subscribe: Posts | Comments      Facebook      Email Steve

Global warming? The cold summer of 2010 continues

81 comments

Last Friday’s San Francisco Chronicle had these two articles, both within one page of each other:

Cold summer not coldest

and

Scientists deem Earth’s warming ‘unmistakable’

How to account for such schizoid reports? According to the first article, although the summer of 2010 hasn’t set a record for cold, it’s been one of the chilliest and most persistently foggy in years, contrasting “sharply with record heat on the East Coast.”

According to the second article, “The past decade was the [world’s] warmest on record” and “Scientific evidence that the world is getting warmer is ‘unmistakable,’ according to…the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.” So, despite the numbskull Tea Party allegations of “Climategate” and know-nothing denialism, the evidence “all point[s] to the same conclusion: Our planet is warming.”

I have written about the cold weather along the California coast for years now on this blog, but even before I started doing so, I was noting, in the vintage diary I keep every year for my reports in Wine Enthusiast, how chilly things have gotten since the notoriously hot summer and fall of 2004. The years 2005-2009, inclusive, all seemed colder to me than any I’d experienced since arriving here in 1978; and now, here we go again. I’ve written here how cold and wet our 2010 “spring” was — a “spring” that never happened until things warmed up, slightly, in June. Now here we are with July over, and both the average temperature and the number of sunny days in San Francisco are down. Here in Oakland, the average July high temperature has been running 2.1 degrees below historic norms.

As it is in San Francisco and Oakland, so it is in wine country. Yesterday (as I write; actually, last Thursday), somebody at Vine Cliff Winery, in Napa Valley, called to tell me “We’re 2-3 weeks behind” in average ripeness due to the chill, which leads naturally to concerns about Fall rains. A Sonoma winemaker wrote on my Facebook page, on July 20, “We’ve had something like 6 days the whole year when it has been over 90°…Our grapes are just barely pea-sized still and I’m think[ing] we could be a month or more behind. Wild.” As July is Sonoma town’s hottest month, on average, the temperature for the rest of the summer is likely to be even more moderate than it has been — a trend that will probably continue, according to the Chronicle article.

Even in the normally baking Central Valley, “There have been few, if any readings of 100 degrees this summer within 100 miles of the coast.” You have to get to practically Las Vegas to experience true, western-style summer heat.

I can’t explain these cooler summers and falls. A weatherman I know once suggested that greater warming in the interior west / Four Corners is creating a gigantic thermal low that sucks in maritime air from the chilly eastern Pacific, where water temperatures struggle to get out of the 50s. It is from these cold waters, of course, that the coast gets its fogs and cool temperatures, driven by prevailing winds from the west/northwest. Maybe that’s the explanation. All I know are two things: People from San Francisco to Los Angeles are grouchy because the summer has been so damned cold, and the winegrapes seem to be loving it. All we can do now is hope that the fall rains hold off until, oh, sometime in November.

  1. Skepticism is a healthy thing. It wasn’t too long ago that a climatologist from Southern Oregon University was telling us it would soon be too warm to grow quality wine grapes in the Napa and Sonoma Valleys. He also presented a paper showing the degree of global warming could be documented by the scores of wines given out by Parker and the W.S. (ignoring the possibility that the critics might have caught on to the fact that high scoring wines sell publications, not low scoring wines, after the first 100 point wines were announced in the late 1980’s). This is just one example of the quality of science we see produced in this field today.

    Before you lump we skeptics into “know nothing denialism” you need to learn the difference between global warming and anthropogenic global warming. No one doubts the planet has been warming for the last 12,000 years. Sea levels were then 400 feet below what they are today and glaciers covered most of the Pacific Northwest. That is global warming and is what NOAA is talking about. This warming has been known and accepted by scientists for a couple hundred years (though we still do not know why the earth swings so drastically through these extremes.)

    Anthropogenic global warming contends that the warming we see today is extraordinary, never seen before on the planet, and is caused by man. It has a much higher standard of proof. It has to explain what caused the Medieval Climate Optimum (950 and 1100AD) when temperatures were 1 degree C higher globally than today, when Vikings settled and farmed in Greenland, and trees grew 2,000 feet above today’s treeline in Europe. Maybe what is happening today is what happened a thousand years before the industrial revolution? If it isn’t, prove it.

    If you watched what a politician told you in the movie he made, it is the “hockey stick” he shows on a graph of world temperatures showing an acceleration in warming starting in the last few decades. This hockey stick is at the center of the work of the scientists at the CRU of East Anglia University whose private emails and computer models were surreptitiously released.

    You should read the emails of the researchers at the CRU before you lump scientists who question the science behind the “hockey stick” into the Tea Party movement. Only a true numbskull would do that. If you read the emails you will see that these scientists were more concerned about politics than quality science. Their first reaction to any skeptic is to plan how they will discredit him by attacking that scientist’s motives, not by addressing their science. It is about ideology and it is blatantly obvious in their communications. It is about preventing a skeptic from having his work published in journals. Climatology is the only science, I know of, whose leading scientists force and attempt to thwart (by destroying data and emails) a Freedom of Information Act which was brought by other scientists just to get at the raw data and methods used to create this very important “hockey stick.”

    We need to honestly and openly share, analyze, and discuss the data and methodology: not resort to name calling or making this political. And skepticism is a healthy thing which we should all celebrate.

  2. I try to stay away from the Tea Party stuff, but I did just find myself wondering if their beef is not whether or not Global Warming itself is happening, but whether or not the cause is man-made.

    Anyway, I can attest personally to the late start in N. Cali – hell, 2 weeks ago the grapes hadn’t even hit veraison yet!

  3. Are you trying to say we don’t have global warming because CA’s summer is cool?

  4. Ab, I think the proper term for what’s happening is “climate change.” In some parts of the world, it’s getting warmer. In other parts of the world, it might get cooler. I think the coast of California is getting cooler.

  5. Morton: Agree that skepticism is a good thing to have. I, personally, feel quite incapable of determining if the climate is changing and, if so, how. I am not a scientist and I don’t have the time or skill to delve deeply into all the research. However, I do believe that the climate-change skeptics are anti-scientific morons. At their extreme, the don’t believe in evolution, and they think the world is just under 6,000 years old, as is postulated in the Bible. Those know-nothings are not only stupid, they’re dangerous, and I think they have polluted the well of those who have studied the matter and genuinely don’t believe in either global warming or anthropogenic global warming.

  6. We do not need more grouchy people in Cali… Raising a glass to them all… Here’s to smiling soon : )

    I know Miller is !!! : – )

  7. I agree one hundred percent with Morton post, and would recommend the following articles on the subject of Anthropogenic Global Warming: 1) Lessons & Limits of Climate History; W. Soon & S. Baliunas; Climate Research, Vol.23; pp89-110; 2003. 2) Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus; Richard Lindzen; 2005; Cato.
    AGW is a fallacy… It is, on the other hand, a hugely profitable (and catchy) fund-raising/political agenda.

  8. Peter, I just don’t see how the lay person can arrive at an intelligent conclusion about something so complicated. Are you sure you’re not politically predisposed to doubt AGW and are simply shopping around for professional opinions that support your point of view?

  9. Steve,
    Mainstream climatologists are pretending to model the Earth’s climate with less than 150 years of reliable data (1861-2010). You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that either they have a non-scientific motivation to do that, or they are naively applying the “law of small numbers” to predict the future.
    Read the articles anyway. I bet you’ll change your point of view, too.

  10. Steve,

    Without a doubt the chilliest summer in my recent memory and I’ve lived in the Russian River Valley for twenty five years. Most grape growers in the coastal belt freely admit mold control has been an issue.. Otherwise great grape growing weather.

    Economics and Mother Nature may well tame many California producers, who have traditionally crafted ultra extracted, over oaked fruit bombs. Less money for a battery of new barrels and a long cool and even growing season could signal a paradigm shift. Dare I say less is more.

    I’m with you. I too hope the fall rains hold off until everyone can get their grapes in.

  11. Oy! The “debunking” of the hockey stick model is based upon an intentionally cherry-picked too-small body of data. The emails have been repeatedly found to be mere chatter and evidence of no smoking gun whatsoever. The consensus of actual scientists is clear, and point straight at global warming caused by man.

    The Soon & Baliunas paper created an editorial firestorm. Three Editors resigned, and the Publisher wrote, “While these statements (about temperatures in the 20th Century) may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revi- sions of the manuscript prior to publication.”

    http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf

    The other article cited above was not in a scientific peer review publication, but was put out by the Cato Institute, a political think tank.

  12. David, thanks as usual for weighing in. More reason why a mere mortal such as myself is unable to know what the hell is happening.

  13. Greg Brumley says:

    Let me make a blanket judgment here. There’s a telling corollary:

    Those who believe global climate change is a hoax also believes Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that those weapons justified our invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    How ’bout it, Morton and Peter?

  14. Poli/sci headline battles matter little in real time. The extreme events are the real worry whether driven by man or mother nature. Rain events have become disastrous – huge amounts in hours, not weeks (Pakistan as we type and in past few years Rhone, England, Texas, Ozarks, Plains…). And heat/drought — Russia, China and Argentina now, among others.).
    The results are catastrophic – death and ruin of a year’s worth of crops causing food shortages and price hikes. How this summer affects the Russian and Plains wheat cycles is already having an impact in grain futures on what you will pay for corn, soybeans and bread…or beer in Oakland. “Wheat prices end July with huge monthly gain…” “US commodity prices have soared…” “US wheat surges to 22-month high….” “Wheat feeds on fears…”.
    The reinsurance industry has been studying this since at least the early 90s. Why? They are worried about the insurance effects (insurance is the globe’s largest single industry) and how to work with governments to adjust. Should they create special insurance zones in poor countries where extreme climate events can cause huge human havoc? Such things are not academic or Tea Party speculation but current reality.
    So, no matter how you slice it, agriculture is one of the biggest at risk sectors from extremes. And that, on the fringes, includes wine grapes.
    When we wrote the first piece on wine climate change for WE in ’06 (published in ’07), the California wine folks didn’t even know what we were talking about (honest, we had to keep explaining it).
    Is it bad that California is getting what could be a very interesting vintage? One thing to watch for is whether those who are certified organic or Demeter-Biodynamic use various non-approved chemicals to keep that mold at bay. Crop or certificate? Uhhh… It happens in Europe and so the certification starts over. Ask Gallo about it’s records and predictions. One of their experts is very involved in climate change issues on the global policy level (maybe their new social media manager will weigh in here, Steve).
    As the Bordelais say, September is miracle month. Until then, geez Louise, find a heat wave and go, doing your part to increase CO2. Or enjoy the NorCal summer and lower electricity bills in anticipation of using that money to buy what could be great vintage ’10 wine.

  15. Kathy, I’m hearing increasing concerns here about mold. I think growers are frankly shocked by the weather. Even as I type these words (with thick, cold fog pushing far inland, even into the Central Valley), the long range forecast for next week is much colder weather! It will soon be the usual time to start picking grapes for sparkling wine and I was told two days ago by a major producer that the grapes are far behind schedule. As always, we’ll have to wait and see what September brings.

  16. Greg, I’m sure Morton and Peter will weigh in.

  17. Steve,
    “Climate varies. It varies on a timescale of many millennia between ice ages and interglacial periods. It also varies on much short[er] timescales, measured in terms of a few centuries, between periods like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. And it varies on still shorter periods, measured in terms of a few decades, as indicated in the temperature history of the early 20th century. All of these variations occurred
    before any suggestion of a human influence on the climate system. They represent the natural variability of climate”.
    “While we know that climate exhibits natural variability, we do not have a good measure of that variability, especially on multi-decades- to century-long timescales. This is one of the great unresolved issues of climate science”.
    “The 140 year-long direct temperature measurement record is too short, and the longer time-frame proxy measures are too limited (in terms of their geophysical, chemical, and biological sensitivities to climatic variables) to provide good measures of natural variability in its full dynamic range”.
    “The climate system is highly non-linear, which may not exhibit simple modes of variability. A characteristic of non-linear systems is that it can switch from one stable mode (e.g., ice age) to another (e.g., interglacial). The natural variability in these two modes could be different, with still another, presumably higher, level of variability during the transition. Climate models have been run to simulate the transition between
    ice age and interglacial conditions, but there is no way of knowing whether these simulations are a reasonable representation, let alone the projection, of the Earth’s climate system”. (a.f. Lessons & Limits of Climate History; W. Soon & S. Baliunas)

  18. Peter, if global warming is occurring, it seems to be happening first at the Poles. What do you say to the Arctic people who have lived there for thousands of years, and who say that the ice is melting and retreating more than it ever has?

  19. The truth is really quite simple. If the vast majority of serious scientists are right, and we don’t do anything about it, we are tragically screwed. If the vast majority of serious scientists are wrong and we did something about it anyway, the only result will be a shift from dwindling coal and oil resources to greener economies, with a potential short-term economic injury to those industries, but a long-term economic boost to entirely new methods of energy production.

    Peter, relying on the Soon & Baliunas paper is pretty thin, given that it is one of the very few peer-reviewed articles to be so soundly and roundly criticized by the very publication that published it. It is akin to relying on Wakefield’s vaccine paper in Lancet, even though Lancet withdrew it when it turned out to be false. If that is all climate-change deniers have to rely on, a single peer-reviewed article that slipped through the cracks but was later so soundly rejected, that is a very thin reed indeed.

  20. Steve:
    Arctic what?
    “According to the National Post today, snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966”.
    ‘The ice is back’.
    “Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe, the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year”.
    “OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades”.
    “But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter’s weather stories to wonder whether the alarmists are being a tad premature”. (Block,W.;02/05/2008)

  21. I find it telling that the AGW promoters are resorting to ad-hominen attacks on sceptics and invoking irrelevant topics such as evolution and weapons of mass destruction. People become very testy when their religion is attacked…

  22. “Scientific consensus” – I tried to think of other times when this term has been used, or over used.

    Men are better than women
    Whites are better than blacks

    These are just two obvious examples where scientific consensus was later found to be wrong

  23. James McCann says:

    The Arctic people have accurate records dating back thousand of years? Are you kidding me? I can’t belive that you are the one calling the doubters “stupid” and “morons”. There is no scientific consensus on global warming or “change”, just like there was no consensus when these same scientists announced in the mid seventies that we were entering the early stages of another ice age. Should we also discuss the effect of solar activity? What about the changes in the environment around weather stations affecting their readings?

    I know this is a blog, and anything goes, but your bashing of conservatives is a getting a little old, especially when it is done in such a sophomoric manner.

  24. Donn Rutkoff says:

    Many of us “anti-science morons” are rabidly in favor of building nuclear power plants, and are scientists, medical researchers, etc. Many of the people who claim that global warming is man-made, are also those who oppose nuclear energy and who think that burying nuclear waste is the boogeyman. You really should stop lumping people together based on the agenda of CNN or the New York Times. The stereotype of the red-neck know nothing who opposes all science is pathetic. The earth has gone through drastic climate swings over tens of thosuands of years. It might continue to go thru drastis swings. It might not. I don’t know, the climate scientists can’t prove it one way or not.

  25. Donn, I don’t lump all anti-global warming people into the same category. I have attested to my own confusion concerning climate change. But unfortunately, the anti-global warming people have chosen to sleep in the same bed as some religious fundamentalists who are clearly anti-scientific because science conflicts with their literal interpretation of the bible — just as it did when the Catholic Church condemned Galileo. So you will forgive me, I hope, when I say that you have people on your side who are tarnishing your case.

  26. James, I believe the Arctic people have spoken records, not written ones, and I have no reason to doubt people whose ancestors have lived in the same state of natural isolation for millennia, if they say something is unprecedented.

  27. James McCann says:

    Exactly Steve… you believe spoken words passed down through thousands of years rather than listen to highly educated detractors. You’re going to believe what you want to believe.

  28. While I think it is difficult to assess the validity of computer models or climate analysis, it is less difficult to see the problems that underlie this science. And those problems cause more than a few wierdos to be concerned about making decisions that involve trillions of dollars and global competitiveness on crappy data.

    I think it is for this reason that climate change has been put on the back burner pretty much everywhere in the world. It still remains a political issue that both sides will use to their advantage, but like in Copenhagen, nothing will be done. It is now just posturing for the cameras.

    There are three data sets used by all climate scientists. One is the dataset kept by the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia U. This data is central to the implication of man in climate change. So we read from the leaked emails and from the lead CRU programmer, Ian Harris. He complains about “[The] hopeless state of their (CRU) database. No uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found” and “Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!” When asked directly about these comments CRU member, Phil Jones, confessed in a BBC interview that “his surface temperature data are in such disarray they probably cannot be verified or replicated.” Okay, that is one of the three data sets used by all climatologists. Feel confident?

    Next we have the United States Historical Climatology Network. Thanks to the work of dozens of volunteers and the leadership of Anthony Watts, 1003 of the 1221 surface weather stations that make up the USHCN network have been surveyed, photographed and documented at http://www.surfacestations.org. This had to be done by citizens, because the USHCN would not or could not provide such information. Take a look a the “odd sites.” Is this quality science?

    Next look at the NOAA. They use much of the data from the previous two sources. Beginning in 1990, NOAA began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The number of weather stations declined from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.

    This all is analyzed in a work in progress that involves the aforementioned Anthony Watts and Joseph D’Aleo (climatologist, professor, and co-founder of the weather channel.) (For those that think climate skeptics are just a bunch of loonies I recommend you consider the work of these two men http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf) They back up every point they make in their beginning summary with data, facts and photos.

    They show that the jumps in measured global temperature occur just when the number of weather stations is cut. And because recorded temperatures in more urban and surburban areas rise over time simply because more densely populated areas produce more heat, the bias to surbuban and urban weather stations increases the bias to the rise in temperature over time.

    I won’t get into NASA datasets until the FOIA requests are settled. But I think we will find the same issues in their datasets and that is probably why they are dragging their feet on releasing their data and methods.

    The certainty of AGW has been tempered by other recent events. If you remember claims by IPCC that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 — a vital element of the “doomsday” climate scenarios pushed by climate change alarmists. Well, never mind, this section which was a significant element of the Fourth Assessment Report (or AR4) of the IPCC, which was released in 2007 and created all the buzz back then,,,is now a “regrettable error” according to the chairman of the IPCC panel, Rajendra Pachauri (the guy who stood with Al Gore to recieve the Peace prize.) Pachauri admits “the entire section was wrong.” Amidst calls for Pachauri’s resignation, India pulled out of the IPCC.

    Hey, this whole thing is in disarray. The wheels are off, and it is sad. Man could be creating a disaster, but because of sloppy science we don’t know. And we won’t until we take politics out of science and demand a higher standard in climatology, a standard equal to the other sciences. And at the basis of all good science is skeptcism.

  29. Morton, whether or not the science is sloppy, even the average consumer of news (such as me) can tell that the anti-global warming crowd has, in many cases, a political agenda, not merely a scientific one. And their political agenda is usually pretty rightwing. It’s too bad that science has to get all mixed up with politics, but it is. At any rate, moving away from fossil fuels can’t be bad — but once again, the rightwing anti-global warming crowd seems to want to drill, baby, drill, and to keep us dependent on oil. How else to explain their absolute resistance to green energy and renewable sources, which they routinely mock as crackpot, pork barrel, “liberal,” etc.

  30. James, I suppose you can criticize articles such as this one http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp
    but it sounds to me like the polar ice caps are melting. Whether this is manmade or natural and cyclic, I don’t know. But I haven’t heard any experts swearing that the ice caps aren’t melting.

  31. Morton and Peter O’Connor are repeating the discredited “evidence” of several diferent well-known denialists. As David Honig aptly observed, editors at the journal Climate Research resigned over the publication of the shoddy work of Soon and Baliunas, and ultimately the publisher stated, “[the conclusions drawn] cannot be convincingly concluded from the evidence presented in the paper”
    You can look it up. Good work, David Honig!
    Meanwhile, the persistence of low pressure and onshore flow is making for an interesting growing season.

  32. David Graves, interesting indeed…in the Chinese sense?

  33. David Honig,
    “The scientific case is not dependent on citation of authority, no matter how distinguished the authority may be. The case is dependent upon experimental evidence, logic, and reason”. (Farley, J.W.)

  34. I’ve linked to these maps before, but it really is quite extraordinary to see how dramatically cooler the summer has been along the California coast.

    This map depicts the departure from normal for the maximum daily temperature for the past 30 days:
    http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/anomimage.pl?cal30dTxdep.gif

    As you can see, virtually all of Napa and Sonoma have experienced, on average, high temperatures at least six degrees below normal. And toward the coast in Sonoma the departure from normal has been up to -10. The map also depicts well how the cool intrusion has extended up into the Delta—but that the foothills and high country have, in fact, been mostly warmer than normal.

  35. Pete, that accords with what my meteorologist sources tell me. It’s getting warmer inland — but colder along the coast. I have been reporting on cool vintages in coastal California since 2005.

  36. In addition to accurate and historically FACTUAL pointers Mortin has posted above, one really needs to pay attention to what happened when USSR fell apart. Back in the day, USSR installed and supported a good number of weather stations positioned along their Northern edge, which, if anyone knows anything about geography, clearly added to a number of NEGATIVE temp numbers. Once USSR fell apart and the stations were closed due to lack of financial support from the new Russia empire, one doesn’t need a math degree to understand that (recent) lack of a good number of North-based stations off-setting warmer numbers elsewhere of course the mean temps will go up.

    For those who mentioned recent heat spikes in parts of Europe and East Coast of USA, is there any reason you were not pointing out RECORD COLD taking a good number of lives in South American countries in the past 2 months? As usual, selective political agenda and nothing less.

    I know that cold facts for some reason fail to register with many out there, no matter how many facts are presented. We were in a cool down just 20 odd years ago and same people who are now screaming about warming are those same voices who were screaming “We’re freezing” just a few years back. Its time to pay attention and all roads taken will lead only to one common starting point: FOLLOW THE MONEY. Yep, Gore, Soros, a good number of our Congress members, all already set up to cash in on their “investment”. Inconvenient truth, that’s for sure…

    Last year was the COLDEST on record in the past 30 years. The year prior was not far behind, this year is shaping up to be on par with last (again, look up what’s happening in South America, people are dying left and right). Droughts and famine are not new phenomena by any means (anyone want to look up dictionaries and let me know how old words “drought” and “famine” are?), they have been happening sporadically through eons. Sahara used to be a tropical zone once… But sure enough, facts never matter…

  37. To Steve, yes, in that sense. It’s a great year to be in the mildew-control business.
    And to Peter O’Connor–you seem to imply that David Honig’s comment was a simple appeal to authority, when in fact, Soon and Baliunas’ work has been shown to be a bunch of hoo-haw. What part of it stands up to scrutiny?

  38. Scott Mahon says:

    The beauty of the global warming debate is that it doesn’t really matter. If the international scientific consensus is correct and GW is man-made, then it is only one symptom of man-made pollution. A problem which everyone agrees need addressing. Therefore the argument doesn’t matter; reducing pollution matters; everything else is political posturing.
    More important that annual temperature variance is the effect that GW is going to have on precipitation. That is something that very few have attempted to model and of dire concern to us growers in the west. What will happen if water becomes scarce enough that CA finally imposes underground water rights like the rest of the world? Is that goodbye Gallo?

  39. Greg Brumley says:

    Morton, Peter O’Connor,

    The gauntlet is still down.

    So, tell us. Did you believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which justified our invading Iraq? More telling, do you STILL believe it?

    Two simple questions. Will you answer?

  40. OMG I really didn’t intend for my blog to get political!

  41. Donn Rutkoff says:

    Steve, in your reply to me you say, the anti-global warming people have chosen to sleep in the same bed as religious fundamentalists. Really????? That is a stretch. Where is your evidence that they have CHOSEN to lie with a particular religious outlook or group? You are playing guilt by association. I see no causal correlation between those who disbelieve the dire pronouncements of guys like Al Gores, and religious fundamentlists. And even if there was a CHOICE, so what? Do you want to pick a fight with much of organized religion, ignited by your opinion over man-made global warming? That is an ad-hominem. If you want to attack religion, go ahead. Don’t use global warming fears as your cover. And if you are going to run a wine blog, you might want to stop the name-calling. If you want to run a political blog, there are plenty of other veneus for that.

  42. GregP, see, this is what I meant when I wrote earlier that some anti-global warming people seem to have a political, not a scientific agenda. You appear to be one of them, with your remarks about Soros, Gore and “a good number of our Congress members.” I was enjoying your comment until then, but then I thought, “Uh oh, you can no longer trust anything this person says, because he’s obviously being political, not rational.” Sorry, but that’s how I hear you.

  43. Yikes—now GregP has come up with a goofy comment. The station network debate has been whacked around pretty good. And guess what–you can look it up in any one of a number of sites on the web. Here’s the short version: to test the effect of losing statins from 1992 on, *get rid of* the lost stations in the pre-1992 record. Then you only have stations that are continuous. If you do that, guess what–the warming trend is still there. This is like playing whack-a-mole….

  44. Oh, I forgot, re: GregP–“coldest on record”–based on what and according to whom? Sheesh.

  45. To Greg Brumley.

    Do you follow Russian press and if so, do you pay attention? Are you aware of the fate of Belorussian journalist who was killed a while ago while investigating where Iraq’s WOMD went?

    Strange that while ALL of the leading intelligence agencies around the globe reported on the existence of Iraqi WOMD and yet there are still people who don’tseem to get with the program/facts.

  46. To Richard Graves:
    “Soon and Baliunas’ work has been shown to be a bunch of hoo-haw”. (?!)
    I’d appreciate it if you would expand on your critique and quote your sources.
    BTW, do you extend your criticism to the work of Richard Lindzen, Timothy F. Ball, Hendrik Tennekes, John Farley, Tim Patterson, David Legates…, too?

  47. I am ready for my tinfoil hat now–

  48. Steve, let me point out that I DID NOT point out political reasons, I clearly pointed out FINANCIAL reasons and names who cme up with the idea. Not sure how you misread that. FOLLOW THE MONEY. That’s what I said. It “just happens” that those who built the Carbon Ponzy Scheme are politically waaaaayyy to the left. Can you point out to me one conservative in that group of people?

    I do not believe in coincidences. Not when billions (or is it trillions now?) of dollars are at stake.

    Please don’t forget that I am probably the only one in the thread who has actually lived under the “wonders” of fascist/progressive/liberal/communist regime (USSR) and the only one here who argues from the FACTUAL standpoint rather than “book” knowledge. What is that famous and accurate statement (Diderot?): Better to see once than read a thousand times?

    In regard to the supposed global warming, please listen to Russian Academy of Science, they, unlike the Ponzy Scheme Cabal here, don’t have anything to sell to you and me. And Russians are the ones who clearly pointed out last year that global warming is a hoax and nothing more, if you recall Medvedev voted against the rip-off after consulting with Russian scientists.

  49. Steve, I followed your link to the NRDC site. I would say that if you want an unbiased picture you might consider getting your info elsewhere. For example, take a look at the image shown and the alarming statement “since 1979 the size of the summer polar ice cap has shrunk more than 20 percent.” Pretty scary. Send them a donation.

    Or consider that the Arctic winter ice cap covers 6.2 million square miles while the summer ice cap covers about 2 million (1.65 its lowest in 2007) So if you lose 350,000 sq.miles from 2 million you have lost 18%. (Save the bears, we need a carbon tax!) If you lose 350,000 square miles in the winter you have lost 6%. (Oh, is that so. Ho-hum.) If you are an alarmist which number do you pick? And when do you start it. Why 1979? Did that happen to be a peak time historically for summer ice?

    On has to ask, “Why is it necessary to play these games?” Are we trying to create maximum fear? And what would climate scientists or NGO’s have to gain by that?

    When the Arctic polar ice recovered in the summer of 2008 to over 2 million square miles was it meaningful to say the summer artic ice cap had grown 21% above that minimum? Fair enough, we saw climate skeptics jumping on that number too.

    You see the same thing when it comes to the hockey stick. You will notice the alarmist chooses 1100 AD or thereabouts to start the chart. It looks like a hockey stick. Go back two centuries to the Medieval Warm Period and start the chart and it is a shallow U. Which creates the most fear? A graph that makes warming look unprecedented or a graph that shows things aren’t any worse than they were a 1000 years ago? These people mis-represent intentionally, they are not stupid. The IPCC completely eliminated the Medieval Warm Period in their last three reports, though it appeared in their first few.

    Maybe you can’t see it. But this is the kind of bullshit that makes me skeptical.

  50. To David Graves:

    May be its just me, but last year over 3000 cold records across the world were broken. But hey, who cares about facts? Do you understand what is happening in South America as we speak?

    Instead of blindly believing mass media, why don’t you spend some quality time doing your own research? Grab a cup of coffee, light up a good cigar and see the real world for a change, its an interesting place.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. My Micro-Farm « freeseedfoundation - [...] growing succulent green bell peppers. Peppers are something I really have no success with in the Arctic summers here …

Leave a Reply

*

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives