Ammo For Sale

« « 412 Precondition Failed – update | Home | For Sale » »

But all the experts agree

No rising temperature since 1998? And 60ish climate experts reiterated the near impossibility to seperate the various causes that are contributing to climate change.

Remember, close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and repeat I can’t hear you because this stuff, you know, isn’t debatable you holocaust-denying, flat-earthers.

28 Responses to “But all the experts agree”

  1. d Says:

    regardless… I prefer NASA to some unknown Australian scientist: and the Pentagon does too:

  2. Jay G Says:

    Hmmm. Perhaps there’s a reason all the alarmists have started referring to it as “Global Climate Change” rather than “Global Warming”.

    The rest of us will continue to call it by its real name: “Weather”…

  3. markm Says:

    All you can get from an eight year run of data is noise. Of course, what you get from a 1 century run is also mainly noise, from which you can deduce any trend you want by carefully selecting the start and end points (the famous “hockey stick” – or if you picked the right starting point with an end point about 1978, you might see a trendline towards an ice age). Plot a thousand years of data, and a trend becomes more clear, at least for northwestern Europe where we’ve got the best data: a severe drop in temperature over several centuries, and then a recovery over several more centuries – but maybe that recovery isn’t yet complete, considering that places where people farmed 1000 to 800 years ago in Greenland are still buried under yards of ice.

    Plot 400,000 years of data, and what you’ll see is mostly a steady oscillation between ice ages and not-very warm interglacial periods, until the cycle broke 8,000 years ago. Damn those Neolithic farmers for causing global warming by cutting down trees and draining swamps, so we didn’t go into another ice age! They’re clearly responsible for the extinction of the woolly mammoth!

  4. Captain Holly Says:

    Plot 400,000 years of data, and what youll see is mostly a steady oscillation between ice ages and not-very warm interglacial periods, until the cycle broke 8,000 years ago.

    Hell, the earth hasn’t been “warm” since the beginning of the Pleistocene epoch, some 2 million years ago. They think excessive volcanic activity was partly to blame.

    Which means that global warming might be a good thing, since a series of Pinatubo-sized eruptions over a short period of time (not at all unlikely) could send us back into another ice age.

  5. JustinB Says:

    The rest of us will continue to call it by its real name: Weather


  6. Manish Says:

    Ahh..the latch onto the scientific result that most corresponds to your worldview approach, regardless of what real scientists have to say.

  7. Les Jones Says:

    Manish: what’s not real about the scientists who signed that letter?

    Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

    Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

    Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

    Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

    Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

    Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

    Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

    Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

    Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

    Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

  8. Wickedpinto Says:

    a 2 hour documentary will educate you a bit. We’ve been “warming” kinda, since 8K plus years ago. The end of the last ice age (cold) was a good thing. It matches approximately with the creation of human civilization on a significant scale. Also, a lot of the comparissons proving global warming (which happens, if it didn’t we wouldn’t have invented thermostats, let alone thermostats with little computers in them that change the temperature according to the time of year, and time of day.) are built on the idea that we had a little pissant expansion of the ice sheets less than 200 years ago. Another good thing about “warming” is that it melts ice sheets. but wait! isn’t that bad? not if you want fresh water, it is a random cycle of the global environment that naturaly requires change, hell, it’s believed we really only have life on earth, thanks to the moon, otherwise the tidal actions would have been so mild without the moon being so large, and so close, that the ocean’s and larger lakes would be almost completely without oxygen. Change, in climate good. Napster bad. Not really, napster was good, but now it’s bad.

  9. Lyle Says:

    When I was in elementary school in the early 1960s, we were taught to be terribly afraid of the oncoming global cooling resulting from human activity, so we should clamor for less human activity

    Then it was global warming. Now we are asked to believe that global warming will bring on a new ice age. So anything that happens – anything at all, will be “proof” of global warming.

    The bottom line is we have a global socialist movement that will grab hold of anything they can, so as to have a rallying point for their never-ending onslaught against human activity, i.e. liberty, i.e. capitalism.

    Now, what we need is a study of the global effects of their preferred system – socialism, i.e. the destruction of liberty. But we already have the history – stagnation, misery, mass death.

    Maybe a bumper sticker I saw recently will give insight to their state of mind; “More Jobs??!! How about less people??!!!”

    Clue – The left sees humanity as a cancer on the face of the Earth. Admit it, lefties. Be honest.

  10. Manish Says:

    Les..I can only speak for the Canadians on the list, but the three universities that they are from (Ottawa, Carleton, and Laurentian) aren’t exactly world-renowned if you know what I mean (though admittedly Ottawa does have a decent medical program). Its not to say that they are sham universities by any stretch of the imagination, but they are definitely bottom-tier.

    The point is that there are 2 sides to this debate and you’ve only chosen the side that you’ve chosen because it conforms to your worldview and nothing else. If the same scientists (or ones with similar credentials) got behind global warming, it wouldn’t change your opinion.

  11. JustinB Says:

    The point is that there are 2 sides to this debate and youve only chosen the side that youve chosen because it conforms to your worldview and nothing else. If the same scientists (or ones with similar credentials) got behind global warming, it wouldnt change your opinion.

    Mr. Pot I would like for you to meet Mr. Kettle.
    That is the most hypocritical statement I think I have ever seen from you yet Manish.

  12. tgirsch Says:


    Wow, 60-ish experts! So that means there are like, what, 120 climate experts in the world? What a vigorous debate, split right down the middle! Move it along, folks, no cherry-picking to see here…

    Then again, I can find at least 500 experts (including 154 biologists) who doubt evolution; therefore, by your logic, there’s over eight times as much debate about evolution as there is about the human impacts of global warming. Neat-O! Of course, since you don’t like the conclusion of those 500, they are of course fringe whackjobs, whereas you prefer the conclusion of these 60 people, thus making them non-whackjobs.

    Maybe, just maybe, if you want to stop being compared to evolution deniers, you might think twice before you use their tired, weak tactics. Perhaps you think they should “teach the controversy” about global warming in our schools, eh? 😉


    You might have a point, of course, if the two sides to which Manish refers were anywhere close to evenly matched and equally supported.

  13. Les Jones Says:

    Manish and Tom: I’m not claiming there’s a 50/50 split. What I am saying is that there isn’t the 100/0 split that many anthropogenic global warming advocates claims.

    BTW, one reason for believing in the theory of evolution is its predictive and explanatory value. If CO2 levels keep going up but the temperature doesn’t, what’s the predictive and explanatory value of the greenhouse gas theory?

  14. Manish Says:

    I’ve taken my position because its the consensus of the scientific community. If the scientific community came to the consensus that global warming wasn’t caused by humans, I would take that position. My world view is not that CO2 is evil.

  15. Manish Says:

    Les…there isn’t a 100/0 viewpoint that the holocaust happened either.

  16. Xrlq Says:

    There is a 100/0 viewpoint among serious historians that the Holocaust happened, and there are people still alive today who remember it. Even David Friggin’ Irving acknolwedges as much. There is no such unanimity among scientists on global warming, though perhaps there is a consensus among the scientists you call “real scientists,” where any scientist who agrees with Manish is considered real, and any who disagrees with Manish is considered not-real.

  17. Les Jones Says:

    “Lesthere isnt a 100/0 viewpoint that the holocaust happened either.”

    True, and something doesn’t have to be unanimous to be correct or to be a consensus. (For that matter, when a new discovery is made, there’s initially just one person who is correct.) But even today some AGW advocates argue that all climatologists agree that AGW is the 100% cause of any global warming seen to date, and that’s just not the case.

    In preliminary cases where all the facts aren’t known and where the science isn’t solid, scientific opinion just isn’t all that valuable for informing public policy. Trial attorneys take advantage of incomplete scienftific knowledge all the time to win big awards. Look at the case of silicone breast implants. The science at the time said that the implants caused all sorts of problems, which led to a multi-billion dollar settelement and the bankruptcy of Dow Corning. Now the science is in question, but it’s too late to undo the past.

  18. Thibodeaux Says:

    I think Global Warming is caused by Internet flame wars.

  19. kevin Says:

    “But even today some AGW advocates argue that all climatologists agree that AGW is the 100% cause of any global warming seen to date”

    I think you need to present some evidence of that, becasue I haven’t seen it outside of the confines of the comments of global warming skeptics. Maybe I missed it, but the point has always been that the scientific consensous is that human factors play a primary role in the very real phenomenon of climate change.

  20. tgirsch Says:


    So in your view is there, or is there not, consensus among scientists concerning evolution?

    Also, I can’t help but notice that while you chide Manish for using the “real scientists” qualifier, you yourself hide behind the “serious historians” qualifier, where “serious historians” are the ones who share Xrlq’s views on the historicity of the holocaust…


    If I’m not mistaken, with breast implants the science was always in question. And studies as recent as 2003 have found evidence (albeit not conclusive) of health problems in the event of rupture. Bottom line is, there was never the sort of consensus surrounding this as there is surrounding the human impact on global warming.

  21. kevin Says:

    Oh man, you guys really need to do som google before you link these stories.

    The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year.

    Our analysis, summarized in Figure 1 above, uses documented procedures for data over land (1), satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 (2), and a ship-based analysis for earlier years (3). Our estimated error (2σ, 95% confidence) in comparing nearby years, such as 1998 and 2005, increases from 0.05C in recent years to 0.1C at the beginning of the 20th century. Error sources include incomplete station coverage, quantified by sampling a model-generated data set with realistic variability at actual station locations, and partly subjective estimates of data quality problems (4).

    Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Nio this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2C above the trend line by the strongest El Nio of the past century.

    So note that 2005 is a record year, as was 1998. But also note that the 1998 temperatures got a boost becasue of the presence of a large el Nino and that 2005 and did not. Huh — maybe that explains why the temperature rise was masked. it appears that the article linked too is much closer to the “damn lies” portion of statistics than is good for its credibility.

  22. tgirsch Says:

    Dammit, Kevin, there you go with those silly “facts” again…

  23. Les Jones Says:

    “If Im not mistaken, with breast implants the science was always in question.”

    The science in global warming has likewise always been in contention.

  24. bob Says:

    Manish: “Ive taken my position because its the consensus of the scientific community.”

    I don’t think ‘consensus’ means what you think it means. Scientific certainty is not a democratic thing.

    See consensus:

    n : agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole; “the lack of consensus reflected differences in theoretical positions”;

    I think it is pretty clear that the “group” (scientists who study the climate) have NOT all reached the same judgment; it appears that this is due to differences in theorectical positions — which is to say that there is NOT a consensus about “global warming” or “climate change.

  25. Manish Says:

    I think Global Warming is caused by Internet flame wars.

    For once, I think me and Thibodeaux agree on something. This does imply that you believe humans have a primary role in global warming 🙂

  26. tgirsch Says:


    Baloney. There was never anything approaching consensus in the breast implant debate. We do have a consensus on global warming. As you yourself point out, it doesn’t have to be unanimous to be a consensus. The debate over the causes of global warming is almost entirely political and economic in nature; there’s little serious debate in the scientific community about this.


    I think it is you who fails to understand what scientific consensus is. Scientific consensus does not require that the every single member of the group agrees, or that there can’t be a few dissenters. It merely requires that the overwhelming majority of group members do agree, such that they are considered a fringe group.

    Of course, it is possible that the consesnus is wrong (it’s been known to happen — continental drift springs to mind), but that’s the exception, not the rule, and the consensus shifts to the correct position as the evidence for that position becomes overwhelming.

  27. Thibodeaux Says:


    I implied no such thing. Flame wars are conducted by jackasses.

  28. Lean Left Says:

    […] Remember how Kevin posted that there’s no serious debate about the causes of global warming? And remember how some people got really upset about being chided for continuing to insist that there is? Well, those people are going to just hate stuff like this from Grist Magazine: I’ll answer your question’s last part quickly: no credible scientific body in the United States continues to debate whether or not human activity contributes to climate change. I don’t tend to read the articles telling us we have nothing to worry about, but I assume some people writing such articles have jobs at stake. What is uncertain about global warming is what the effects will be. Not “will they be bad” or “will they be severe” — rather, “how bad and severe will they be?” […]

After several weeks of taking Viagra, I got used to it and took the drug only on the weekends. Noticing the changes, my girlfriend started to ask me why I'm so active on weekends. I had to honestly confess everything. She was not upset but supported me. So thanks to Viagra, I made sure that I'm loved just like the way I am.