OT Joanne...Garth is going Liberal...CTV
Wow. Thanks, Vicki. That would explain a few things - like why Turner supported the Kyoto motion last night. And why Karen Redman looked like the cat that swallowed the canary.
You must be politically correct or face the wrath and abuse of the 'Morally Superior' and the ideologically pure.
Next will be re-education programs for transgressors!
Now who was it that said Global Warming is the new Gay..which of course used to be the new ..... Womyn which evolved from ..... persons of colour.....
Focus.
It was Steyn who said that Muslim is the new gay...
It's easy to simplify the global warming issue Joanne. If one side has to use what amounts to fraud to make their case, that side is wrong. The 2001 IPCC report eliminated the medievil waarming period by adding 23 temperature estimates together for the medieval period that showed warm temperatures, then mutiplied the only set of tampurature estimates that did not show the warming trend by 390 added the result to the other twenty three, divided by 413 to get the temperature graph for the last thousand years.
You don't have to havew a PHD in math or science to know this is incorrect. The global warming theorists cannot give an answer to the question: if it was just as warm 800 or a thousand years ago why can't the same factors that caused that warming period cause our current warming trend? That is why they have to get rid of the warm period. Bottom line is that if your theory can't explain all the facts you need a new theory.
from Wikipedia
The 2001 report used northern hemisphere warm-season and annual reconstructions from 1000 AD to present by Mann et al (1999), Jones et al (1999) and Briffa (2000) [2].
The IPCC TAR says of the MWP that the posited Medieval Warm Period appears to have been less distinct, more moderate in amplitude, and somewhat different in timing at the hemispheric scale than is typically inferred for the conventionally-defined European epoch. The Northern Hemisphere mean temperature estimates of Jones et al. (1998), Mann et al. (1999), and Crowley and Lowery (2000) show temperatures from the 11th to 14th centuries to be about 0.2°C warmer than those from the 15th to 19th centuries, but rather below mid-20th century temperatures [3].
The TAR discusses Was there a “Little Ice Age” and a “Medieval Warm Period”? and says Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. (ibid)
Liberal supporter obviously missed the point. Using the 2001 IPCC report to refute criticism of the IPCC report(even through the indirect medium of Wikipedia) is circular. A circular arguement is invalid.
Why was the complete scientific report not being released released for the 2006 report until May? They are using the time to tune the science to support the executive summary. After adjustment it, like the 2001 report will not be science, rather propaganda.
"Using the 2001 IPCC report to refute criticism of the IPCC report(even through the indirect medium of Wikipedia) is circular."
That's not circular. You claimed there was a medieval warming period. There wasn't. Only localised (i.e. Europe) slight warming.
Is there a consensus in the scientific community that this report consists of "tuned" science?
Hey Joanne,
"Environiks do not tolerate any kind of humour or irreverence directed at this very serious crisis."
If that is the case I wonder how they will react to science "coming out of the closet" and stating that humans are NOT responsible for global warming.
Check out the latest here!
X -Lib, thanks for that link.
I've read stuff from Ball before, and even quoted him on this blog. The Environiks say he has been discredited due to lack of peer-reviewed publications or whatever.
Who knows?
"The Environiks say he has been discredited due to lack of peer-reviewed publications or whatever."
Hmmmm sounds like Darwinists who insist "their" science is the ONLY science...regardless of the "holes" left in it :) (That is why it is still called theory and not fact)
Wow, that was a very....intelligent response.
You must be one of those "Tolerant, progressive" (snicker) thinkers! :)
Post a Comment