Posts Made By: Dave Snope

Oops, did they check this chart before they went to measure "the continent most acutely affected by climate change"?

Starting my New Year off with a laugh.

What this Sherwood guy is saying is that all the models up until now are wrong, except for his model, because his model deviates farther from reality than all the wrong models.

He's right about one thing: all the AGW models to date have been wrong. Not one model has been right since the dawn of the 'science' in the 80's. This guy is crazy as a fox because he knows that the believers will forget all the past failures and truly believe the next model that comes out. They'll even get on boats with his crazy UNSW colleague Turney and get themselves trapped in the ice that was supposed to have disappeared from man's evil ways, get rescued with the help of several AGW skeptics who they can trust to make the most accurate predictions of weather, then they'll jump on the next AGW scarey model and believe that.

Whatever happened to the basic weather system knowledge that more heat produces more clouds, increasing albedo and rain and cooling the earth? They don't "draw water vapor out of the air".

The media doesn't want to damage the global warming agenda. Better to keep people in the dark and not burden their little brains with irony.

The Russian ship, Akademic Shokalskiy, was stranded in the ice while on a climate change research expedition, yet nearly 98 percent of network news reports about the stranded researchers failed to mention their mission at all. Forty out of 41 stories (97.5 percent) on the network morning and evening news shows since Dec. 25 failed to mention climate change had anything to do with the expedition.

In fact, rather than point out the mission was to find evidence of climate change, the networks often referred to the stranded people as “passengers,” “trackers” and even “tourists,” without a word about climate change or global warming.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/01/02/frozen-out-98-stories-ignore-ice-bound-ship-was-global-warming-missi#ixzz2pIBHAMff

I like that a state had done this. It will provide real experience, much more useful than listening to everyone's predictions about what will happen if we legalize pot.

Regardless of whether one accepts the individual-liberty case for legalizing marijuana, the consequentialist case is convincing. That is because the history of marijuana prohibition is a catalogue of unprofitable tradeoffs: billions in enforcement costs, and hundreds of thousands of arrests each year, in a fruitless attempt to control a mostly benign drug the use of which remains widespread despite our energetic attempts at prohibition. We make a lot of criminals while preventing very little crime, and do a great deal of harm in the course of trying to prevent an activity that presents little if any harm in and of itself.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367618/sensible-weed-editors

That guy doesn't seem to have a firm grasp of any of the Amendments that he uses as a basis for his analogy. Thus he fouls out by the second paragraph.

I don't know who was involved, but I like that he fired the primary person within 48 hours of learning about it.

That's quite the opposite behavior from any of the group that crawled out of the Chicago political cesspool and into Washington. They deny, deny, lie, lie, and protect their criminals to the bitter end.

Of course women (and black youth's record 36% unemployment) are just collateral damage in the larger war on business, jobs, and prosperity:

the labor participation rate just dropped to a fresh 35 year low, hitting levels not seen since 1978 (JIMMAH!), at 62.8% down from 63.0%.


All we need now is a few more straws: a new federal minimum wage, the employer mandate, the next big push on global warming mandates, tiered healthcare taxes kick in; and economic collapse will be successful.

I haven't heard McCain calling for more support for his pals in the FSA and their Al-Qaeda overlords lately. Maybe he's looking for another cause.

That's amazing! I can easily find over 1000 peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Global Warming. I can find another list of over 400 peer-reviewed papers that support the skeptic argument that the Medieval Warming Period was as warm or warmer than it is today before all that CO2 was added to the atmosphere. That's why it's amazing.

But hey, I'm not at the level of Jim Hoggan's paid professional public relations guys at "desmogblog". Who's senior writer wrote "I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science)".

All that aside, I think there are better questions to ask:

1) Do you believe that (or any) article published on desmogblog is factual? I am very curious about how people determine what sources to trust and whether what they read is factual. It's kind of a right brain/left brain thing (if you believe in that stuff).
2) Do you feel that their stated purpose to smear AGW skeptics gives them credibility as an ethical scientific resource on the topic?
3) Why would Dr. Powell publish his research at a PR site instead of a credible science journal?
4) Does it pass your personal smell test that there is only one paper that supports skeptic arguments? Did you even get past the article's title without a seed of skepticism growing in your brain?
5) Since it's a waste of time and energy to prove a negative anyway, which peer-reviewed scientific research do you believe best supports the argument that man's activities have caused the climate to warm? Or "change", if you prefer that term. Which experiments using the scientific method have measured the warming effects of CO2 in our atmosphere? That's a question I have asked many times in various forms but never get an answer. Or is it more of a "4/5 doctors thing", and you don't really like to read scientific papers?