Subscribe: Comments on: Pielke Senior: Comment on Joe Romm’s weblog on El Nino and global warming
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/06/pielke-senior-comment-on-joe-romms-weblog-on-el-nino-and-global-warming/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
agw  anthony  climate  dhogaza june  dhogaza  future  global warming  joe romm  joe  june dhogaza  june  people  rel nofollow  romm  winter 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Pielke Senior: Comment on Joe Romm’s weblog on El Nino and global warming

Comments on: Pielke Senior: Comment on Joe Romm’s weblog on El Nino and global warming



The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change



Last Build Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 06:01:24 +0000

 



By: Jeff Alberts

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:33:41 +0000

Chris Winter (19:15:05) : Anna V, You miss my point. Let me state it as a general rule: It is absurd to claim that a prediction of a future happening is wrong because the predicted event has not happened yet.
Just ask Nostradamus, right? Eventually something will come along that resembles the "prediction".



By: Glenn

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:32:27 +0000

Climate Heretic (00:02:14) : “We are being undermined by some secret cabal pouring money into disinformation campaigns and is controlled be faceless political groups and monolithic corporations oppressing all those around them…” Continuing my earlier response: "Groups such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), MoveOn, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) are part of a growing coalition of social welfare, labor, religious, and healthcare organizations joining forces with the traditional environmental lobby." Read the rest at http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6146



By: Chris Winter

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:15:05 +0000

Anna V, You miss my point. Let me state it as a general rule: It is absurd to claim that a prediction of a future happening is wrong because the predicted event has not happened yet.



By: KLA

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:06:53 +0000

First post here. I have also posted on Joe Romms blog. Also on other AGW blogs. I think I have found a simple litmus test to find out if these people are truly worried about AGW, or if it is just a front for an increase in elitist control. Or a front for increased use of natural gas. Just ask them about their opinion about nuclear power. If they are against it, like Joe Romm, then their alarmist stance cannot be real, only a front. Because, if AGW and the predicted consequences were true, then the rather insignificant risks posed by nuclear power should be acceptable. It is after all, the largest CO2-free energy producer.



By: Jeff Larson

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:29:37 +0000

I find it interesting that so much "official science" confuses cause and effect. For climate, CO2 is thought to be the cause and temperature the effect. In the medical field, Cholesterol is thought to be the cause and inflammatory processes the effect. In all cases significant money flows are generated by trying to control the effects, with the beneficiaries essentially controlling the political process to lock in their cash flow. The mainstream media no longer investigates but promotes the elitist's agenda. Thank you Anthony for providing a forum for truth.



By: Mike Bryant

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:03:26 +0000

As the dust settles from the recent discussions at Romm's blog, he now settles back into his former mediocrity. No wonder he thinks that insults and veiled threats are the way to go... that's the only way he can get his "hits" up, temporarily... Back to sanity, Mike



By: Smokey

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:13:47 +0000

Burger King knows more about the climate than Joe Romm: click



By: Tim Clark

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:20:31 +0000

Lucy Skywalker (17:28:28) : Whoa – seems like mounting warfare. Climate Progress’ new post: Reply by Anthony: REPLY: Hey, he’s angry and puts that anger into angry words, what can I say? There’s not much to do except watch the show, though I will tighten up my moderation policy to ensure we don’t get the same kind of angry rhetoric here. – Anthony To which I respond, perhaps pushing the envelope: Grrrrrrrrrr!!!



By: gary gulrud

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:48:26 +0000

Bill and Bob, Thanks to both of you for leading us to cross-sectional animations. I'd bet what has me and others confused about ENSO behavior the last 6-9 months lies therein.



By: Indiana Bones

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:44:47 +0000

mkurbo (18:28:11) : Wikipedia won’t let you even post any type of counter AGW material anymore. As soon as you post, they remove to archives for some foolish reason. It is so biased that one of the more agressive “editors” wrote me and said – why do even waste your time, you know we aren’t going to allow any debate ! Wow !!! Which gives rise to the question, why give any credence to an information tool steeped in censorship? If it were a truly "open" information tool, it would not indulge in data bowdlerization. Rather, this is a propagandist tool that defeats its credibility with cognitive dissonance. More accurately, "wikopinionia."



By: Frank Mosher

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:26:12 +0000

Bill Illis and Bob Tisdale. Very interesting posts. Thanks. It does look as though ENSO is somewhat " stuck". fm



By: JP

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:52:05 +0000

And not all El Ninos are equal -at least regionally. Following the 1976 El Nino (And Great Pacific Climate Shift), North America had 2 consecutuve very cold Autumns and Winters. Granted, the 1977 Summer was a scorcher for the Eastern Third of the US (Son of Sam Summer); it was followed by the infamous 1977-78 Winter that saw record cold and snow. The Blizzard of '78 was a record for many cities. Both the 76-77 Winter and the 77-78 Winter were the coldest of the decade for North America.



By: Jim Turner

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:44:04 +0000

Re: 'Doctor' Watts The title 'Dr.' as referring to the bearer of a higher degree only came into common usage in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, when science became more a paying career rather than a hobby for the wealthy. Before that it was only in common usage by physicians. Surgeons pointedly call themselves 'Mr.' so as to distance themselves from the quack 'Doctors'. OR: perhaps more appropriately for AGW, from the Cambridge Online Dictionary: doctor verb [T] to change (something) in order to deceive people eg. 'He claimed the photo had been doctored.' As a working scientist for more than 20 years (without a PhD) I may be a little biased.



By: kim

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:56:28 +0000

anna v. 20:23:00 You really encapsulate the problem in a nutshell. I think with the help of a cooling globe, which might just as well not have happened, that ongoing scientific arguments and data will quell the hysteria. At the very least, that is my hope. But much damage has already been done, though the future possible damages by this horrific policy error do entail damaged entrails of the whole world's economies. What magnificent healing, to prevent the suicide, that might require is difficult for me to imagine. ========================================



By: JP

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:38:32 +0000

It was only 2 years ago with the publication of the 2007 IPCC SPM that stated that natural oscillations in the atmosphere and oceans are secondary to the concentrations of GHGs. My how that seems eons ago. Now, everyone is waiting on pins and needles to see how strong and how long the next El Nino event will be. Despite all the rhetoric of record temperatures, which decade is the warmest, etc... satellite sounding data from UAH and RSS have shown remarkably little change since 1979. We are about the same place we were in 1979, give or take one hundreth a degree C or so. Following 60 year trends, we are entering a period that will be dominated by La Ninas. El Ninos will occur, but thier life span and intensity will be short and weak.



By: 3x2

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:00:05 +0000

Just been over to CP to do a bit of catching up. What a surreal experience. Looking at the two most heavily commented posts. Who exactly is "dhogaza"? In the first post, of 172 comments 54 are from "dhogaza". The second has 383 of which "dhogaza" is responsible for 91. The frequency is also a little bizarre : June 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pm dhogaza Says: June 5th, 2009 at 2:25 pm dhogaza Says: June 5th, 2009 at 2:27 pm dhogaza Says: June 5th, 2009 at 2:28 pm dhogaza Says: June 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm dhogaza Says: June 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm dhogaza Says: June 5th, 2009 at 2:38 pm dhogaza Says: June 5th, 2009 at 2:39 pm dhogaza Says: June 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pm dhogaza Says: June 5th, 2009 at 2:47 pm dhogaza Says: June 5th, 2009 at 2:52 pm dhogaza Says: June 5th, 2009 at 2:53 pm dhogaza Says: June 5th, 2009 at 2:55 pm dhogaza Says: So I believe I may have found the source of any problems regarding posts - "dhogaza" clogging up the junk filters. I rename him "Tommy Gun Dhogaza". On duty manning the trenches in the dead of night spraying anything that moves with a hail of bullets. Hitting his own men and Swiss citizens as often as not. Like I say a surreal experience. Think I will stay here with the "Anti Science".



By: M. Simon

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:03:51 +0000

(I will never snip anything directed at myself, no matter how objectionable.) That is asking for trouble. Unless you call in a second opinion. ;-)



By: M. Simon

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:59:51 +0000

Dr. Watson - fictional Dr. Dr. Watts' Sun - reality. BTW Sgts in the military hate getting unwarranted promotions. Never call one Sir. And if you do it by mistake - apologize.



By: tallbloke

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:25:19 +0000

Lucy Skywalker (17:28:28) : Whoa – seems like mounting warfare. Climate Progress’ new post: WattsUpWithThat labels people who advocate putting a price on global warming pollution as “criminal,” the same as “murdering people” June 6th, 2009 Joe Romm: Climate Progress has never advocated or threatened violence against them. Climate Progress does not tolerate any such threats in its comments. I notice Joe Romm has post edited one of my reply's on CP. Here is the deleted part: Gail: “When is the liar Anthony Watts going to crawl out of his lair and apologize for the false claim that there were comments endorsing violence at CP? Waiting…waiting…waiting” I know revisionism is a trait of warmists, but this was only yesterday! “these science haters exist for only one purpose… They should be dealt with accordingly…. and will be.” If this isn’t comment proposing/endorsing violence, why did Joe Romm feel the need to remove it after it was commented on? And were you not the person who brought the spectre of capital punishment for non-conformists to the debate? You were careful not to openly endorse it, but your intention in raising the issue was clear. Killing people for their beliefs…. Think about it.



By: anna v

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 06:20:00 +0000

Chris Winter (15:44:12) : If AGW is to be falsified, it will not be done by speculating on what may happen decades in the future. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no? The predictions of AGW are for what will happen decades in the future!! Let us be clear. There is no if. As far as scientific falsification is required, the IPCC Ceneral Circulation Models outputs have been clearly and definitively falsified. 1) temperatures are in stasis and might possibly roll down the incline 2) The tropospheric predictions do not pan out, there is no extra heating of the tropical troposphere 3)The relative humidities do not follow the model expectations 4) the oceans are not heating but also are in stasis, to say the least. While, CO2 is merrly rising and having no effect on the cold PDO. This is the CO2 that would reverse an ice age according to Hansen. The PDO is in a cool phase, the albedo is rising, and everything is falsifying the predictions of the GCMs. And I have not touched upon the behavior of the sun, since Leif has convinced me that at the moment there is no solid scientific explanation of any observed correlations. If the speculative model of cosmic ray influence pans out, that is another strike out. So what do we have? We have a crowd psychology that is being driven to hysterical levels by wrong and disproved data by people who should know better as they are PhD scientists. The hysteria aimed at is such that it is convincing politicians in these hard economic times to commit what is practivally hara kiri of the western economies. Unfortunately hysteria has a momentum of its own and cannot be stopped by scientific falsification arguments.