As of this writing, it’s 45 degrees in my area of the Capital District. In fucking October. It’s so cold during the day I have to wear a winter coat and a hat.
So what happened to the global warming that was going to kill us all again?
PROGRAMMING NOTE: I have an entry at The Spearhead that will be published later today. Stay peeled.
I run this joint. Follow me on Twitter here, on Google+ here, and friend me on Facebook here. Find out more about my upcoming book, The Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind and Other Essays, by clicking here.
Previous post: Anecdotal observations on game, women and politics
Next post: September 2009 Hater of the Month
"...Roosh also retells the struggles of his journey with a bluntness that gets the reader invested emotionally... [h]is constant battle to adapt his game to the cultural idiosyncrasies of the women who he tries to bed is so compelling that when he finally meets success, you’ll want to cheer."
Daily Headlines from In Bona Fide
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
It was 85 here yesterday. I’m sweating like a dog. I’d trade you any day.
Yeah. They’re all confused actually. They’ll tell you that global warming means actually it’s getting colder, even the the earth is getting hotter. Hmmm.
Well, duh, that’s why they changed it to “climate change.”
Correct, climate change is the new meme because keeping global warming as the theme is getting holes bigger than the one in the ozone . . .
Global warming is not uniform. It’s worst at the poles. North America will get warmer but wetter, making winters overall harsher (heavy snowfalls). Europe will get colder if the Gulf Stream, responsible for the Continent’s mild climate, is disrupted. (Paris, at its latitude, would be utterly frigid if it were in the U.S. midwest.)
Cognitive dissonance at it’s best.
“As of this writing, it’s 45 degrees in my area of the Capital District. In fucking October. ”
Yet nothing is wrong.
Being a conservative ≠Hating everything that comes out of a liberal’s mouth, whether true or not.
He’s in Albany, right? 45 for a morning in early October is not unusual for that time of year.
If you want wacky weather, try the Midwest. In places like Ann Arbor and Minneapolis, many October days were 35 and 80– in the same day.
I wrote this post at 5:30 in the afternoon yesterday. And the temperatures in this area are usually around the mid-50′s in early October. That’s why its unusual to have to wear a winter coat at this time.
Weather is not climate.
Given that the HCN and tree ring data have been easily shown to be unreliable, not to mention that the climate models don’t seem to obey the laws of thermodynamics, I’m will remain a skeptic.
Ferd, I’m a little worried that you might be a moron to.
Let’s have a test!
Do you think that the US Health Care System can, in any way, shape, or form, be described as a free market?
A yes or no will do.
Ah. 45 in the afternoon is very cold, for this time of year. That sucks.
It’s been very nice in Manhattan: high 50s and three-quarters overcast, but with cloud texture and peeks of sun.
Mormon test:
1. Do youthinkit is OK to have multiple wives?
2. Do you wear “special ” underwear?
3. Do you “seal” your dead relatives in a baptism of sorts?
…Oh… MoRON….
Never mind.
I’m going to second Cless. “Global warming” or climate change as it’s now known, doesn’t universally heat everything up (lol).
Sigh.
Why people without relevent degrees in the sciences involved feel free to insult the integrity or the intelligence of the scientists involved in the following t areas, I’ll never know.
A. Evolution. If I want to know about it, I’ll ask an evolutionary biologist. If I want I to debate it, I’ll debate an evolutionary biologist, or at least a biologist.
B. Global warming: Climatologists are the experts here. Not bloggers named Ferdinand. I also note that every scientific association in the world that I am aware of has endorsed the idea that at least some parts of human induced global warming are true.
C. Modern leftists tend to believe evolutionary processes produced humanity, but that somehow there is n o such thing as human biodiversity at any meaningful group level. Men and women, for instance, are so nearly the same as to be interchangeable cogs. Fail.
One can’t accept merely the parts of science that one finds convenient, esp. when so much information is available out there.
Also it must be stated that when one – in order to hold one’s position on a scientific matter – has to hold that the vast majority of scientists in a given field worldwide are either incompetent or corrupt, (global warming deniars I look at you) one is engaging in what is almost certainly epic fail.
Clarence is particularly enamored of a particular logical fallacy.
Yup, the vast majority of scientists in a given field worldwide have never been nearly unanimously wrong before, so we should all shut up now.
Never mind that it’s all based on bad data, bad models, and bad science (as they say, garbage in, garbage out). We should be quiet and pay the trillions they want us to pay to fix the “problems” identified by a bad model with non-existent data. Yaaay, science!
To the extent that people care about ‘climate change’ :
If a small asteroid (say, 100 feet across) were to hit the Earth, the immediate change in climate, as well as increase in atmospheric particulate pollution, would be far more than produced by all the cars and coal plants in the world in a decade.
Plus, there would be tsunamis, blockage of the sun by dust, etc.
SO….
Shouldn’t planetary defense (from asteroids) be the highest priority of anyone concerned about climate change (as well as for many who are not concerned by it)?
An small asteroid impact will do far more, and more quickly, than 100 million cars added to the roads in China.
Of course, the dumbshits who pretend to care about ‘global warming’ don’t care about asteroid impact, because to detect and deflect an asteroid, all of humanity will have to depend on the USA, making the USA the savior of non-Americans. The current ‘global warming’ narrative is a convenient way to be anti-American, which is ultimately what they care about (never mind that China emits more CO2 than the US, and Canada and Norway have a higher per-capita emission rate than the US, making the US not the leader on either the aggregate OR per capita lists).
No thinking person can put asteroid impact protection at a lower priority than human CO2 emissions, as a factor in climate change. The absolute priority devoted to either can vary, but in RELATIVE terms, planetary defence greatly outweighs car/coal plant restriction in priority.
B.S, Tarl.
If you want to question you will get a degree in the relevent field and publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. When you disprove AGW you can accept your Nobel Prize with my full blessing. Good luck with that.
Linking to articles in the National Review rather articles in the scientific press just makes you look stupid and ill-educated. It’s not surprising for instance that the “science reporter” over at Fox News is skeptical. Why don’t you look at his background and also what else he purportedly doesn’t believe.
I bet you believe that the majority of scientists thought there’d be global cooling in the seventies, and the world is cooling down now, too, don’t you?
To put it bluntly: Don’t trust politicians over scientists. Even when the politicians are on your side.
you can accept your Nobel Prize with my full blessing.
Ah yes, the body that gives its most honored ‘Peace” prize to Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Kofi Annan, Rigoberta Menchu, Yassir Arafat, etc. but not to Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, or Margaret Thatcher.
It is often said that the best way to win the Nobel Peace Prize is to kill a lot of people, and then stop.
That’s not true in my case, TTH. But thanks for playing.
I’m very much for space exploration. Manned space exploration, and asteroid defense. And as Hawking says, we will need to live out there eventually. I simply have learned over the years not to pick and choose which scientific theories I will believe and disbelieve.
I’ve learned over the years that its very easy to mislead lay people and even scientists and technicians in unrelated fields simply with plausable sounding arguments. For instance, the two most common arguments against AGW are that its all based on computer models and that scientists all thought the world was cooling in the 70′s, so why should we believe them now. Both things are demonstratibly false to anyone who has actually bothered to do more reasearch than merely rely on talking points from one side or the other. Most people who are against AGW have never even read a single scientific paper by any of the proponents nor have they bothered to read the IPCC reports.
When I was a teen I was very skeptical of evolution , though respectful of just about any other scientific theory. In part because of that, I got an undergrad in biology and did my own research into evolution. Along the way, not only did I find out there was much more evidence for it then I had been led to believe with the seemingly pluasible creationist arguments that had been presented to me and what was more: I found that the number two guy at the ICR (who had a PHD in biology) wasn’t above twisting statements by evolutionary scientists to try to prove a point. How did I discover this? Perhaps it was a God who has some respect for those who seek the truth, or perhaps it was accident, but I happened to be reading a paper about the evolution of a certain type of marine animal. Rather than accept a conventional theory of how this particular critter had evolved the scientist in question had put forth his own alternative theory of the evolution of the critter and his evidences for his theory. I later came across an article by the number two man at ICR where he claimed the paper I had just been reading as evidence of a biologist who doubted evolution.
In any case, I’ve learned that doubting a whole field without providing any counter evidence is the mark of someone who is intellectually arrogant, ill-educated, or both.
Well, I didn’t know that Arafat got himself a Nobel Prize in physics.
I suppose the people who get the Nobels are all supporters of terrorism now? God, this is getting stupid. Do you even know what the Fields Medal is? Do you know the history of the Nobel Peace Prize as compared to the other Nobel prizes?
Anyone truly concerned about climate change should support asteroid defense as the highest priority (nevermind the many reasons above and beyond climate change).
It appears the more urgent question is : Do you know how to read?
I wrote : yes, the body that gives its most honored ‘Peace†prize to
to which you responded :
I didn’t know that Arafat got himself a Nobel Prize in physics.
I think a minimum requirement of reading comprehension must be demonstrated before we can proceed further.
Fifth Horseman:
Once again, I am going to ask you a question and keep it simple for you:
What does a political award have to do with a scientific award?
You do know that the people who award the prizes in the sciences are not the same and not chosen the same as the people who award the peace prize?
Now can you show me the relevence of your comment with that information given to you? Or are you insinuating that all Nobel prizes are polticial prizes?
If you want to question you will get a degree in the relevent field and publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal.
One need not have a “relevant degree” in order to believe in and advocate AGW, so one need not have a “relevant degree” in order to disbelieve in it and argue that it is false, either.
The issue is not merely scientific, it is political, and the scientists have actively cooperated in making it a political issue. Thus, to argue that “only scientists” get to say anything about it is absurd.
Linking to articles in the National Review rather articles in the scientific press just makes you look stupid and ill-educated.
Attacking the source instead of the facts makes you look stupid and ill-educated.
The author of the article in question has “relevant degrees”, so his word on a scientific matter is credible regardless of the venue in which it is presented.
To put it bluntly: Don’t trust politicians over scientists. Even when the politicians are on your side.
To put it bluntly: the politicians have coopted the scientists, so don’t trust the scientists either, even if they seem to be on your side.
Anyway, in other news, A set of data long used in support of the anthropogenic global warming claim has turned out to be an out and out fraud.
Yet another scientific scandal has come to light which knocks another whopping crater in the already shattered theory of anthropogenic global warming. Eight peer-reviewed studies, which for years have played a significant supporting role behind the IPPC’s claims of AGW, have been shown to be fraudulent.
Yes, trust the scientists, they know what they’re talking about!
Well, yes, Tarl, one could be sloppy like you are, or one could ask some of the scientists themselves:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/#more-1184
If, after reading that, you still think there is “something” but sloppy journalism to this “story” then have at it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/#more-1184
I know, I know, despite their degrees and actual, you know, work in the field, (fucking thesis written on tree rings, indeed.) your opinion is just as valid. But ya know what, Tarl? I won’t be requesting your input when I want any bridges designed.
Yeah, I notice the double links. Oh well, tis late, and I’m going to bed.
So you’re linking me to what Al Gore says??? What are his degrees in, again? Did he “work in the field”? Do you request his input on bridge construction?
If the data don’t fit, just make up some shit!
You’re a real idiot. I linked you to realclimate.org, which isn’t run by Al Gore or funded by Al Gore.
I see two people who aren’t able to debate any substantial points on this issue. You, and the fifth horseman. He seems intelligent, at least. You, I’m not so sure. I doubt you read the article I linked to past the first sentence, and I doubt you know who the author is.
Pathetic.
Did you even read your own link? It has a picture of Al Gore from his stupid movie and asks, “Who should we believe? Al Gore with his “facts†and “peer reviewed science†or the practioners of “Blog Science“? Surely, the choice is clear….” Frankly, neither his tone of voice nor yours gives me great confidence in your side of the debate. People use sarcasm, scorn, and condescension in political and religious arguments, not scientific ones. Your shrill tone tells me you’re getting increasingly desperate as it becomes increasingly obvious that the AGW emperor has no clothes.
No doubt you have read what McIntyre says about the critique of his critique of Briffa?
Oh, and by the way, at some point in your life you will fly on an aircraft that I helped to design and build. Bon voyage!
To quote the first two paragraphs:
Interesting news this weekend. Apparently everything we’ve done in our entire careers is a “MASSIVE lie†(sic) because all of radiative physics, climate history, the instrumental record, modeling and satellite observations turn out to be based on 12 trees in an obscure part of Siberia. Who knew?
Indeed, according to both the National Review and the Daily Telegraph (and who would not trust these sources?), even Al Gore’s use of the stair lift in An Inconvenient Truth was done to highlight cherry-picked tree rings, instead of what everyone thought was the rise in CO2 concentrations in the last 200 years.
Now, a few points because you seem rather incapable of grasping them:
A. Because Al Gore is for AGW means no more and no less than Hitler being for the science of Aerodynamics. Science is science regardless of what a poltician or a political philosophy makes of the facts it uncovers. The only thing that matters is : is AGW a fact? I note you didn’t try to dispute the other hockey shape graphs. Because to put it bluntly: you were out of your league.
B. Ad homming was started by you and yours. If the blog post is snarky it’s because informing people that irregardless of a hockey stick there is plenty of other evidence for global warming gets tiring after about oh, the 1000th time, esp if it seems that some of your opposition is operating in bad faith.
If you want to disagree with the Kyoto protcol, if you think there are other ways that AGW can be combatted other than carbon emissions, feel free to pitch your voice in. After all, AGW is almost certainly a fact, what is not a fact is how best to mitigate it. Otherwise you can continue to rely on National Review for your science news.
The global warming eco-Nazis are getting more desperate; now they’re darkly hinting at violence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sSTLDel-G9k
Alas for them, it has backfired:
http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure
Either they are extremely stupid, or there’s a climate-change skeptic mole at that ad agency…
{ 1 trackback }