Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

Fuck the extremist election deniers. What’s money for if not for keeping them out of office?

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

Everybody saw this coming.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

You cannot shame the shameless.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

You are here: Home / Why We Are Doomed

Reader Interactions

131Comments

  4. 4.

    ronin122

    Don’t forget Al Gore’s house means he’s a hypocrite, therefore GW is caused by the sun, or GW is real so drill baby drill or something.

  5. 5.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    Wait until the anti-globalwarming crowd finds out the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain.

  7. 7.

    Violet

    A big problem was calling it “global warming” in the first place. Because every time it’s colder than expected, cold in places it’s not supposed to be cold, or even just very cold in cold places (like now in Copenhagen), the climate change deniers get to haul out the “Global Warming? Ha!” comments. And for anyone who doesn’t know much about climate change – and that’s a lot of people – it seems plausible. If the earth is warming, why is it colder?

    “Global warming” is brand fail. Should have called something like “Climate Upheaval.” That way if it’s hotter or colder, it still fits.

  8. 8.

    Mike G

    Snow in Scandinavia in December. That proves that Manmade Global Cooling is upon us and we should all drive Hummers.

  12. 12.

    AngusTheGodOfMeat

    Global warming has been a problem here in Phoenix since roughly the first Ice Age.

    Driving with oven mitts in July and August is a tipoff that something has gone horribly wrong.

  13. 13.

    Kyle

    I was flicking through the channels yesterday at the gym, and skipping past Fox News as I always do, happened to glance at the title screen they were displaying: “Happy Holidays from Fox News”.

    I just can’t wait for ‘rebel’, ‘sticking up for the little guy’ ‘speaking my mind and damn the consequences because that’s just the kind of stand-up guy I am’ Bill O’Reilly to launch and angry rant against Fox News and Rupert Murdoch for their hatred of baby Jesus…any day now…waiting…

  15. 15.

    Zifnab

    If there’s one thing that the Climate Change debates has done to the media landscape, it’s in how snow near the Arctic circle in December is now front page headline news.

    Also, how air travel is now politically taboo.

  16. 16.

    Shell

    4 inches is a blizzard? Hm.

    To be nit-picky. A storm is declared a blizzard according to wind velocity, not the amount of snow.

  18. 18.

    S. cerevisiae

    Blizzard? In Minnesota that would barely get a travel advisory.

    And it’s cloudy here so therefore the sun is a myth. also.

  21. 21.

    The Republic of Stupidity

    I believe Al is also a bit overweight.

    And Michael Moore is fat.

    Clearly, there’s some meaningful correlation between these two facts that needs to be explored…

    Now… what would happen if both Al AND Michael were to jump off towers, placed exactly on the equator, at the very same moment?

    Would the Earth split in two?

    Perhaps we can con talk some contrarian think tank into putting up some research money…

  22. 22.

    The Republic of Stupidity

    A big problem was calling it “global warming” in the first place.

    Well, thank Dog they didn’t call it ‘Gay Warming’… huh?

  24. 24.

    jrg

    Even if we cut emissions to 0 by 2010, we’d still be fucked… Teh stoopid burns hotter than 1,000 suns.

  25. 25.

    nodakfarmboy

    @AngusTheGodOfMeat:

    Driving with oven mitts in July and August is a tipoff that something has gone horribly wrong.

    Yes, something has gone horribly wrong if you find yourself living in Phoenix.

    I kid, I kid…

    Sort of.

  27. 27.

    Marc

    Maybe you folks can help me out… a friend has asked for recommendations for books about climate change, preferably by scientists rather than pols, that would be “good for a skeptic.”

    I think (hope) he means good for convincing “skeptics” who need assurance that climate change is real. I’m hoping to steer him towards a clear, accessible book by a scientist or other nonpolitical figure. (Not Al Gore, because Al Gore is fat.)

    Any recommendations?

  30. 30.

    Joel

    I think sportswriters should lead with headlines like “4-20 shooting performance proves that Kobe Bryant isn’t a very good basketball player”.

  34. 34.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    @Apsaras:

    If the earth is ROUND then why don’t the Chinese fall OFF? Answer that, scientist!

    Chinese people have little suction cups on their tiny feet.

  36. 36.

    Person of Choler

    Of course it snows in high latitudes during the winter and gets cold, too.

    But the really amusing stories out of Copenhagen are the ones about 40,000+ registered attendees standing in line in the cold for hours trying to get into a facility capable of holding only 15,000.

    And this shindig is planned and managed by the folks who want hundreds of billions of our nonexistent tax dollars to operate the earth’s climate.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/15/aps-seth-borenstein-left-out-in-the-cold-at-copenhagen-for-7-hours-thanks-to-u-n-incompetence/

    This, in the argot of commenters here, is teh funny.

  39. 39.

    scav

    Tough love. Doomed. Given the last week and given that my back gave out last night I’m rooting for Doomed Doomed DOOMED and a well deserved doom it is. Sorry to all the sane individuals but we’re apparently a local minority. I’ll be one of the ones giggling as we go under.

  40. 40.

    some guy

    In other news, the North Korean gov’t has released a study “proving” global warming is a hoax. Right-wing blogs link approvingly and call Al Gore fat. Check and mate, alarmists!

  41. 41.

    Clark

    I looked at Drudge yesterday. Prominently at the top of the screen was a link to some (negative) coverage of the climate change conference in Copenhagen, followed by 3 or 4 links to stories about cold weather in Denmark and Sweden.

    Seriously.

  42. 42.

    Gold Star for Robot Boy

    @AngusTheGodOfMeat: A few years ago, Atlantic Monthly devoted an issue to global warming. One of the articles was about the potential winners and losers of GW – Phoenix was not a winner.

  48. 48.

    freelancer

    OT- when y’all decide to do a scorched earth campaign on Nebraska, could you do me a favor and avoid my house?

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/17/johanns-goldfarb-rumor/

    Both the White House and Nelson’s office have denied the rumor. Nelson himself rejected the rumors as “yellow journalism at its worst.” Now, Johanns is saying that though he believes Nelson when he says he wasn’t threatened, there should still be hearings on the rumor:
    …
    Even Johanns himself said he doesn’t believe the rumors.
    …
    “When Senator Nelson says it didn’t happen, I trust Senator Nelson. I have no reason not to trust him,” Johanns said. […]
    …
    Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), however, doesn’t trust Nelson’s dismissal of the rumor. “A threat like this would usually sound absurd, except that there has been a culture of strong-arm, Chicago-style politics,” said Terry.

  49. 49.

    El Cid

    There is no such thing as manmade global warming because the SUN is HOT and also because you can calculate how many ice cube trays would it take to fill the Arctic circle.

  50. 50.

    The Republic of Stupidity

    This, in the argot of commenters here, is teh funny.

    Indeedy… indeedy… especially in light of the fact that we can get ALL THE ANSWERS we need from Him…

  52. 52.

    scav

    @Clark: and meanwhile my sister’s partner in Olso was complaining about the lack of snow and it was warmer there than in Chicago, Iowa and seaboard Washington. harumph.

  53. 53.

    Mark

    To be fair, silliness like this is just the flip side to well-intentioned-but-foolish liberals saying “must be global warming” every time it gets hot in the summer.

  54. 54.

    The Republic of Stupidity

    @Tha Cid:

    … because you can calculate how many ice cube trays would it take to fill the Arctic circle.

    Yeah? Well… well… what about the Arctic square, while you’re at it? Huh?

    Hmmm… square… PiR2… pie… both Moore AND Gore are fat…

    There’s DEFINITELY something sinister going on there…

  55. 55.

    licensed to kill time

    I like those History channel shows on Life without People and How the Earth Was Made. It comforts me, sort of, to know the Earth will go on, whether we are here or not. We were probably just transitional life forms anyway.

  57. 57.

    R-Jud

    @arguingwithsignposts:

    Because I’m as tired of global hermaphrodite climate change as I am of HCR.

    What does Lady GaGa have to do with this?

    Kitteh: “Smudge”, for the mark on her head, or “Clio”, because she is a pretteh kitteh.

  58. 58.

    The Ace Tomato Company

    On cue, resident Atlantic Monthly moron, McMegan, has picked up on this meme and think it’s funny because it somehow makes liberals look silly.

    Um yeah, a December snow storm at a city on the same latitude as northern Ontario…take that hippies!

    I wonder how much we would need to pay Fallows or Coates to put cyanide in her prozac?

  60. 60.

    Person of Choler

    @The Republic of Stupidity:

    Scoffing at the attempts of a gang of bungling UN apparatchiks to control the climate does not, in the real world, correlate with creationism.

    I find creationists as funny as the AGW Chicken Littles, but less potentially destructive to the economy.

  61. 61.

    The Republic of Stupidity

    To be fair, silliness like this is just the flip side to well-intentioned-but-foolish liberals saying “must be global warming” every time it gets hot in the summer.

    Yeah… heaven forbid we should take information like this seriously…

    Better to be ‘well-intentioned-but foolish conservatives’ and stick our collective heads up our…

  62. 62.

    El Cid

    If global warming were true, then in Denmark right now it would be, like, 500 degrees or something.

  63. 63.

    Shell

    like those History channel shows on Life without People

    You mean there are programs on the History channel that aren’t about Nostradamus?

  64. 64.

    JB

    OK, I’m gonna be the contrarian here: We hear this bullshit every time there’s a climate change conference (OMG! Snow! Global Warming’s a Hoax!!!), so wouldn’t it make a little more sense to start scheduling these things in, say, August, or at least during a time of year when the weather works a little more congruently with the message?

    Yes, I know there’s a difference between “weather” and “climate.” I’m not talking about science here, just optics. I know the entire northern hemisphere takes August off for the specific reason that it’s just too damn hot to get any work done, but, Jesus, guys, can’t the leaders of the world suck it up and delay their vacations a week or two to work on a really important issue?

    It’d be worth it just to hear climate change deniers say shit like: “Well, of course it’s hot — it’s August!” for once.

  65. 65.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    @Shell:

    You mean there are programs on the History channel that aren’t about Nostradamus?

    What!? They aren’t the Nazi Network anymore?

  67. 67.

    Mark

    @The_Republic_of_Stupidity

    You misunderstand my point. Global warming is real, but when people say “must be global warming” when it’s hot in the summer, it just gives other people license to say “global warming is a myth” when it’s cold in the winter.

  68. 68.

    licensed to kill time

    @arguingwithsignposts:

    OMG! Your kitteh is the spitting image of my cat Guido, gone but never forgotten. He was named for Father Guido Sarducci. I swear that photo gave me a mini heart attack. I’m verklempt.

  69. 69.

    The Republic of Stupidity

    Scoffing at the attempts of a gang of bungling UN apparatchiks to control the climate does not, in the real world, correlate with creationism.

    Whoa… nice self-serving simplification of a complex issue…

    ***pats condescendingly on the head***

    Ouch… my… that point is sharp…

    But, heh… you do have a point…

    So much better to trust folks like ‘Lord Monckton’… ya know, someone w/ NO SCIENTIFIC training… or those directly in the employ of fossil fuel companies… they’d have NO REASON or INCENTIVE to twist the dialogue, would they?

  76. 76.

    Pangloss

    Calling a 4″ snowfall a “blizzard” might be a tipoff that there’s something to the theory after all. Here in Chicago, it’s got to be double that before we think about closing schools.

  77. 77.

    Comrade Dread

    Well, you’ve convinced me. Time to fire up the old incinerator and burn all the trees I can find to stop this damn global cooling.

  79. 79.

    phantomist

    twiffer–copenhagen is at 55° north. why is snow surprising? it’s december.

    What if 80% of American’s can’t find Copenhagen on a map?

    I personally believe that US Americans are unable to do so because uh, some people out there in our nation don’t have maps and uh, I believe that our education, like such as in South Africa and the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, our education over here in the US should help the US, or, or should help South Africa, and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our children.

  82. 82.

    jl

    @Brick Oven Bill:

    Thanks for the link B.O.B.

    For once I can heartily endorse a link provided by B.O.B. I think everyone should check it out. If you have had a statistics course that covered regression, or even if you just understand high school algebra, it will greatly clarify how scientists use proxy data like tree ring records to reconstruct temperatures way back before we had a modern network of weathre stations.

    The problem with the link is that author does not appear to know enough about the key statistical procedure of principal components.

    The main criticisms of the consensus analysis as I understand them, are that
    1) the results change when you change how many ‘statistically significant’ signals the principal components analysis gives you
    2) if you do different adjustments to the data before you do the principal components (for example whether or not you subtract the means of the proxy data series from the orginal series before you run them through principal components) you get different results.

    Both those are true, but the problem is that

    1) there are well established rules of thumb and formal statistical tests for how many significant signals that principal components says are in the data, and you have to ignore them to get the different results claimed by the critics

    2) what adjustments are premissible to do the raw data depend on what you want the principal components to do, and what features of the proxy data series you want to preserve. If you want to recover a signal that respects an original measurement scale, there are a list of adjustments that you should do (and subtracting the means from the proxy data series is one that you should do in certain cases). If you want to find linear relationships between the individual variables in the proxy data there are different adjustments you should do.

    All these different results basically depend on using principal components any way you want while ignoring statistical theory and years of practical experience regarding items 1 and 2 above.

    So, let it snow in Denmark in December, and let the critics use principal components in bizarre and unsound ways, I still believe the basic physics and statistical analysis of the consensus global warming scientists.

    Check out these links to Realclimate.org for more information:

    Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick”
    mike @ 4 December 2004
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

    Are the CRU data “suspect”? An objective assessment.
    eric @ 15 December 2009
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/

    Edit: and I forgot the mention that if mess up on items 1 and 2 above, it does not make any difference whether you can reproduce the results by running red or pink or brown or white or whatever random noise you please through your model. If you methods are incorrect, your validation tests will be incorrect.

  83. 83.

    Punchy

    What if 80% of American’s can’t find Copenhagen on a map?

    Fuck that. I cant even find it at Qwik-Trip.

  84. 84.

    Person of Choler

    @The Republic of Stupidity:

    “… or those directly in the employ of fossil fuel companies… they’d have NO REASON or INCENTIVE to twist the dialogue, would they?”

    Of course one should always look at peoples’ incentives to act as they do. Lots of money on offer can certainly tempt anyone away from objectivity. Which is why I get just a whiff of suspicion about the sincerity of the UN’s global warming enthusiasts (IPCC, for example) when I read stuff like this.

    http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/17/17climatewire-hillary-clinton-pledges-100b-for-developing-96794.html

  85. 85.

    El Cid

    If global warming is so true, how come it’s hot in Brazil and Australia right now, huh? It’s 90 degrees fahrenheit in Australia — in the winter!

  86. 86.

    licensed to kill time

    @Sentient Puddle:

    @arguingwithsignposts: In honor of the impending end of the world, I propose the name “Maya”

    Because all is illusion and we are but a dream in the mind of Vishnu.

    Or, we are all Mayans now.

  88. 88.

    arguingwithsignposts

    @Annie:

    Does she have a sister or brother?

    Not that I know of, or at the moment, but I did clear it with the landlord (FYI, if you write a check on premises, they might let you). There were several other cute kittehs in the room. I would have adopted them all if I could.

  89. 89.

    ellaesther

    I’m sorry, I must raise the possibility — just the possibility — that rather than saying “global warming is a hoax” (which, in fact, the reporter does not say), this lede was written in the spirit of irony? Finding a light lead-in to what is surely a difficult conference to cover when you know that most people are not reading what you’re writing? ‘Cause it’s kinda funny?

    I mean, I know — I absolutely know — that there are folks who take the “if it’s cold now, then global warming is a lie” approach (I presume that, moreover, these people believe that because it is dark at night, there is no such thing as “day”), but I do not believe that we need to foist such idiocy on the reporter, who was just, you know, writing something kind of funny.

  90. 90.

    Brachiator

    Also, Al Gore is boring and wears earth tones.

    Sigh. Even mainstream media has decided that they have to be permanently snarky and edgy, so an L.A. Times reporter’s blog lead is as follows:

    Al Gore (rhymes with bore) invents a poem about global climate warming change [Updated]

    And it’s cold in my office today. Therefore, global climate change is wrong. Q.E.D. Also, too.

  91. 91.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    @scav:

    Basalt is rather a favorite. Maybe granite as a close second.

    Bet on the granite. It eventually rises to the top one way or the other – ’cause subduction never sleeps.

  96. 96.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    @Person of Choler: Do you trust anyone on anything? When your spouse (assuming you are in a relationship) says steak is for dinner, do you suspect that they’re just saying that for the sex? Do you question your doctor when (s)he tells you it’s the flu, because they might just want you out of the office? Do you immediately call your credit card company right after dinner to make sure that you were charged correctly?

    I mean, just imagine the motives of these scientists: Some want to eat, sleep, take a dump, and stare at data. Some even want to go home to their spouses and have sex. How can we ever trust them?

  97. 97.

    Martin

    You guys aren’t keeping up. It’s not that Al Gore is fat (he’s less fat now) it’s that Al Gore still eats meat. The argument is that if global warming is really such an existential threat, Gore should have stopped eating meat which contributes excess CO2 through the entire chain as well.

    I’ve had this dropped on me at least 3 times now.

  100. 100.

    Shell

    Um, you forgot, he is also fat.

    And didn’t you know, Global warming is just a money-making scam for Gore.

  102. 102.

    South of I-10

    I can’t tell you how many times I heard this when it snowed here at the beginning of December. Snow in La? Must be global warming.

  103. 103.

    Person of Choler

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    “Do you trust anyone on anything? ”

    I trust but, being prudent, I verify when something important is at issue.

    “How can we ever trust them?”, you ask. They would be more trustworthy if they were open instead of secretive about their choices of data and methods of analyzing it.

    “Peer review”, you will probably say. To me, the peer review process looks exactly like having corporations’ accountants be the only reviewers of each others’ financial reports without any independent outside scrutiny.

  105. 105.

    Sentient Puddle

    @Person of Choler:

    To me, the peer review process looks exactly like having corporations’ accountants be the only reviewers of each others’ financial reports without any independent outside scrutiny.

    So what, you propose to have these scientific papers be reviewed by Joe the plumber?

    There’s a reason the insiders (for lack of a better word) are the ones peer reviewing. It’s because they’re the ones that know the shit needed to properly read and verify the paper.

  107. 107.

    Brachiator

    @HayNoniMouse:

    Thanks for the links, especially Skeptical Science, which has a good, concise non-technical summary of the major issues, especially the recent false controversy over the e-mail hacks.

  108. 108.

    Person of Choler

    @Sentient Puddle:

    “There’s a reason the insiders (for lack of a better word) are the ones peer reviewing. It’s because they’re the ones that know the shit needed to properly read and verify the paper.”

    This smacks a bit of blind faith in authorities and I’m not sure if I agree.
    One example of the competence and usefulness of outside review is in the use of statistics on proxy data in reconstructing past global temperatures. A chap named Steve McIntyre (a pretty good statistician) has for several years pointed out significant errors in work that passed peer review. Lots of stuff here:
    http://climateaudit.org/

    Another area that could use an outside look is the actual gathering of data. A fellow named Anthony Watts has managed a project that looks at the actual condition of the network of climate reporting stations in the USA. He has found that 69% of the stations surveyed have, by NOAA’s own standards, a warming bias of >= 2 degrees Celsius.
    Check him out here: http://www.surfacestations.org/

    Some important stuff seems to have been overlooked in the peer review process and a little more openness would have helped produce better science.

  109. 109.

    Michael D.

    Something most people don’t know…

    When all the ice melts in the Arctic, there will be nothing left to reflect the sun’s rays. The arctic sea will warm. There’ll be MUCH more precipitation – i.e., snow. The northern hemisphere will start to enter a new ice age…

    BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING.

    See Wysmuller, Tom.

  113. 113.

    Person of Choler

    @Michael D.:
    “When all the ice melts in the Arctic….”

    Those of us outside the faith based community would say
    “IF all the ice melts in the Arctic….”

  114. 114.

    handy

    @Person of Choler:

    I’m sorry I’m having a hard time following the dots. How is the link you gave even closely analogous to the obvious interest Big Oil has in convincing the rest of us “Hey nothing to worry about, that Hummer would look great in your driveway”?

  115. 115.

    Michael D.

    @Person of Choler: This year will be the firs time, EVER, that ships will be able to travel through the Northwest passage.

    There’s a reason why Canada and De Beers are spending billions to get the diamonds from the Arctic – because WHEN the ice melts, they will not be able to access it with their ultra heavy equipment.

    Are you willfully stupid?

  116. 116.

    S. cerevisiae

    @Person of Choler: If the bias is consistent it will not affect the trend over time. For example, if your scale at home shows a different weight than your doctor’s scale does that mean you didn’t gain 30 pounds last year? Check out the NOAA link HayNoniMouse @ 110 provided – it shows that Watts is full of it.

  117. 117.

    jl

    @Person of Choler:

    “One example of the competence and usefulness of outside review is in the use of statistics on proxy data in reconstructing past global temperatures. A chap named Steve McIntyre (a pretty good statistician) has for several years pointed out significant errors in work that passed peer review.”

    I vigorously disagree.

    McIntyre may be a pretty good statistician, but he does not seem to know much about principal components analysis, which is the main pont of controversy over the “hockey stick” issue.

    Please see my comment at 82 and links.

  118. 118.

    Mark

    At least Al’s not wearing Earth Shoes LOL. I hope the author of this article is trying to be sarcastic because calling 10cm of snow a blizzard is definitely evidence of global warming.

  119. 119.

    person of choler

    @handy:

    The links have absolutely nothing to do with Big Oil, SUVs, Space Aliens, Communists, Illinois Nazis, Water Flouridators, the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, or any of the other Conspiracies to Rule the World. They deal with data and the quality, traceability, and statistical treatment thereof.

  122. 122.

    person of choler

    @S. cerevisiae:

    “If the bias is consistent it will not affect the trend over time.”

    Exactly. And the bias was not constant over time for many of these stations due to the urban heat island effect, station moves, instrument changes and so forth.

    Yes, the AGW scientists did some exotic statistical and spatial massaging of the data to correct for these effects, but the methodologies seem a little far fetched (e.g. using data from rural stations from hundreds of km away to correct heat island biases in urban stations).

    Anyway, if you look at surfacestations.org, many of the sites are ill sited and ill maintained according to NOAA’s own handbook for siting.

  123. 123.

    handy

    @person of choler:

    “many” is a rather vague term, don’t you think?

    According to this, quality controls are in place to ensure that thermometers in suboptimal positions are actually identified and adjusted for in the measured averages. The NOAA specifically addressed the issue of poorly-placed temperature sensors here.

    This study by the GISS did a comparison of historical urban versus rural-based stations noted the following:

    We find evidence of local human effects (“urban warming”) even in suburban and small-town surface air temperature records, but the effect is modest in magnitude and conceivably could be an artifact of inhomogeneities in the station records…

    before concluding:

    The U.S. mean temperature has now reached a level comparable to that of the 1930s, while the global temperature is now far above the levels earlier in the century.

  125. 125.

    ScottRock

    @person of choler: re urban heat islands: 42% of urban sites actually tend to be cooler relative to rural sites. (Hansen et al)

    Urban areas tend to get hotter relative to the countryside on the synoptic scale, but local variations can be very high.

  126. 126.

    Person of Choler

    @handy:

    ‘“many” is a rather vague term, don’t you think?’

    You are correct, so, I clarify: 68% of the sites surveyed have an expected temperature bias of >= +2 C (that would be +3.6 F).

    The referenced paper by Mann et al. sprinkles some statistical holy water on the observations but using statistics to correct for bad instrumentation in a system as large and complex as the climate of the continental US adds its own unspecified errors to the data. The unspecified errors are predictive (as opposed to parametric) error. Predictive error arises from the wrong choice of model to fit to, even if the model’s estimation parameters look good. Mann did not show that his model of physical behavior was a valid one for correcting or analyzing bias.

  127. 127.

    handy

    You are correct, so, I clarify: 68% of the sites surveyed have an expected temperature bias of >= +2 C (that would be +3.6 F).

    I see you’re getting your info from this guy. Color me a bit…skeptical.

  128. 128.

    jl

    @Person of Choler:

    “statistical holy water”?

    I think you need to take a deep breath. You are beginning to sound like a person who selectively believes or disbelieves “statistical holy water” depending on whether it produces the answer you want.

    The red noise random number validation experiment used with the ad hoc and unjustified, and imho dead wrong principal components methods that the skeptics use to debunk the hockey stick are far more dubious than the statistical adjustments discussed in that comment.

    Yet the skeptics’ “statistical holy water” convinces you there are firm grounds for doubts. Any “statistical holy water” that supports the consensus anthropomorphic global warming theory is dismissed.

  129. 129.

    Comrade Darkness

    Okay, so weak gulf stream and cold weather in Northern Europe… I’m sorry, there is some kind of discrepancy with global warming here given that the atlantic conveyor is tightly coupled to polar conditions? Right.

    Copenhagen is at 55° N latitude. In North American terms, that well into Hudson’s Bay, or Ketchikan, Alaska. In a state of full blown global warming, Europe will be too fucking cold to be inhabited by even 1000th the number people now living there. What bunch of fucking morons the right is filled with.

  130. 130.

    Person of Choler

    @handy:

    “this guy”.

    Ah, the old argumentum ad hominem.

    The information about the surveyed observation sites is available, along with NOAA’s siting manual. The accuracy of the data gathered and the conclusions drawn therefrom is at issue here, not the biography of Mr. Watts.

    Check out what is presented on surfacestations.org and come back with criticisms based on what’s there, instead of logical fallacies.

  131. 131.

    Phil

    @jl

    So you disagree with some of the methodological criticisms raised in the Wegman Report?

    Also, with the red noise issue: the model that produced a hockey stick result when fed with red noise was Mann et al.’s: that was the problem they were trying to point out – it generated a HS output when fed with random input.

Comments are closed.