This just in: Since Al Gore scared children by proclaiming his “Inconvenient Truth” (and simultaneously was praised by Hollywood), satellites have shown yet another decline in global temperature. Go figure.
The Earth has cooled 0.74°F since 2006. Quick! Pass that cap-and-tax before the Senate has to break out the overcoats in July!
Then there’s this: The Argos sensor ocean buoys were deployed to get better ocean temperature readings. It was assumed this would support the anthropogenic global warming scare stories.
Oops. The buoys found slight ocean cooling in the six years they have been deployed. The biggest problem is the readings are diametrically opposed to (drum roll) climate change computer models that predict up to 80-90 per cent of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere.
Hm. If oceans are getting cooler, and oceans are supposed to account for 80 percent or more of increased global warming, where does that leave us? Should Al give back that Oscar?
RELATED POSTS:
Same old, same old. It’s been severakl weeks since Mr. Landsbaum cited to Roy Spencer (the already discredited source for this post), so it’s no surprise he goes back to that particular well again. That’s the M.O. - cite a source, watch the source get demolished, move on to other equally dubious sources, then in a few weeks try the first one again and hope folks have forgotten its deficiencies.
And all the time, the circle gets smaller and tighter.
Oh, and as for the data cited? A meaningless cherrypicked single datum that ignores the overall trends that have been well documented in innumerable places. Spencer may be good enough for the Limbaugh program, but those of us who decline to drink that particular brand of Kool-Aid know better.
Yawn. Another day, another denier post by Mark.
Keep up the good work. It’s a small wonder the OC Register is rarely cited as a legitimate news source any longer.
I don’t quite understand rlh and ocdem. I think that they are the same person posting as a twin.
Mr Landsbaum quoted facts, but all you two did was attack with no specifics. You two are marginalizing yourselves and ruining any credibility you have with these types actions..
The horse is dead. Stop beating it. Please?
Whether it’s right or wrong, can’t you find something interesting to blog about? Seriously? It’s starting to get creepy, like an obsession.
BRRR….. ,
As anyone with half a brain would be able to recognize, politicians are only interested in power and control, when things are not going their way they will absolutely resort to fabrications, see healthcare reform, housing bubble, and, of course Global Warming.
Loufca,
rlh and OC Dem have no credibility. The suggestion that Dr. Roy Spencer is discredited is just plain stupid. From Spencer’s blog:
“Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.”
The tactics of idiots like rlh and OC Dem are those of a twelve year old girl: demean the individual, ignore the facts and hide behind the consensus lie. Pathetic.
Good call l-Dawg
One word: creationism.
Yet you’ve no problem with the head of the IPCC believing he’s going to reduce his CO2 footprint over his next 6 lifetimes.
One word: hypocrisy.
We’ve had this discussion before, and I hold to my position: there’s a yawning difference between religious belief and scientific analysis. One can believe in reincarnation, as the IPCC head apparently does (at least jocularly, as in the comment you reference), or that a Nazarene carpenter walked on water and rose from the dead, without clouding your scientific judgment. Creationism,. however, is a toxic and logic-defying mix of the two - an attempt to explain the obervable physical world by reference to the supernatural world of faith.
My Presbyterian fiath teaches that God is God and we’re not, which is a good shorthand for separating what science tells us about the world around us and what faith informs our hearts about the eternal. Spencer lacks that sense of separation, which means that he infects his “scientific” analysis - of creationism, and by extension of any scientific subject - with his religious beliefs. That’s a pretty per se disqualification in my book, and it’s not one that reaches to those who keep their faith separate from their science - as most great researchers do.
Then let’s not forget the “movement” aspect of his activities in the climate change controversy - things like being Rush Limbaugh’s designated “house climatologist.” Again, the virtual identity between radical right wing politics and the “denier” movement shows itself.
The notion that those concerned with climate change are somehow themselves a “political lobby” is a wonderful inversion of the truth - the pot calling the kettle black, except it’s not the kettle being talked to, but the window curtain. Must the scientific consensus on this issue be brought to real world implementation by political means? Sure. Anything in public life requires “political” implementation. The trick is which came first - the science or the politics? In the case of those concerned with climate change, it’s the science that actuated the politcial and legislative initiatives. With the deniers, however, the political and philosophical a prioris have driven the “scdience” they muster from the beginning, and continues to today.
rlh,
I don’t understand how you can use Spencer’s religious beliefs to discredit him yet you are fine with overlooking the religious beliefs of the IPCC.
You mentioned “creationism” as a problem with Spencer. Well, the definition of it from my mac is as follows:
“the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
So Spencer believes that when he dies, his soul will go to Heaven if he meets the criteria.
The head of the IPCC believes that his soul will be reborn 6 other times in 6 other human beings because he’s a Hindu who believes in reincarnation.
Now even these two religious beliefs aren’t exactly the same, they are still religious beliefs that concern after lifes and the soul - I fail to see how you can discredit Spencer for his religious beliefs while giving the head of the IPCC (Pachauri) a pass. I’m also surprised that you have yet to grasp this.
One word, disconnect.
Your biasness and unwillingness to engage in a quality discussion shows that your POV is worthless.
RE: Global warming/ global cooling/ human induced climate change or whatever scare du jour:
If it is such a real threat why arent we using nuclear power to repalce coal? It is much safer.
Elitist scaremongerers say we must cut carbon use while touring the world in private jets and limos giving lectures on the evils of the human race while eating the finest delicacies that are off limits for common people to eat because they are endangered species
Just as an outside observer, we gotta say we love spirited debate. Thanks to you all for the page views.
What really amazes us, however, is how those who long ago had enough of it, keep coming back for more. Puzzling.
Sorta like the campaign for carbon capping. Puzzling.
And as L-Dawg and Loufca so astutely point out, the critics never seem to offer facts to disprove anything.
The old lawyer’s saw comes to mind about when you don’t have the facts on your side, thump the table. Any old lawyers out there?
At your service in Christ . . .
Mark Landsbaum
For me? I keep coming back to read what you write because you really are a witty and interesting writer, when you write about things that are fresh. This almost daily diatribe about one topic is limiting and BORING. Jesus H. Criminy Christ on a Ritz Cracker! Get outside in the world and find something fresh to blog about! Betwen your daily global warming rants and Greenbaum’s unhealthy obsession with Sheriff Hutchens, you guys are the Yawnsville Yokel Team.
There are a million interesting people out there. Millions of interesting things happening. The broken record is not only dull, it’s a cheap cop out.
ssaworker,
Carbonomics (AGW) is the single most important issue of this time. Why? Because AGW is being used as a means to equalize the economies of the world and the incomes among the nations and within the nations of the world.
I’ve been reading all kinds of documents and papers from academia, the UN, and various left wing policy centers and one of the reoccurring themes I keep coming across is redistribution. A most recent phrase I’ve been coming across is “contraction and convergence” - the contraction is the reduction in CO2 (naturally) but in some papers they mention a contraction in GDP. The convergence is the converging of national GDP’s (per-capita) of all of the nations of the world. Convergence in many of these papers also means the converging of incomes among nations and within nations.
I’m currently reading “The Bruntland report” - aka “Our Common Future” and so far, it looks like a blueprint for global socialism. Interestingly, part of the work on this report was paid for by the communist Russian government back in the mid ’80’s when they hosted the people working on this report in Moscow.
The Bruntland report tied in economic development for developing countries with environmentalism which is why this is the theme today.
Oh, and did I mention that Gro Harlem Brundtland was the “Vice-president of Socialist International? Sorry but there is no way I am going to allow socialists to alter our economy and way of life based on politicized science with flaws…
Next of my reading list is the UN’s “agenda 21.”
So Mr. Landsbaum, keep these AGW posts coming please…
*eyeroll* Of course. Socialists are taking over the world. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah….boy, this drivel was old when Joseph McCarthy was spouting it. It’s positively silly now.
I’m not saying that it’s not an issue worthy of SOME note. I’m saying it isn’t the only issue. Daily whines citing very questionable sources is getting rather dull. Is this blog meant for information for the public, or an exercise in ego for the writer?
Oh, wait, scratch that. I already know the answer.
As long as you print hogwash, I’ll call you on it.
ssaworker, I couldn’t disagree more with your point of view. The global warming aka climate change bill is based upon questionable computer programs and computations. If it passes, it will be one of the largest tax increases and effect people at all economic levels. So, I support the continuing information provided by Mr. Landsbaum. It’s not about being boring; it’s about keeping the interest up on a critical issue.
The other recommendation is, if you are bored; don’t read these posts any longer.
There’s a huge difference between valuable information and whiny rants based on questionable sources.
Mr. Landsbaum doesn’t see the difference, but I do. Furthermore, there are many, many important pieces of legislation he could touch on, now and then.
Yes, perhaps I shouldn’t read them. Perhaps I should cancel my subscription and my second business’ advertising in this paper, since obviously reader input isn’t valued. Funny, but I thought his job was to write interesting articles for the readers, not for his own overinflated ego.
Silly me.
Since my comments are appreciated by Mark, I only posted once to express the reality of his continued denier remarks.
In service for the people….
OC Dem.
What does “denier’ mean, exactly? I’ve always wondered. Mr. Landsbaum has often mentioned a warming of less than 1 degree, so he appears to acknowledge an anthropogenic contribution. So does your snide “denier” comment relate to his rejection of projections of catastrophic warming (or is it change, I can never remember)? Or is “denier” just a handy label to throw at viewpoints you don’t endorse? Whatever, it saves you from thinking, I suppose.
And what’s with this “In the service of the people…” crap? Another dig at Mr. Landsbaum’s faith.
Such are the she shrill squeals of twelve year old girls.
It’s simple , Mark - Pachauri doesn’t use his Hinduism to explain scientific physical world observations and theories. Spencer does. Creationism is predicated on believing the Bible is the guide not to faith but to the analysis of the obervable physical world. That’s not just faith, that’s faith being used as pseudo science. Big difference, and one I’ve articulated many times. I know you don’t buy it, so fine. Believe in socialist plots to destroy the West (and especially the US - in fact, always the US) and live in a bubble world someplace with Mr. Landsbaum,. I prefer reality.
“Pachauri doesn’t use his Hinduism to explain scientific physical world observations and theories.”
That’s true. As head of the IPCC he is a politician, not a climate scientist. Therefore his statements, whether inspired by polytheism or politics, are meaningless. However, Dr. Spencer is a climate scientist.
Please provide links to the proof of your statements about Dr. Spencer.
rlh,
You wrote above today at 9:27am the following:
“One word: creationism.”
In other words, your issue with Spencer is his religious beliefs.
And for the record (again), Pachauri said he is going to use hinduism to reduce his carbon footprint over his next 6 lifetimes which is another way of saying that he’s using his religion to mitigate the affects of CO2. Not the same thing as what you claim Spencer is doing but not that different either. Either way, you claiming that “creationism” is an issue with Spencer while not holding Pachauri to the same standards when he’s claimed that he will use his religion (hinduisim) to reduce his future (6 of them) footprints smacks of hypocrisy.
It’s called Google, L-Dawg. Try it out.
And if Pachauri can’t be believed because he’s quoting others who have the technical background, then you have a very slippery slope toward disqualifying anyone from having many opinions about anything. I don’t doubt that Pachauri’s expertise is secondhand. So what? The key is to listen, to evaluate, and not to take a priori stances based on your political philosophy or religious beliefs - both of which are Spencerian traits.
rlh, you have proven your own point, But again, you mix philosophy and religion. They are two distinct and separate issues.
The problem with many, and I’m not pointing a finger at you, is that people mix, philosophy, religion, morals and opinion to come up with a position that suits them.
In regards to global warming/climate change, let’s let science, not the politics of science help make the correct decision. The problem with the IPCC is that only 30% of the signers were scientists and approximately 30% of those individuals have rescinded their support. The IPCC report is politically and money driven, thanks to Al Gore.
Just the facts, not speculation or opinion, should drive this debate.
Just the recent facts:
Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the fourth warmest on record for May, the fifth warmest for boreal spring (March-May), and tied with 2003 as the sixth warmest January-May year-to-date period.
March-May 2009 temperatures were above average across Mexico, Europe, southern South America, northwestern Alaska, northwestern and southern Africa, parts of Australia, and most of the contiguous U.S., and Asia.
Professor W,
Saying a particular month was the Xth warmest on record is about as significant as when a flea farts in the atmosphere. The “record” is a micro-record of the earth’s existence.
And don’t forget that GISS massages its data such that older data is generally lowered and newer data is generally increased. There are also issues with placements of many of the temperature recording stations that in most cases, increases temperature readings.
Also don’t forget that IPCC scientist M. Mann used some ‘creative’ math and methods to come up with his 1st hockey stick graph that conveniently got rid of the MWP and the LIA. So not only is the ‘record’ an infinitesimal part of the history of the earth’s temperature, the ‘record’ is tainted with bad sensor placement, massaged data that makes the recent warming look worse than it really is, and the last 1000 year baseline has been ‘adjusted’ by M. Mann’s bogus 1st hockey stick graph.
Regarding Mann, based on what I read about him concerning his 1st hockey stick graph, he shouldn’t be teaching anymore.
Gee Mark,
Where was your witty retort to Landsbum’s post of “The Earth has cooled 0.74°F since 2006″. I must have missed where you told him that it “is about as significant as when a flea farts in the atmosphere.”
Professor W,
0.74°F cooling since ‘06 works out to 2.2°F of cooling for a decade. This is significant cooling in a relatively short time span that has occurred even though CO2 levels are probably now at 385ppm.
Don’t you ever secretly wonder how powerful CO2 really is when ice core graphs of temp and CO2 show that the temperature changes hundreds of years before CO2 changes? I know Hansen is aware of this and he claims that CO2 takes over the warming after the atmosphere has a few extra ppm of CO2 in it. Yet on the downswing of temperature, the temperature again starts dropping hundreds of years before the CO2 starts falling even though the CO2 is at a much higher level relative to when the warming started.
In my view, this lag very strongly indicates that CO2 isn’t that strong of a driver of temperature as it’s being made out to be and is one of multiple reasons why I’m a skeptic.
Re, ssaworker, July 8, 2009 at 4:59 am:
ssaworker,
McCarthy was right regarding his claims of communists in the government. You can read all about it here:
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona/index.shtml