Mar 03

Pajamas Media’s PJTV has a new 26 minute video interview with Lord Christopher Monckton. Al Gore was discussed, of course, and specifically mentioned was Al Gore’s “doubling down” on man-made climate change via his blizzard of lies op-ed he wrote for the compliant New York Times. However, in my opinion the “doubling down” analogy is a weak one. Doubling down is a strategy that is used in blackjack, and is done when playing from a positon of strength rather than weakness, e.g. when a player is dealt a ten or an eleven, or when the dealer is showing a very weak hand to your own nine:

Double Down: double your initial bet following the initial two-card deal, but you can hit one card only. A good bet if the player is in a strong situation.

On the other hand, “going all in” is a more apt analogy for the collapsing global warming movement.  “Going all in” is a poker term, and is a strategy that is generally employed out of weakness or desperation:

This is often the act of desperation, when a player is close to being eliminated from the game.

It has become apparent to anyone who is paying attention, i.e. global temperatures decreasing for a decade, Climategate, Amazongate, et. al., that the hand of cards that Al Gore and the rest of the alarmists are holding is not a strong one.  Therefore, when Al Gore penned his NY Times op-ed, “We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change“, he was certainly employing the more desperate “going all in” poker strategy, rather than “doubling down” on a strong hand as is done in blackjack.

7 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Feb 18

Scientist on fluctuating Pacific Northwest snowpacks: ‘If you try to spin it that all of the loss we’re seeing is evidence of what global warming is doing, you really risk undermining your credibility’

By Editor snow, The Oregonian Comments Off on Scientist on fluctuating Pacific Northwest snowpacks: ‘If you try to spin it that all of the loss we’re seeing is evidence of what global warming is doing, you really risk undermining your credibility’

There’s been much hand-wringing going on in the Pacific Northwest over snowpack levels in recent years due to Al Gore’s continual assurance that climate change is happening “faster than we thought”, and this year the tension has been ramped up even more with the mild temperatures and low snowpack levels at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, BC.

So, The Oregonian wades into the snowpack issue again, and finds that there is no easy answer:

With spotty snow at the Winter Olympics and snowpack down across much of the Northwest, it would be easy to see this balmy winter as the opening act in our warmer-world future.

Don’t.

It turns out the Northwest’s snowpack climbs and drops more than a cross-country skier, making it especially tough to predict.

Snowpack trends are the subject of a continuing scientific snowball fight among climate researchers, underscoring the hazards of jumping to quick conclusions.

Scientists agree that a future drop is likely at some point if global warming proceeds as expected. But they differ on how much snowpack has decreased, whether any of that was due to man-made climate change and how far and fast it’s likely to drop in coming years.

An example:

The researchers who made predictions last year for Washington’s climate change report figured that the state’s April 1 snowpack will drop nearly 10 percent a decade into 2040 because of climate change.

But three other University of Washington researchers just completed a study that puts the potential loss in the Cascades, including Oregon and Washington, at about 2 percent a decade, a far more manageable rate.

Cliff Mass, a UW atmospheric sciences professor and one of the recent study’s co-authors, said there will be a “profound” decrease in snowpack but much later in the century than others predict.

“The scientific community is pretty unanimous this is a serious issue,” Mass said. “But there are a lot of uncertainties in our modeling system that we’ve got to be honest about.”

As of Wednesday, snowpack in the Willamette River basin was 45 percent of normal. Washington snowpack is about three-quarters of normal.

The Northwest’s snowpack is particularly sensitive to temperature changes. The Cascades and Washington’s Olympics include a lot snow that falls at close to freezing temperatures — the highest fraction of “warm snow” in the continental United States.

“In the Cascades, a lot of the snow is on the edge of melting,” said Eric Salathé, a UW professor and senior research scientist with the university’s Climate Impacts Group. “That’s why these numbers are so touch-and-go.”

Climate cycles

Complicating matters for scientists, reliable snowpack numbers go back to only about 1950.

The region also experiences climate cycles that make it tough to cull the effects of man-made global warming from natural variations. The short-term cycle is El Niño, when warmer waters off South America result in drier, warmer Northwest winters.

This year’s El Niño is the strongest since 1998, said Phil Mote, director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University.

Long term, the “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” shifts ocean temperature in the North Pacific about every 20 to 30 years, with corresponding ups and downs in snowpack. No one knows exactly why it happens.

“The noise can make it look like there’s a trend that’s not really there,” said Mark Stoelinga, who co-authored the latest study with Mass and Mark Albright of UW.

The 1950s had high snowpack to begin with. In the latest study, Stoelinga, Mass and Albright took their estimates back to 1930 by tracking stream flows and temperature and correlating it to snowpack.

From 1930 to 2007, snowpack dropped 23 percent, their study for an American Meteorological Society journal estimated.

From 1976 to 2007, when global temperatures were increasing, snowpack actually increased 19 percent, they concluded. That figure is not statistically significant because of the short time frame, but it illustrates that there aren’t “obvious, huge declines related to global warming,”

Many of the changes were due to natural variations in climate. Some — about a 2 percent loss per decade — were unexplained by climate cycles and could be due to man-made global warming, Stoelinga said.

“But if you try to spin it that all of the loss we’re seeing is evidence of what global warming is doing, you really risk undermining your credibility,” he said.

In some cases, he [Salathé] said, “we’ve been pushing too hard,” citing worst cases and not highlighting uncertainties.

Hmmmmmm. Despite scads of research by highly educated scientists (many with the letters Ph.D. after their names), they still cite uncertainties in their modeling system, only sixty years of snowpack records, El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, statistical noise, and natural variations all as reasons that the Pacific Northwest snowpack is virtually impossible to predict.

So, the take-away message here is that these guys don’t have a clue! And yet they assure us that “the scientific community is pretty unanimous this is a serious issue”. Yeah, right 😉

4 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Feb 02

Daughter blames mother’s flatulence for global warming

By Editor flatulence, global warming Comments Off on Daughter blames mother’s flatulence for global warming

Al Gore and the rest of the environmentalists have scared our children, and now they are starting to point fingers:

Dear Dr. Donohue — My daughter complains that I flatulate more often than most individuals. Furthermore, she claims that the gas an individual passes contributes to global warming. I don’t know if I am physically able to keep my gas to myself to go green. Is my daughter really right?

Is your daughter for real? No human can stop the production of intestinal gas. Every human passes gas, including your daughter. People do so from 10 to 20 times a day.Colon bacteria are responsible for gas production.

The major gases in colon-produced gas are nitrogen, carbon dioxide, methane and hydrogen. Traces of sulfur-containing gases are responsible for its unpleasant odor.

Greenhouse gases — the gases that blanket the earth and warm it— include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen and fluorocarbons. Most of the carbon dioxide that contributes to greenhouse effect comes from the use of fossil fuels — gas, oil, gasoline and coal. The majority of methane gas that adds to the greenhouse effect is derived from livestock, coal mining, drilling for oil and from garbage landfills.

Carbon dioxide is the byproduct of many industrial processes. If your daughter is truly worried over your contribution to the greenhouse effect, she should realize that her breathing contributes a significant amount of carbon dioxide to it. She blows out carbon dioxide with each exhalation. Humans contribute more than 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the yearly production of this greenhouse gas. No one suggests we stop breathing.

Hat tip: Dave Barry

4 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jan 28

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (GL) – Al Gore said Wednesday that the terms “global warming”, “climate change”, and “climate crisis” shall be immediately replaced with an unpronounceable symbol.  As he unveiled the new symbol to the media at a press conference in his hometown, the former vice president cited the continued emerging complexity of climate science as the reason for the change in nomenclature.

At a news conference in Nashville on Wednesday, Al Gore presents the unprounceable symbol that is the new name for global warming, climate change, and the climate crisis. Photo by World Resources Institute licensed by Creative Commons.

“The terms global warming, climate change and climate crisis are wholly inadequate to accurately describe the catastrophe that our planet faces if we continue to treat our atmosphere like an open sewer”, Gore said.  He added, “I recognize the difficulties the public, journalists and the consensus of scientists will have in referring to this unpronounceable symbol in spoken or printed words, therefore I would urge everyone to refer to this symbol as simply, ‘The Phenomenon Formerly Known as Global Warming’”.

Gore said, “The climate crisis, um, The Phenomenon Formerly Known as Global Warming is a true planetary emergency. It is not a political issue. It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”  He added, “Yes, it is cumbersome to say, but words simply fail to describe the complexity of the threat and the catastrophe we face if we fail to take decisive action to move towards a more sustainable economy. The name has changed, but the chorus of alarm bells sounding the need to address the danger continues to grow ever louder, and the planet’s very survival is at risk. This symbol is the new face of the threat that faces humanity, and yet the symbol is also intended to convey the hope and opportunity that are within our grasp if we make the right choice for ourselves, and for the the planet.”

Following Gore’s remarks, journalist Phelim McAleer asked Gore, “Mr. Gore, is this name change simply an acknowledgment that global temperatures have stabilized or gone down for the past decade, and that the science is certainly not settled given the recent Climategate and IPCC scandals?”  Gore replied, “Not at all.  The scientific consensus is stronger than ever, and The Phenomenon Formerly Known as Global Warming is posing an ever greater threat to our planet’s future, and to the future we leave our grandchildren.”  McAleer replied, “But, Mr. Gore, isn’t this just a ploy….”  Security staff aided by other journalists then intervened, and a security staff member was heard asking McAleer to sit down because it was another journalist’s turn to ask a question.

In accordance with Gore’s announcement, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said Wednesday evening that his panel would immediately file all papers necessary to change the name of the IPCC to the Intergovernmental Panel on The Phenomenon Formerly Known as Global Warming (IPTPFKGW).

27 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Aug 11

To the pervs who found this post: There’s no nudity in the trailer. Move along.

Via globalwarming.org:

I saw Val Kilmer’s new feature the other day. It’s called “The Chaos Experiment,” and it’s about a deranged scientists (Kilmer) who traps “six sexy strangers” (according to the plot synopsis on the back of the DVD) in a room and slowly turns up the heat to demonstrate the deleterious effects of global warming on the human condition. In a nutshell, the “six sexy strangers” get naked before they go crazy and start killing one another.

My girlfriend thought it was awful- she was put off by the nudity. That was the only part I enjoyed, in what was otherwise a real snoozer.

According to the invaluable Eco-razzi, “The Chaos Experiment” was released in only 2 theatres before going straight to video. Poor Val Kilmer. It’s been all downhill since “Tombstone.”

Then again, you reap what you sow. Movies with a message about global warming are either boring (c.f. “An Inconvenient Truth”) or stupid (c.f. “The Day After Tomorrow”). So Val, who produced this film, had his work cut out for himself. Lord knows he tried to spice things up, by centering the film on “six sexy strangers” who get naked, but even that couldn’t overcome the lameness of global warming alarmism as a plotline.

Hat tip: Tom Nelson

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jul 26

This is getting ridiculous.

Lately it’s been called “our deteriorating atmosphere“.  Before that it was the “climate crisis”.  Before that it was called “climate change”.  Before that it had been called “global warming”.  Before that it had been called the weather.  Now, Joy Trueblood, of Sandy, Oregon proposes it be called, “man-made atmosphere change”. No doubt because the earth hasn’t been warming for the past eleven years.

From The Oregonian:

The recent letters in your paper disputing climate change show clearly why we need to relabel the problem as “man-made atmosphere change.”

Man-made atmosphere change is real. It’s happening now. It can’t be disputed. It can be measured. All reputable scientists know it’s happening, and most laymen can understand it.

It can be shown in pictures of smokestacks and tailpipes emitting carbon dioxide along with other pollutants. Pictures make it easier for climate change deniers to understand what is happening.

Climate change is just one consequence of letting polluters mess with our atmosphere. It seems incredibly stupid, as well as morally wrong, to change the atmosphere that produced and sustains our life on Earth, especially if solutions are as simple as more emissions controls on smokestacks and cars, driving less, eating less beef and using birth control.

JOY TRUEBLOOD
Sandy

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jul 20

Video: ‘Hi, I’m Dave. I’m an environmental scientist…and I’m a communist!’

By Editor An Inconvenient Truth, Communism, video Comments Off on Video: ‘Hi, I’m Dave. I’m an environmental scientist…and I’m a communist!’

Need I say more?

Well, a little more:

The use of The Battle Hymn of the Republic as the background music for a video produced by “some participants in the recent National Marxist School of the Communist Party” makes me want to, well, puke.

Interested readers may wish to check out, “Global Warming – The Communist Solution“, which bears striking similarity to – Al Gore’s solution. 😉

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
preload preload preload