Alarmists Shoot Themselves In The Foot

First our friends claimed that the 1945-1975 cooling never happened. Then they decided that it did happen, but was due to human generated pollution.

Just for fun, let’s play along with their silly game and accept what they say now as true.

If all that cooling after 1945 was due to pollution, then the Greenland warming since the Clean Air Act passed was due to removal of pollution.

Temperatures have almost returned to where they used to be before the pollution.

Hansen’s claimed 2 C/century trend is exaggerated by a factor of three. Temperatures in the last 65 years have only risen by 0.4 degrees.

So take your pick. You only have three options

  • Climatologists were wrong in the 1970s
  • Hansen is wrong now.
  • Both of the above

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Alarmists Shoot Themselves In The Foot

  1. ChrisD says:

    First our friends claimed that the 1945-1975 cooling never happened

    Same question as last time, Steve:

    Who said that?

    • You have three choices. Take your pick

      Climatologists were wrong in the 1970s
      Hansen is wrong now.
      Both of the above

      • ChrisD says:

        Same question as the last two times, Steve:

        Who said that?

      • You never want to discuss the science Chris. I wonder why that is?

      • If you want to discuss global warming gossip, take that to Romm’s site.

        This is about ten articles in a row where you have refused to discuss science, and it has become very tiresome.

      • ChrisD says:

        I’ve discussed the science routinely and repeatedly, and anyone who can read knows this.

        Apparently you feel that requests for evidence supporting your claims are verboten and “not discussing the science.” And asking more than once–when you refuse to support your claims–is spamming.

        • You are not discussing the science.

          What are the implications of the particulate theory? If the 1970s cooling was artificial, then so is the recent warming, for the same reason.

          You refuse to discuss the central point of the article. Instead, you argue like a child : “I never said that” “I never said that” “I never said that” blah blah blah ….

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 31, 2010 at 3:40 pm

        I’ve discussed the science routinely and repeatedly, and anyone who can read knows this.

        You’ve been repeating things, but it hasn’t been science.

  2. ChrisD says:

    If you’re going to assert something as fact, be prepared to back it up. If you can’t back it up, don’t say it.

    Now, who said that the 1945-1975 cooling never happened?

    This is at least the fourth time you’ve been asked this question. Can you back up this assertion that you have made multiple times, or can’t you?

    • So you do believe that the 1970s cooling was due to pollution, nullifying any Greenland warming for the last 70 years.

      Cool!

    • Oh BTW – stop spamming.

      You have made your point about three dozen times. You think you never said that global cooling didn’t happen.

      Now, how about discussing the rest of the article?

      • ChrisD says:

        I never did say global cooling didn’t happen, Steve. What I said, repeatedly, was that there were no widespread predictions in the scientific community of a looming ice age. I even provided links to three separate comments where I explicitly said that global cooling did happen. So I still want to know who said that it never happened.

        Now, you want to discuss this post? Fine.

        First, it’s not “the” Clean Air Act. It wasn’t just the US, and even in the US it wasn’t just the one act.

        Second, if you don’t think pollution control had a big effect, you’re wrong. See the charts on pages 10 and 11 of Smith et al (2004).

        Third, when you say things like “If all that cooling after 1945 was due to pollution” and “the Greenland warming since the Clean Air Act passed was due to removal of pollution” you’re setting up strawmen. Nobody says that aerosols are the only thing that affects climate, just like nobody says that CO2 is the only thing that affects climate (another one of your constant strawmen).

        Fourth, your obsession with a single Greenland monitoring station is nothing short of bizarre. Why you think that showing the temp trends for a one microsopic dot on the face of the Earth proves anything is beyond understanding.

        Fifth, we have direct observational evidence of the surface cooling effect of aerosols from the 1991 Mt Pinatubo eruption. Stratospheric warming and surface cooling were both clearly observed. And then there’s the 1816 “year without a summer” following the 1815 Mt Tambora explosion.

        Sorry, but if you think you can refute this with a temperature chart from Nuuk, you are grossly in error.

        • Typical crap straw man response from you. Walt Meier has stated flat out that Greenland is not as warm as it was 70 years ago. I am not going to do a complete analysis of Greenland in every post.

          You again completely avoid the central question. If the cooling was due to particulates, then so was the subsequent warming.

          You aren’t interested in having an honest discussion about science. You just post one straw man argument after another.

      • ChrisD says:

        Link did not work. Here’s Smith et al 2004:

        Click to access PNNL-14537.pdf

        • This discussion assumes that particulates are the cause. You post supporting evidence as a counter-argument?

          Why is it that you refuse to discuss the science?

      • ChrisD says:

        Typical crap straw man response from you.

        Jesus Christ.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Anything that is not the way ChirsD wants it is called nonsense by him. Then he starts name calling and ridicule.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        stevengoddard says:
        October 31, 2010 at 4:15 pm

        This discussion assumes that particulates are the cause. You post supporting evidence as a counter-argument?

        Why is it that you refuse to discuss the science?

        It appears he thinks he is discussing the science already.

        I think he assumes that what happens in Washington is what controls everything. So, he latched onto a bill from Congress and said that’s the reason for the change in climate. That’s his proof—a law that was passed. What happens in Washington is his science. He doesn’t actually have scientific measurements to prove what he says. He has political events. That’s his one and only proof.

        So, it follows that every time he is asked for proof of what he says he doesn’t provide science, he provides something that happened in Washington D.C. No matter how much he has to warp what real science might say it doesn’t really matter. It appears his world revolves around politics.

        It appears he’s an animal of politics. That’s why his science is so unrecognizable. I suggested to him yesterday that he stick closer to home with political blogs like ClimateProgress.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 31, 2010 at 4:06 pm

        was that there were no widespread predictions in the scientific community of a looming ice age

        I remember that time. I heard teachers at school say scientists were talking about a coming ice age. Do you remember that time?

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 31, 2010 at 4:06 pm

        was that there were no widespread predictions in the scientific community of a looming ice age

        If there was no alramism going on there would have been no need to say anything about the cooling. But they were talking about an alarming ice age.

        You sound like William Connolley who is “Taking science by the throat….” with all of his butchery at Wikipedia.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 31, 2010 at 4:06 pm

        charts on pages 10 and 11 of Smith et al (2004).

        Link?

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        I think I can guess now what it’s going to say—it’s going to give credit for natural variation, that has been called the Great Pacific Climate Shift, to politicians.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        ChrisD

        The link won’t open.

      • ChrisD says:

        The link won’t open.

        The link is fine. I just tried it.

      • ChrisD says:

        I think I can guess now what it’s going to say—it’s going to give credit for natural variation, that has been called the Great Pacific Climate Shift, to politicians.

        Then you would be dead wrong.

        Then he starts name calling and ridicule.

        Yes, I called you Sherlock, because you need to get a clue about statistics. The names I have been called here would get you thrown out of a sailors’ bar. You are oddly silent about that. There’s a term for this: “hypocrite”.

        He doesn’t actually have scientific measurements to prove what he says.

        That would be what’s in the link that you think gives credit to natural variation.

        So, it follows that every time he is asked for proof of what he says he doesn’t provide science, he provides something that happened in Washington D.C.

        Bullcrap. The one and only thing I have ever said even remotely related to this is that pollution controls around the world significantly affected aerosol pollution. They did.

        • Do you think that your endless spamming and avoidance of the central issue is winning you any friends?

          If you believe that the 1960s cooling was due to pollution, then you also have to believe the same for much of the subsequent warming. Sorry, you are being an idiot.

      • ChrisD says:

        “gives credit to natural variation.” s/b “gives credit for natural variation to politicians”

      • ChrisD says:

        endless spamming

        I see, the mutual backslapping and demonstrable falsehoods (including at least one easily trivially provable lie) to which I responded are not spam, but my responses are.

        Just as long as everyone understands exactly what kind of blog you are running. You should consider renaming it from “Real Science” to “Unbelievable Hypocrite”.

        If you believe that the 1960s cooling was due to pollution, then you also have to believe the same for much of the subsequent warming.

        I believe that aerosols are part of the explanation for the cooling of 1945-1975, and the reduction of aerosols (which I documented for you) are part of the explanation for why temperatures began to increase again post-1975. Unlike you, I do not insist that everything must have a single cause, not do I attempt to score cheap points about global climate by pointing to one Greenland station.

        Sorry, you are being an idiot.

        Uh-huh. I provided specific information relevant to your question. If you choose to avoid responding, and to drag Greenland once more into a discussion of global climate, that does not make me an idiot.

  3. Mike Davis says:

    Steven:
    To answer your question about ChrisD
    Climate Hypochondriac and and Chronic Head in anatomically dark orifice. CHIA!

  4. truthsword says:

    LOL I love ChrisD and is neverending comedy of errors! Always good for a laugh.

    • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

      Did you see his ideas about noise, temperature, and trend yesterday?

      • sunsettommy says:

        It was terrible.

        I had to get away before I scream.When he decided that I really believe that using only TWO data points.One for 1965 and the other for 1980,that I could claim it was evidence for warming for all the years in between.

        I knew then for sure that he is all wind and piss because I had already made it clear that I knew what a running mean was.And that it was ALREADY factored in on the chart I posted.I know that ALL data points needs to be used between the two data points for a credible running mean to be built on.

        The temperature chart HE made was based on two years data points and generated it to a chart.I KNOW that all the other years between 1965 and 1979 were used.

        He is a perfect example of a TROLL.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        I found it strange that he kept insisting that temperature readings are accurate but trend was not accurate. The more he talked the more it didn’t make sense. I suppose if he reads this comment he’ll come around with the same argument.

        Maybe if Congress passes a law that said temperature trends are accurate he’ll say they are.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        sunsettommy says:
        October 31, 2010 at 9:21 pm

        One for 1965 and the other for 1980

        What was odd is the graph he linked to showed warming from 65 to 80. He kept saying there was no warming from 65 to 80 but his graph he used to prove it showed warming.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        He kept saying there was no warming from 65 to 80 but his graph he used to prove it showed warming.

        So this post is right: Alarmists Shoot Themselves In The Foot

      • ChrisD says:

        When he decided that I really believe that using only TWO data points

        You tried to assess a trend by comparing the two endpoints of a timespan. That’s not valid. It doesn’t matter an iota whether they’re running means or not. You assess a trend by calculating the trend line. Doing what you did would get you an F in any freshman statistics class.

        I had already made it clear that I knew what a running mean was.And that it was ALREADY factored in on the chart I posted.

        Which is why I showed you a second chart that didn’t use a running mean yet showed exactly the same thing.

        ALL data points needs to be used between the two data points for a credible running mean to be built on.

        That’s wrong.

        The temperature chart HE made was based on two years data points and generated it to a chart

        A bald-faced lie. It was a chart of monthly data over a 15-year period. Here it is again for anyone to verify:

        http://bit.ly/c6nW3T

        He is a perfect example of a TROLL.

        You still don’t know what a troll is.

      • ChrisD says:

        I found it strange that he kept insisting that temperature readings are accurate but trend was not accurate.

        No, that is not what I said. It is what you understood, incorrectly. I said that you can’t assess a trend by comparing the endpoints of noisy data. This has nothing whatsoever to do with accuracy, a word that you brought into the conversation, not me. I think you’re confusing noise with accuracy. Noise in this case is weather variability, not inaccuracy.

        The more he talked the more it didn’t make sense.

        Because you don’t understand statistics, and you didn’t understand what I said (see previous paragraph).

        What was odd is the graph he linked to showed warming from 65 to 80. He kept saying there was no warming from 65 to 80 but his graph he used to prove it showed warming.

        Three one-thousands of a degree per year. That is indistinguishable from no warming.

  5. Mike Davis says:

    Just like the current situation. In the 70s particulates released by human activity were blamed for natural shifts in weather patterns that had lead to cooling. Since the CAA was passed about the same time as the shift in weather patterns there was plausible correlation between pollution control and warming when looked at in retrospect.
    This brings to mind other miraculous happenings such as Acid Rain and Ozone Hole. It also repeats history such as the Aztecs and other societies sacrificing people to appease the gods. There are those doing that today without realizing the futility and ignorance it displays.

  6. Nobama says:

    Correct. They seek to sacrifice industrialized society to appease the climate gods.

  7. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Both of the above.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s