54 1 min 14 yrs

Oh, my…  will “Global Warming” Conference Boondoggle attendees  get home in time for Christmas Diversity Day?!?

Oklahoma%20snow.jpgPhoto: Matt Hills, Norman, Oklahoma.

From the BBC:

"It’s a big one, a dangerous one," Environment Canada climatologist Dave Phillips told CTV, adding that more heavy snow was expected.  "Just because you have this one storm doesn’t mean we’re into the winter from hell, but my gosh, it’s certainly started that way…

…The snowfall comes less than a week after an ice storm claimed 38 lives in the Midwest, most of them in road accidents. Tens of thousands of people in the affected areas of Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri still have no electricity.

 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

54 thoughts on “Major Snow Storm Causing Severe Disruption to Air Travel

  1. I never knew that Bali was in the American Midwest. The people always looked so tan and thin there, it just didn’t seem to fit.

  2. Article references new storm in Canada and the Northeast, Mahons. where many of the conference attendees hail from. Photo is of recent ice storm in Midwest. Article links the two recent mega storms together.

  3. Mahons: lol. commenter dully notes her sometimes overly literal disposition resulting in lack of humor …known as "kill the lights, Jaime" (reference to Get Smart).

  4. Patty

    Your invective against Bali shows no sign of letting up. I suspect it has been increased by the prominent presence of your hate figure AL Gore. But whatever the reason, what is noticeable is that you never, ever debate the science of AGW. Your arguments are always 100% political and 0% scientific.

    Would that be because you are well aware that the scientific debate is virtually over and that what you are really on is a political crusade?

    I understand that you’re from California. It must be galling for you to come from a state which, like many other states and cities in the USA, has decided to ignore the fools in the White House and implement their own programme of reducing carbon emissions in order to comply with the Kyoto targets.

    You AGW denialist guys are on a loser here and deep down you know it. Dubya will only be around for another year and whoever takes his place will end the USA’s isolation on this.

  5. Peter

    Have you scientific training or qualifications? Neither have I so the basis on which I have to decide the truth of the issue is the accuracy of predictions made by the protagonists.

    And it as a political issue that Global Warming manifests itself in our lives. In political terms it supporters are on the left. that is those who have been wrong about every single issue they have ever taken a position on.

    To use a simple analogy I don’t trust flight because scientists tell me it’s true. I trust it because experience shows that it works. But if the pilot has shown in the past that he cabn’t even drive a car then I’m not getting on.

    For me the Global Warming debate will be over within the next few years one way or the other. It would be over already if we had warming over the last five years. We have not. If it turns out for example that 2008 is hotter than 1998 then I will be more inclined to believe.

    How many years without warming would it take to change your mind?

  6. Peter – on the subject of AGW do you EVER post anything that doesn’t contain sneers, invective or insults. The main obstacle to getting any rational agreement on Climate matters is people such as yourself — you and your ilk just turn everyone off.

    Wanker !

  7. Geezafag,

    I thought everybody was a wanker. What, you don’t indulge?

    Why do you single out Peter and accuse him of sneering? My reading is that he was replying to this sneering post:

    Oh, my… will “Global Warming” Conference Boondoggle attendees get home in time for Christmas Diversity Day?!?

    Or perhaps you and I have a different interpretation of what constitutes a sneer.

  8. Henry94

    I’m not a scientist but I have read widelly on global warming. I like to make up my own mind on things and I have done so on this.

    The denialists are a rag-bag of right-wing free-market zealots. They can’t bear the idea of any form of restrictions or regulations, even if it is to preserve the planet for future generations. They have lost the scientific argument, but like some Japanese soldiers after 1945 they will never surrender.

  9. Peter

    Your opinion on the issue interests me. Your opinion of your opponents does not. The abuse that goes with this debate is a waste of all our time. It will either get hotter or it won’t and we’ll know soon enough.

    So. How many years without warming would it take to change your mind?

    They can’t bear the idea of any form of restrictions or regulations

    What restrictions and regulations are you proposing?

  10. Henry

    We are approaching a solar sunspot minimum. That should cause a cooling trend for a few years, but it will be offset by the warming trend caused by greenhouse gas emissions. It will be amusing to see the denialists clutching at the next straw when that happens.

  11. Allan

    You make my point by linking to a right-wing think tank. It’s noticable that the linked article doesn’t bother to put forward an alternative theory to AGW to explain the current warming trend. David Evans is a well known ultra denialist, one of the diminishing band of scientists who write for right-wing think tanks and the right-wing bloggosphere.

  12. Peter

    We are approaching a solar sunspot minimum. That should cause a cooling trend for a few years, but it will be offset by the warming trend caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

    So just to be clear, you don’t expect it to get cooler or warmer for a few years. And if it does then one of the effects is stronger than the other. Fair?

  13. Peter, where does the funding for the scientists who support the MMGW theory come from, and how much is it worth to these scientists?

  14. Henry94

    What I said was that I don’t expect to see the solar minimum reflected by cooler temperatures, as it should be. The temperatures will continue to rise.

  15. Allan

    Your position seems to be that the (few) denialist scientists have no other agenda than pure sceintific knowledge, whereas all of the AGW scientists fiddle their (peer-reviewed) research results for financial reasons.

    So one group of scientists is 100% honest while the other is 100% dishonest. Highly unlikely.

    I’ve asked you before, what evidence would it take to convince you that AGW is correct?

  16. Peter, every time a scientific report or paper is produced which disputes the MMGW theory, the warmists immediately attack the funding and the scientists but rarely ever argue the content of the paper. Oil company money etc.
    Now I’m asking you to inform me (as I’m ignorant of it) what the sources of funding are for scientists who support the MMGW theory and how much the funding is worth to them – that’s all.

  17. Allan

    They’re probably all financed by governments as part of a conspiracy to enslave us all. Will that do you?

    Will you ever answer my question?

  18. Peter. I will be persuaded by the MMGW theory when the mass of evidence which disputes it is refuted. For example, is it true that CO2 levels lag 800 years behind warming/cooling cycles?

    Your glib answer to my question on MMGW funding would normally be insufficient, but it says much more than you would know. You have refused consistently to answer a simple question yet, whenever a contrarian report or paper is produced, the warmists immediately attack the motives and funding source of the scientists who wrote the paper in question. I am now turning the tables and asking where these billions of $/£s come from and how much gets pocketed.

  19. Allan

    As previously posted, your position is untenable, because it relies on the few denialist scientists being honest and right while the hundreds of AGW supporters are either dishonest and / or corrupt.

    I suggest you read The Last Generation by Fred Pearce. He deals with the denialist arguments comprehensively as well as sketching out a pretty grim future for this century.

  20. The Last Generation

    Synopsis

    Climate change is not a matter of gradually increasing temperatures. New scientific findings about how our planet works show that it does not do gradual change. Under pressure, it lurches into another mode of operation. Man-made global warming is on the verge of unleashing unstoppable planetary forces. Biological and geological monsters are being woken, and they will consume us.

    Monsters no less. Better change that lightbulb under the stairs to an energy-saving one.

  21. Peter, where does the finance for the pro-MMGW stance come from? It is now worth billions per annum and scientists who are in on it pocket quite a bit of money, obviously. I am not questioning their honesty as I believe that most scientists have some integrity: if they had none, they would be lawyers, politicians or journalists. I am just putting to you the same question which you put to others whenever their results do not conform to the MMGW theory. How about this one? What would you say about the motives of these scientists?

    http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf

    My belief is that CO2 with other gases will have an effect of minor order on climate WITH ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING CONSTANT. But the capitalised condition is never met as there are so many (the Earth is not a lab) so the effect of CO2 is background noise.

  22. Henry

    Fred Pearce is a respected science writer of many years’ standing. Just because you don’t want to hear his message is no reason to rubbish him.

  23. Allan

    Since you are so obsessed with the funding of the AGW scientists, shouldn’t you declare that you too have an interest to declare, as you work in the oil industry? But of course it’s only the AGW proponents who are influenced by their material considerations, while the denialists are whiter than white.

  24. Peter: I’m not a scientist, and neither are you. So, let’s not pretend.

    Let’s assume for the moment, though, that there is "global warming." OK?
    In other words, let’s pretend that scientists are able to adequately measure the globes temperature fluctuations and that they are able to discern a significant trend.

    Now we have to assume that the trend – called "warming" is bad.

    Now we assume that can scientiists can discern and measure the isoloated effects of manmade global warming. And that they can determine that it is caused by carbon emissions.

    Now, we have to pick some action to stop or reverse global warming – so we now have to assume that we know enough about the scientific global consequences of our actions to determine what to do.

    Use your common sense, Peter.

    Too many assumptions about things we just don’t know. With odd exceptions like China.

    The IPCC scientific "consensus" is nothing more than a political lobby put together by the UN to promote the Kyoto Protocol and its successor, whatever that might be. The fact that these serious UN discussions of carbon emission omit China’s carbon emissions leads me to believe that science is not of primary, or even secondary, interest to the AGW discussion. It is strictly political. It’s about redistributing wealth and resource — and they have said as much, if you were listening.

    BTW, I do think we should reduce carbon emissions. It’s pollution. I don’t drive an SUV. I recycle and reduce packaging etc.. But I don’t think global warming exists..

  25. Patty

    You’ve obviously bought 100% into the right wing myth that AGW is a commie conspiracy to do down the west.

    But I don’t think global warming exists

    To make that statement it’s obvious that you can’t have read much about it. Please do some reading on the science. I’d recommend Fred Pearce’s book, linked above, but there are loads of others. Then make up your own mind on the science. But you need to get out of your comfort zone in the right-wing bloggosphere. If you don’t want to do that then you should stop posting on the subject of AGW and confine yourself to attacks on your hate figure AG.

  26. Peter: And lastly, without Kyoto, America’s emissions have DECREASED. Despite Kyoto, or perhaps because of it, carbon emissions from those who adopted the treaty have INCREASED.

    Why is this ignored?

    Well, the answer is that it is ignored because Kyoto and other such treaties are political tools for handicapping the wealthiest.

    Carbon emission taxes etc are about "justice" — as the Friends of Earth have written. Justice for the poor, the needy. In other words, it’s about redistribution of wealth.

    Communism, wrapped up in science. Again.

  27. Patty

    You make my point for me! Commies everywhere, science nowhere!

    I presume you are referring the the 1.6% reduction in USA emissions in 2006. But of course that ignores the increases in every other year since Kyoto was signed.

    Have you actually read any science on the subject of AGW? And I mean books, not political polemics on the websites of right-wing foundations. See my comment at 3.22.

  28. Peter

    You use the word science in a very funny way. As we know you are not an actual scientist. But you think you can defend your political opinion by calling it science.

    That is what Marxists used to do except they believed Marxism itself was a science. Scientific socialism. I’m sure you would accept that is nonsense but it does so that the word science itself is used in the hands of the unqualified for political reasons. You should try to avoid that in grown-up company.

  29. Peter wrote:

    As previously posted, your position is untenable, because it relies on the few denialist scientists being honest and right while the hundreds of AGW supporters are either dishonest and / or corrupt.

    Monday, December 17, 2007 at 02:09PM | Peter

    How few is ‘few’, Peter? I see hundreds of fully qualified scientists challenging the MMGW theory yet not being reported on the BBC and other leftist media outlets.

    Your ‘consensus’ is a crumbling edifice. You wrote out of desperation that the forthcoming reduction in the Sun’s activity will reduce or nullify man-made global warming yet, a few days/weeks ago, you and Frank O’Dwyer were saying that it was absolutely nothing to do with the Sun.

  30. But you think you can defend your political opinion by calling it science.

    Bullshit. As I already posted I have read a lot of science on AGW, unlike you. That gives my views a basis in the science, unlike yours, which is based on your perception of the politics.

  31. Your ‘consensus’ is a crumbling edifice. You wrote out of desperation that the forthcoming reduction in the Sun’s activity will reduce or nullify man-made global warming yet, a few days/weeks ago, you and Frank O’Dwyer were saying that it was absolutely nothing to do with the Sun.

    Did you read what I wrote? Today I have posted TWICE ON THIS THREAD that I do not expect to see the solar sunspot minimum cause a fall in global temperatures and that it will be fun to watch denialists like you squirming when that happens.

    It’s you guys who are desperate. Even Dubya accepts AGW now. He just doesn’t want to do anytrhing about it.

  32. Peter, let’s try this one again because I’m not satisfied with this:

    Now I’m asking you to inform me (as I’m ignorant of it) what the sources of funding are for scientists who support the MMGW theory and how much the funding is worth to them – that’s all.

    Monday, December 17, 2007 at 01:08PM | Allan@Oslo
    Allan

    They’re probably all financed by governments as part of a conspiracy to enslave us all. Will that do you?

    Monday, December 17, 2007 at 01:09PM | Peter

    Not really, Peter. Where do the billions of $/£s come from and who gets the money? Can you just give me some pointers, please?

  33. Now I’m asking you to inform me (as I’m ignorant of it) what the sources of funding are for scientists who support the MMGW theory and how much the funding is worth to them – that’s all.

    I don’t know, but I’m sure that some of the many AGW denialist websites should be able to enlighten you.

  34. OK Peter, would this be a reasonable summary of MMGW funding?

    This evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 to curb carbon emissions.

    "Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit."
    The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.

    I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!

    But after 2000 the case against carbon emissions gradually got weaker. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken it. At what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause of global warming?

    None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to later recapture the attention of the political system. What has happened is that most research efforts since 1990 have assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention.

    Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. Climate change has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly blames carbon emissions, to the point of silencing critics.

    The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the effect of the political climate is that most people are overestimating the evidence that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming.

    David Evans, a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer, is head of Science Speak. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.

    And it’s a very interesting blog for alarmists and denialists alike: http://blog.mises.org/archives/006581.asp

  35. Peter

    The measure of your loyalty to science is not how much of it you have read but at what point you are willing to change your view. You have said today

    What I said was that I don’t expect to see the solar minimum reflected by cooler temperatures, as it should be. The temperatures will continue to rise.

    If that prediction is wrong over then next five years will you change your mind? If not five years then how many?

  36. Henry 94

    I’d be delighted to be proved wrong. I don’t know how many years it would take to discredit AGW, but I’ll be astonished if it happens.

  37. Peter: Part of the problem of disproving global warming – defined as a global increase in temperatures overall – forget the manmade part for the moment – is the fact that the proponents of global warming keep changing the goal posts.

    First, the earth was warming a little bit each year. Then, thanks to the obvious cooling trend we have now, the goal posts for warming was pushed out -now, every several years should show a trend of warming.

    Every investor knows that changing the time frame considered can substantially manipulate the results of an economic statement – the same is true for global warming. Take the snapshot whenever you want and you manipulate the results.

  38. Peter

    I don’t know how many years it would take to discredit AGW

    You mean if the earth hasn’t warmed in the next 20 years AGW could still be a viable theory? But if it has the AGW would be confirmed? The old heads I win tails your lose school of gambling.

  39. Patty:

    "Then, thanks to the obvious cooling trend we have now"

    Here’s a picture of that "obvious cooling trend"

    So Patty which quadrant are you posting from? It’s not cooling on planet earth.

  40. Frank: OK, Frank…I actually clicked on your link. As they say "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on – aw hell, never could stand that saying …

    but your little graph conveniently stops at 2005? Why’s that? Like a bad accountant, your cut-off is arbitrary? As anyone with any knowledge of numbers knows, numbers can’t and don’t lie, but liars can and will use numbers.

  41. Patty,

    "but your little graph conveniently stops at 2005? Why’s that? Like a bad accountant, your cut-off is arbitrary?"

    Don’t like that graph? Try this one starting from 1975 or this one starting from 1998 or this one starting from 2000. All of them show a warming trend, even the one starting in 1998. And there is no other reason to start there than denialists want to cherry pick a record temperature year as a baseline!

    Yep, that’s right – the denialists stack the deck and deal the cards and STILL can’t come up with a winning hand.

  42. Frank: Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you.

    In other words, I’m not pulling up a bunch of bogus graphs to nowhere. Waste of time. Contrary to what Peter believes, I actually have read quite a bit on the subject of Gaia and Global warming, from Lovelace to Gore and back again and the so-called "science" presented is pathetic.

    There is no way any scientist on this earth can tell you with ANY degree of certainty what the trend in global temperature will be in the next 10 years, much less the next 50 years.

    EVERYTHING is based on assumptions of the most tenuous sort. Nothing whatsoever is proven.

    So, keep your graphs. Fool.

  43. Patty,

    [snip bullshit – oops nothing is left!]

    You said we ARE in a cooling trend. It’s still up there. Now you are confronted with the data that proves you a liar, it is hardly surprising that you waffle. namecall, and change the subject.

    Really it’s high time that you and your ilk were left to shout at the traffic. You have absolutely no insight to offer on this issue.

  44. Frank

    It’s a waste of time debating this subject with Patty. It’s a religion with her, driven by her hatred of Al Gore, and totally impervious to rational argument and evidence, as her comment at 3.22 makes clear.

  45. Frank, why did you call Patty a "liar" instead of simply stating that you believe her to be wrong?

    Can the custodians of the site not do something about this? People who disagree with Frank O’Dwyer are not liars.

  46. Allan@Oslo: Frank lashes out with name calling – just like the Dutchman cried – because the MMGW "hoax" seems to be falling apart. He’s frustrated.

    Not very scientific.

    It’s hurry, hurry, hurry – everyone must sign on to the solutions because the sky is falling. No time for debate. No time for reflection. Just sign on the dotted line of Kyoto because we have declared the debate over.

    This is what con men do – hurry, hurry, hurry – before you see behind the curtain.

Comments are closed.