Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
This is a pic of the snow on the A3, taken a couple of days ago.
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
This dude is in Epsom, somewhere in South England. He's trying to dig out his car from all the non-snow. Please take note that the insane statements about the snow came from Dr. David Viner, a legit scientist from the Infallible, the One True Church, the Peer Reviewed Climate Research Unit at The University Of East Anglia. I'm not anti-science. I'm not an anti-intellectual. But in this case, I think Dr. David Viner and the CRU Hockey Team were looking for a payday.
Here's a picture of a British kid in the "virtual cold". Jesus Christ Almighty, I can't believe these clowns are still taken seriously.
No, Doc, heavy snow like this always causes chaos. It doesn't matter if you call it weather or climate. Heavy snow causes chaos.
The chances are certainly now stacked against the sort of heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".
Not any more, it seems.
I bet someone wishes he could take a Mulligan on that last sentence.
Oh, and here's The Telegraph (UK) from a couple of days ago. Almost every road in Britain is a snowed under mess....
Forecasters warned that parts of Britain could see record low temperatures this week of -26C (-15F). Heathrow will experience lows of about -9C (16F) tonight and further snowfall is expected in the South East during the evening rush hour.
Motorists continued to struggle. The M25 was closed in both directions for about six hours while drivers on the M40 in Oxfordshire suffered severe delays.
Commuters were warned to expect treacherous conditions with thick ice and freezing fog today. Train passengers also face delays and cancellations, particularly in the North. Eurostar services between London and Paris have also been affected.
Air travel experts warned that even when the weather improves it will take at least 48 hours before flights return to normal.
And let's close it out with a comment from Powerline, from which all these great links came....
It's fun to ridicule the warmists because they are so often wrong, but their errors are in fact significant: a scientific theory that implies predictions that turn out to be wrong, is false. A principal feature of climate hysteria is its proponents' unwillingness to be judged by the standards that govern real science.
Yeah, they screwed up when they offered a concrete prediction, and it really hurts the funding when prophecies don't come to pass.
They'll not make that mistake again.
But don't despair. Let not your heart be troubled.
If you look over in the sidebar, you'll see a countdown for the end of 2013, when Gore predicted that the polar ice caps will disappear.
The blog entry for January 1, 2014, is going to be a fun post to write.
14 comments:
I am perplexed, how much money flows from Al Gore’s pocket to Dr. Viner’s?
If by chance that question is irrelevant, then I have to ask; are Dr. Viner’s credentials authentic?
Global warming is so passé. It's now "global climate change." Obviously, any climate change is caused by greenhouse gasses. Getting colder? Too many greenhouse gases. Getting warmer? Too many greenhouse gases. Getting drier or wetter? Too many greenhouse gases.
And for those who claim NASA data provides irrefutable evidence of global warming/climate change, here's something to think about.
NASA is a government agency, dependent on its funding from political hacks. As such, it will demonstrate enlightened self interest and do what is necessary to ingratiate itself with its political masters. Two examples:
1. Obama's re-prioritization of NASA's objectives to "reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering." I'm not sure what this has to do with science or space exploration, but it got NASA brownie points from the Obama administration, at the expense of its credibility.
2. NASA fudges the data to advance the notion of global warming/climate change. Note the two different temperature maps, based on the exact same data, showing dramatically different images.
FWIW, IMO I do think that we humans might have an impact on the environment and climate. But I'm not at all convinced that it's as drastic as the global warming/climate change proponents would have us believe. And they do themselves and everyone else a huge disservice when they engage in data manipulation like this. Again, it undermines their credibility.
For some reason I can't get the link in #2 above ("two different data temperature maps") to work, so here's the URL. You'll have to cut-and-paste to go there.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069182/when-youre-in-a-hole-george-stop-digging/
I'm not anti-science. I'm not an anti-intellectual.
Then start acting like it.
The anti-science nutters out there do exactly what you have done right here with this article.
There is no effective difference.
You are using newspapers as reliable sources of information about science.
Now there’s a rational example of critical thinking skills and a serious desire to investigate a complex scientific subject.
Not.
In fact, it’s worse than that. You are using a no-name blog which in turn is using newspapers as it’s source of information. From some anonymous guy named John.
Yeah, you are definitely nothing like the anti-science/anti-intellectuals out there.
Please take note that the insane statements about the snow came from Dr. David Viner, a legit scientist...
This is a mistake that creationists make all the time.
Science is based on evidence, not the character or statements of individual scientists.
If Dr Viner was arrested for pedophilia tomorrow, it would change nothing about the science.
Even if he published a book telling us how the world will end tomorrow, it would change nothing about the science.
...from the Infallible, the One True Church, the Peer Reviewed Climate Research Unit at The University Of East Anglia.
"Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma. As one HIV denier quoted..."
Link
Equating science with religion and trying to denigrate the process of peer-review because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear.
Nice.
Not that anti-science nutters of all stripes never try that trick a zillion times.
Oh no.
Science deniers rely on newspapers and no-name blogs to prop up their narrative.
They have to.
They can't go to actual science sources.
They even produce their own “Institutes” to make themselves look better.
But in this case, I think Dr. David Viner and the CRU Hockey Team were looking for a payday.
Yes.
Follow the money. Follow the money.
It's a great tactic and it requires no effort on your part.
Smearing people's reputation like this is very effective.
Not that you're anti-science or anti-intellectual or anything.
Oh no.
Yeah, they screwed up when they offered a concrete prediction, and it really hurts the funding when prophecies don't come to pass.
They'll not make that mistake again.
Oh look. It's follow the money time again.
Ok.
(...intones...)
"Follow the money. Follow the money."
Yep. You win again. That was fast and easy.
Yet something is missing.
What about Al Gore?
How can you bring yourself to talk about global warming without talking about Al Gore?
Oh wait, there it is at the end…
If you look over in the sidebar, you'll see a countdown for the end of 2013, when Gore predicted that the polar ice caps will disappear.
The sad thing here is that this "prediction" by Al Gore and exactly what he said and why he said it and what he said later about it...would, oddly enough, make a good story about global warming. Yet, that would require a little effort on your part and would also spoil the narrative...so never mind.
Getting colder? Too many greenhouse gases. Getting warmer? Too many greenhouse gases. Getting drier or wetter? Too many greenhouse gases.
Yeah, those dumb scientists.
They keep changing stuff and contradicting themselves.
They can't even get the names right!
That's how you know it's all a hoax.
(Plus there's the newspapers you read.)
And for those who claim NASA data provides irrefutable evidence of global warming/climate change, here's something to think about.
Better yet, honestly focus on what real people actually say in their own words without having to create a strawman just so you can knock it down.
NASA is a government agency, dependent on its funding from political hacks.
Perfect.
"Several motives are given by hoax proponents for the U.S. government to fake the Moon landings.
1.Cold War prestige
”The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race against the Soviet Union. Going to the Moon was risky and expensive (John F. Kennedy famously said that the U.S. chose to go because it was hard). Despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, Bill Kaysing maintains that it would have been easier for the U.S. to fake it, and consequently guarantee success, than for the U.S. actually to go.
4.Distraction
According to hoax proponents, the U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities suddenly stopped, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the U.S. ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War. (However, the Apollo program was cancelled several years before the Vietnam War ended.)
5.Delivering the promise
”To seemingly fulfill President Kennedy’s 1961 promise “to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.”
Link
NASA fudges the data to advance the notion of global warming/climate change.
Yep. The great NASA conspiracy.
You figured this out from a newspaper article. Clever you.
“That’s right: the clue is in that phrase “published by NASA”. See, going to NASA GISS for reliable, unbiased temperature data is a bit like asking Charles Manson for tips on how best to set up a commune where everyone’s happy and no one gets ritually murdered or anything.”
Yes. Bad NASA. Evil NASA. They are insane smelly criminals. Really.
“James Hansen, the guy in charge of NASA’s dataset…”
Yes. NASA is controlled by one man. He is the grand puppet master. He’s in charge.
NASA isn’t really NASA. It’s really just one guy. Seriously.
“…is so committed to the religion of AGW…”
Yes.
Science is a religion. Religion is science. Orthodoxy! Dogma! High priests. (Insert your favourite religious allusion here. It's all good.)
…he makes Al Gore sound like…
Hey look. Another Al Gore reference. What were the odd of that happening? Oh happy me.
And as Watts Up With That explains in fuller detail,…
Perfect. Rather than a blog quoting a newspaper article, we now have something completely different.
We have a newspaper quoting a blog.
All science, all the time.
But I'm not at all convinced that it's as drastic as the global warming/climate change proponents would have us believe.
“Global warming/climate change proponents”.
Good ploy.
Don't refer to NASA scientists as NASA scientists. That will only confuse people, right?
Avoid talking about all the other scientific communities on the planet too.
Call them activists or warmists or proponents or something. You can re-frame your narrative that way and fool people better.
Nice.
And they do themselves and everyone else a huge disservice when they engage in data manipulation like this.
Yeah. Global warming is a giant international hoax. But they haven’t fooled you. You’ve read the newspaper.
Of course we all know that "science" is always infalible. Cedric assures us it is so. Well, at least all science commissioned by political hacks and leftist NGOs with an agenda. Other scientists that are excluded and suppressed are merely cited in "no name blogs and newspapers". "Science" is always the result of "evidence" even when the "evidence" is PDOOMA (pulled directly out of my a**). And now even Cedric's holy NASA is beginning to see the handwriting on the wall. Has it been infiltrated by the insane Singer-Monckton-denialist cabal?
Warning to all: stand by for Katesby irrelevant linkalanche.
Of course we all know that "science" is always infalible. Cedric assures us it is so.
Two problems here:
First of all, I didn't say that.
Ever.
Didn't even come close to saying that.
Basic English Literacy Fail.
Ignore the voices in your head and focus on what people around you are actually saying.
When you have to build a strawman because you can't face up to the real thing then it's a sure sign of weakness in your position.
Strawman.
Secondly, you are using several standard creationist/science denier gambits:
Well, at least all science commissioned by political hacks and leftist NGOs with an agenda.
Yes.
Science is politics and politics is science. Political hacks. Agendas. Leftists. Commies!!!
Oh noes.
Standard ranty silliness that works well for any science denial topic. No need to change a thing.
Other scientists that are excluded and suppressed are merely cited in "no name blogs and newspapers".
Yes, of course.
The real scientists are being "excluded" somehow. They are being "oppressed" somehow.
No doubt the black helicopters have swooped in and made off with their children.
(giggle)
Standard ranty silliness that works well for any science denial topic. No need to change a thing.
"Science" is always the result of "evidence" even when the "evidence" is PDOOMA (pulled directly out of my a**).
Ah, it’s the ol’ "science makes mistakes routine.."
Boring.
That's quite a score card from you.
1) Science is corrupted by politics.
2) "Real" scientists are being oppressed.
3) Science makes mistake and isn't perfect.
....Therefore we didn’t come from no monkey.
Therefore we can’t trust vaccines.
Therefore HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
Therefore there’s no way to prove tobacco causes cancer.
Therefore fluoride in the water etc. etc. etc.
Suitable for every occasion. Just switch the labels around and you are good to go.
When I compare people like you to other science deniers, I am on firm ground. You provide me with plenty of fresh material yourself.
You copy other science deniers because you have no choice.
If you weaned youself off newspaper articles and no-name blogs, your narrative would fade away.
Those newspapers and blogs are how you survive.
Step into the world of science.
Face reality.
Abandon the conspiracy theories.
Cedric's holy NASA is...
Yes, we know.
We’ve already covered the religious references.
NASA is holy.
NASA is a cult.
NASA is a temple.
Science is a religion and religion is a science.
High priests, popes, orthodoxy, dogma blah, blah, blah.
Get new material.
"Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma. As one HIV denier quoted..."
(see previous post for link)
This sort of rubbish only works for people too intellectually lazy to honestly figure out the difference.
Shame on you.
Now be a predictable little coward and vanish again like you always do. You have nothing except empty handwaving.
Cedric,
It is all quite simple.
They made a mistake.
Somebody on The Hockey Team made an easily verifiable prediction, for a small patch of land, to come to pass within a decade.
It has turned out to be wrong.
They will never, ever do this again.
Cedric,
I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid.
It is all quite simple.
They made a mistake.
You have ignored everything that I have tried to get through to you.
I'm not anti-science. I'm not an anti-intellectual.
If this is how you honestly see yourself then walk the walk.
Do it.
Don't just talk about it.
Do it!
Your conclusion is..."They" made a mistake.
However, it's not the conclusion that's important.
It's the integrity of the investigative process that you use to draw your conclusions that's important.
You are not a climate scientist.
I get that.
Yet since when did it seem like a good idea to use newspapers and no-name blogs to help you understand good science?
Garbage in, garbage out.
Your methodology is flawed.
You are not behaving like someone who is genuinely interested in finding out about the science.
You never stray off the reservation.
Cedric,
Believe it or not, we all love you like a brother here.
But every time your Warmist Boys get called out, proven wrong, caught "hiding the decline", trying to deny access to peer-reviewed publishing outlets, and the weather doesn't cooperate, all you do is hit us with a linkfest. For the love of God, man, tell us what these links lead to ! Explain yourself ! Don't just highlight your words with a link !! This is not different than some Baptist Witch Doctor pointing to what the Apostle Paul said in Galatians, and expecting skeptics to go there !
Stop linking, and start arguing !
ENGLAND IS COVERED WITH SNOW !!! NO AMOUNT OF LINKS WILL PROVE OTHERWISE !!!! THEY SAID IT WASN'T GOING TO SNOW MUCH IN ENGLAND !!!! IT HAS SNOWED A LOT IN ENGLAND !!!! THIS SHOULD MATTER !!! THIS LOOKS VERY, VERY SILLY !!!! AND THERE REALLY ARE SOME "WEATHER" PATTERNS THAT CAN BE DEFINED AS CLIMATE, AND RIGHT NOW, ENGLAND'S CLIMATE IS COLD. REALLY FREAKIN' COLD ! THIS DOESN'T FIT ANY OF THE MODELS. THIS WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN !!!
Believe it or not, we all love you like a brother here.
Allen, I appreciate you giving me the time of day on your blog.
I do.
Which is why I don't just ask you to take my word on something.
I leave that to others.
I put in the time and effort to find supporting material to back up what I say when I post here.
It can be clumsy sometimes and I'm sorry for that but it saves getting into a "he said, she said" mode of thinking.
You deserve at least that much.
But...you have ignored what I am trying to tell you.
All you have done is give me a laundry list of your convictions.
Warmist boys..."hiding the decline"...denying access to peer-reviewed publishing outlets...England covered with snow...doesn't fit any of the models...etc.
These are your convictions.
These are your conclusions.
You are not addressing what counts; your methodology.
Your laundry is not science.
You are taking no interest in what the scientists are actually doing and gathering evidence on.
All you do is look at a...blog.
A blog tells you what you want to hear and confirms what you already believe and you look no further.
Newspapers quoting blogs and blogs quoting newspapers and a few tired, retired Phds being shoved forward into the spotlight by mysterious "Institutes".
That's how you get your information.
Always.
(That and a few belly laughs at Al Gore. What genuine, intellectual, science-friendly discussion of a complex issue would be complete without a mention of fat Al, right?)
You ARE what you EAT.
By the same token, you THINK what you READ...and you read newspapers and blogs.
Your methods are taken directly from the creationist playbook.
I can take any climate denier "har har" comment and recycle it into a creationist "har har" comment which can be recycled into an AIDS denier "har har" comment which can be etc, etc, etc.
I don't have to cheat.
I can take a large chunk of text, fully in context and just switch the labels around.
Job done.
For example:
How many times have you had your "har har" moment about even the labels "climate change" "global warming"?
How many times have I given you the etomological history of how and why scientists use those terms?
Do you know why you do it? Do you know where the "those dumb scientists can't even get the name right" tactic comes from?
Let me give you a hint.
Another example:
32,000 scientists.
The oldest and the biggest propoganda stunt out there in climate denier land.
How many people around here did any investigation of it?
None. Yet I did.
That's not because I'm smarter.
It's because my methodology of gathering information about science is better.
If I'm "the bad guy" then how come nobody else caught that one?
If you are so interested in the truth and not being lied to then...why didn't you or somebody else expose it and demolish it?
You still could, even now.
You could give an analysis of why people in general should dismiss "lists of scientists" cooked up by mystery "Institutes".
You could then maybe look at why the "32,000" has been out there for so long...and nobody from your side has debunked it.
There's been no blog.
No column.
No article.
It's a big, fat fake that is used for propoganda a thousand time a day for many years and NOBODY from your side has anything bad to say about it.
Yet this isn't hard.
This requires no federal investigation or scientific research.
A simple check of talkorigins.org will give you all the basic info you need to smack down such nonsense.
You're not an anti-intellectual?
You're not anti-science?
Walk the walk.
Start with the "32,000" list.
Take it apart, piece by piece.
Make blogging history.
Reading Cedric is interesting... I remember that Cedric generously sent you (TWS) a book called something like, "Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things".
Cedric brings up the fact that most of those opposing him creates a strawman argument (in this instance the fact that the weather isn't obeying the predictions of scientists). Therefore we create a strawman out of said scientists and point out that, should they stir up fear, typically, the get more money.
So, an attempt has been established to show that a foundation thought of a group's argument is wrong, and that they seem to have some motives to potentially stretch the truth or make up truths. Interesting, Al Gore has become the richest Vice President... (and we've had a Vice President with the last name Rockefeller before).
Then, when nobody has mentioned this, he'll start throwing up stuff like people arguing against him likely believe in a faked lunar landing through an association trick (since those arguing against NASA must also believe this!).
With all the insinuations and straw men being made to beat up other straw men, it would be interesting to see some real points of irrefutable evidence come from that side. I pretty much never do... All the contra-Cedrics aren't always on target either, but so far, I don't see anything that discredits them like I've seen (sometimes in the form of actual verifiable weather).
Pandora's box is now open.
(Hmm, a previous post is MIA)
Then, when nobody has mentioned this, he'll start throwing up stuff like people arguing against him likely believe in a faked lunar landing...
Nope.
This is you creating a strawman.
If I did actually say this then it would be easy enough for you to take a direct quote from one of my posts and throw it back at me.
You are attacking an argument I never made.
You are attacking a strawman.
Let me make it very clear:
People can argue against me all they like.
Fine. Go for it.
That does not make them, by itself, nutty moon-landing deniers.
Nor does it mean that it's a good bet that they are probably moon-landing deniers.
If I claimed this (which I did not as far as I know) then I would be wrong.
I can't make this any clearer without the use of chalk and a blackboard.
What I have done is directly compare the various tactics used by other science deniers and demonstrate with multiple, real-life examples that there is no effective difference between you lot and "them".
It's not the conclusions that's important; it's the methodology.
The methods are the same.
The tactics are the same.
The slogans and the chest-beating is the same.
...through an association trick
No.
There is no "trick".
Directly comparing one argument to another by just switching the labels around is not some sneaky "trick".
There is nothing underhand or unfair going on.
For example...
If one group tries the "Follow the money" gambit and another, different group tries the "Follow the money" gambit...then they have both used the "Follow the money" gambit.
That's not a trick.
That's just an honest comparison.
The "Follow the money" gambit is a universal tactic.
All science denier groups are willing to use it.
It is an intellectually bankrupt and dishonest smear tactic that allows people to discount and disregard the science or any other political or social issue.
It's quick and easy and requires no effort at all.
The moon-landers use it.
The anti-vaxers use it.
The creationists use it.
....And the climate deniers use it.
For example...
Interesting, Al Gore has become the richest Vice President...
Yes, of course.
(intones)
"Follow the money, follow the money"
You win. Fast, simple and it required absolutely no effort from you at all.
All science, all the time.
Then there is the "Help, help we're being oppressed" gambit.
Other scientists that are excluded and suppressed are merely cited in "no name blogs and newspapers".
Sure they are. It's a familiar song.
Ben Stein wants viewers of Expelled to believe that scientists subscribe to an unquestioned Darwinian orthodoxy, and that those who dare to question “Darwinism” will quickly be silenced.
and..
“Intelligent design was being suppressed in a systematic and ruthless fashion” (Ben Stein, Expelled).
Or how about the "science isn't settled" routine?
That's been used plenty of times too.
Referring to evolution, scientists “say the debate has been settled, that the issues are settled.” (Bruce Chapman, Expelled)
Link
Plus there's the "lists" and the tiny circle of retired "experts" and the endless blogs and all the rest of it.
Take a 9/11 troofer playbook and switch around the labels and you have a jim-dandy creationist playbook.
Take a creationist playbook and switch around the labels and, hey presto, you've just made an anti-vaxer playbook.
It's not how science is done.
If you want to genuinely understand climatology or biology or modern medicine, then you sure as hell don't do it by acting like a creationist.
There's a better way.
Post a Comment