Posted on 12/26/2010 2:45:01 PM PST by FormerACLUmember
THE earth continues to get warmer, yet it’s feeling a lot colder outside. Over the past few weeks, subzero temperatures in Poland claimed 66 lives; snow arrived in Seattle well before the winter solstice, and fell heavily enough in Minneapolis to make the roof of the Metrodome collapse; and last week blizzards closed Europe’s busiest airports in London and Frankfurt for days, stranding holiday travelers. The snow and record cold have invaded the Eastern United States, with more bad weather predicted.
(blah, blah, blah... its all caused by global warming you ignorant fools)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
[Leon] Festinger stated that five conditions must be present, if someone is to become a more fervent believer after a failure or disconfirmation:
- A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he behaves.
- The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual's commitment to the belief.
- The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.
- Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief.
- The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence that has been specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, the belief may be maintained and the believers may attempt to proselyte or persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.
Makes for a useful checklist. The late Dr. Festinger died at about the same time political correctness got rolling. (Source.)
What puts flesh to the lie, is that the climate-left have been screaming about children never seeing snow again - due, of course to the wicked ways of capitalism. We would get rainy warm winters and long summers but when that did not materialize they easily adjusted their science to fit the facts. It is all a crock.
A brilliant man once said that the scientists are yet to be born, the software yet to be written, the computers yet to be designed, the sensing equipment yet to be built and the engineers yet to be trained that will create an interplanetary climate model that can predict Earth’s climate with the accuracy that the climate-left purports to have currently. They are fools with no provable nor possible measure of accuracy - just a constant refitting of their theory to the ever changing facts. The answer is global warming and it will always be global warming to whatever climate you happen to be experiencing.
Liberals lie. If they dont’ lie, they create nonsense out of thin air.
The beauty, the genius of Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is that it irrefutable. It is very robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it at the 100% confidence level. It predicts all things and all things confirm it.
I’m freezing in Los Angeles due to global warming...if anyone believes this nonsense, i have a bridge to sell to you, cheap!
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
...So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science.I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.
Dude, my buddy Al twittered me just now with the this current news flash: after a tiring day at a conference, I suggested using some Climactic Epicycle to my outcall masseuse at the hotel, and-- well, just let me assure you that the results were sizzlingly warm, and earth-shatteringly global!!
/sarc
In other words, some of their prophesies had already failed. I note that they couldn't come up with the same excuse as that UFO cult because 'society' didn't bend enough to their will for it to be credible. Not even Al Gore can claim with a straight face that the demons of Anthropogenic Global Warming have been banished because the guv'ment has done something about it.
That's weird.
Not as weird as The New York Times, but weird nonetheless.
It’s 21F outside and snowing.
Al Gore promised us palm trees!!!!!
Notably, the faster I drive, the longer it takes me to get to my destination.
The more money I spend, the fatter my bank account gets.
The more food I eat, the skinnier I get.
The more I drink, the soberer I get.
I can't tell you what a relief it is to know that there's someone else out there that I can relate with.
Oops. Gotta go. My one hour of recreation for the week is over. Back to my cell I go. Back into my Snuggie. Which reminds me of something else I've been wondering about. Does every Snuggie come with arms that cross over the chest and fasten in the back? It doesn't look like it from the commercials.
Try this on a global warming enthusiast: What observations would make you lose faith in AGWT? Most likely they won’t even understand the questions. If they do, most likely they will claim strong confirmation will not be available for decades, by which time it will be too late to do anything about it.
Am I reading this right? Eight percent of the temperature reading stations are located next to or above an artificial heating source (CRN5). With roughly another 61% of the temperature reading stations are within 10 meters of an artificial heating source (CRN4). With another 22% with an artificial heating source over 10 meters away...maybe 10.5 meters but less then 30 meters (CRN3). This would mean that roughly 69% of the stations are located with a heat source within 10 meters and 91% are located within 30 meters of a heat source....
Global warming...it is all in the placement...
Thanks for the info.
As a wise person once said, "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."
Let’s search around.
For starters, Judah Cohen is at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.
See here:
http://www.aer.com/aboutUs/leadership.html
From the bio there, among other things he prepares seasonal weather/climate forecasts for commercial clients.
I’d love to see an analysis of the accuracy of those forecasts.
LOL! The NY Slimes wants to get ahead of the inevitable blowback against global “warming.”
Yet here’s a fact: the oceans haven’t warmed.
And another fact: the warmest year was 1998. We’ve had a dozen years of global cooling, with no end (e.g. legions of sunspots) in sight.
Miac. grants to AER
a $933K grant in 1999. See here:
http://www.aer.com/news/pr/1998/1998-02-16-doe_grant.html
Three grants totaling almost $900K from Recovery.gov are here:
http://www.recovery.gov/pages/TextViewProjSummary.aspx?data=recipientAwardsList&State=MA&AwardType=CGL&RecipName=ATMOSPHERIC%20AND%20ENVIRONMENTAL%20RESEARCH,%20INC.
Millions in gov’t grants here:
If you take a nickel from private industry, you are tainted forever according to many involved in this “debate”. But millions in gov’t grants somehow don’t make you more likely to toe the gov’t bureaucrat’s and politician’s lines?
“As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents....”
Even if the theory of higher humidity is true, the effects should be of more rain, not more snow - if global warming is actually the cause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.