Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Have Climate Change Deniers Discovered Marijuana?

During a discussion of the inadequate climate records in China, the boyz from Surface Stations reference some weird plants growing behind a station in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma:


Correct me if I'm wrong... but is that a row of pot plants growing behind the MMTS?

Here are a couple of shots:

Well, I wouldn't smoke the stuff, though I might try and sell it to kids.

So, anyway, have the boyz at Surface Stations refuted global warming YET AGAIN? Have they proven that any temperature increases have emanated from the stoned-out heads of WARMongering NOAA volunteer Greenshirts lollygagging about in the dope fields of Oklahoma?

I doubt it, because smoking marijauna...they say...makes everything coooool.


Anonymous said...

In other news another Liberal is caught stealing!

Anonymous said...

In other news another Liberal is caught stealing!

Anonymous said...

Before Gore

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt." The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."

Reacting yesterday to word that certain European governments and officials are suddenly trying to abandon their costly "global warming" policies, Royal Astronomical Society fellow Benny Peiser, of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University in Great Britain, recalls the teachings of Marcus Aurelius:

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

Anonymous said...

So, do you have a link to the 1922 satellite pictures?

Southeastern Alberta had a drought for several years in the early 1920s, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that North American temperatures were higher than normal. The problem nowadays is that if higher temperatures become the norm, then maybe so does drought.

Anonymous said...

more info for all the rank & file of the insane, the Liberals, the leftoids and other assorted WARmongers.

The sound of settled science, right Al ??
Right Dr. Fruit Fly ??

The Boston Globe
Jeff Jacoby
Hot tempers on global warming

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | August 15, 2007

First of two parts
Article Tools

INTRODUCING Newsweek's Aug. 13 cover story on global warming "denial," editor Jon Meacham brings up an embarrassing blast from his magazine's past: an April 1975 story about global cooling, and the coming ice age that scientists then were predicting. Meacham concedes that "those who doubt that greenhouse gases are causing significant climate change have long pointed to the 1975 Newsweek piece as an example of how wrong journalists and researchers can be." But rather than acknowledge that the skeptics may have a point, Meacham dismisses it.

"On global cooling," he writes, "there was never anything even remotely approaching the current scientific consensus that the world is growing warmer because of the emission of greenhouse gases."

Really? Newsweek took rather a different line in 1975. Then, the magazine reported that scientists were "almost unanimous" in believing that the looming Big Chill would mean a decline in food production, with some warning that "the resulting famines could be catastrophic." Moreover, it said, "the evidence in support of these predictions" -- everything from shrinking growing seasons to increased North American snow cover -- had "begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."

Yet Meacham, quoting none of this, simply brushes aside the 1975 report as "alarmist" and "discredited." Today, he assures his readers, Newsweek's climate-change anxieties rest "on the safest of scientific ground."

Do they? Then why is the tone of Sharon Begley's cover story -- nine pages in which anyone skeptical of the claim that human activity is causing global warming is painted as a bought-and-paid-for lackey of the coal and oil industries -- so strident and censorious? Why the relentless labeling of those who point out weaknesses in the global-warming models as "deniers," or agents of the "denial machine," or deceptive practitioners of "denialism?" Wouldn't it be more effective to answer the challengers, some of whom are highly credentialed climate scientists in their own right, with scientific data and arguments, instead of snide insinuations of venality and deceit? Do Newsweek and Begley really believe that everyone who dissents from the global-warming doomsaying does so in bad faith?

Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific hypothesis, not an article of religious or ideological dogma. Skepticism and doubt are entirely appropriate in the realm of science, in which truth is determined by evidence, experimentation, and observation, not by consensus or revelation. Yet when it comes to global warming, dissent is treated as heresy -- as a pernicious belief whose exponents must be shamed, shunned, or silenced.

Newsweek is hardly the only offender. At the Live Earth concert in New Jersey last month, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. denounced climate-change skeptics as "corporate toadies" for "villainous" enemies of America and the human race. "This is treason," he shouted, "and we need to start treating them now as traitors."

Some environmentalists and commentators have suggested that global-warming "denial" be made a crime, much as Holocaust denial is in some countries. Others have proposed that climate-change dissidents be prosecuted in Nuremberg-style trials. The Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen has suggested that television meteorologists be stripped of their American Meteorological Society certification if they dare to question predictions of catastrophic global warming.

A few weeks ago, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Marlo Lewis published an article opposing mandatory limits on carbon-dioxide emissions, arguing that Congress should not impose caps until the technology exists to produce energy that doesn't depend on carbon dioxide. In response to Lewis's reasonable piece, the president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, Michael Eckhart, issued a threat:

"Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America."

This is the zealotry and intolerance of the auto-da-fé. The last place it belongs is in public-policy debate. The interesting and complicated phenomenon of climate change is still being figured out, and as much as those determined to turn it into a crusade of good vs. evil may insist otherwise, the issue of global warming isn't a closed book. Smearing those who buck the "scientific consensus" as traitors, toadies, or enemies of humankind may be emotionally satisfying and even professionally lucrative. It is also indefensible, hyperbolic bullying. That the bullies are sure they are doing the right thing is not a point in their defense.

"The greatest dangers to liberty," Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, "lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

Anonymous said...

Oh, was Newsweek a peer-reviewed scientific journal back in the 70's? No, it wasn't?

Well, were journalists back then more accurate at reporting on science than they are now? No, they're not?

So some 1970's Newsweek article by a journalist speculating on global cooling has no relevence whatever to the mountain of scientific evidence that global warming is occurring now? Bingo!

Oldschool said...

Holly Schtick . . .
Why don't you explain to all of us HOW the tiny amount of CO2 contributed to the earth's atmosphere by man is influencing the temperature of the earth . . . using proven science of course!!!
Man contributes 3 or 4% of the total CO2, the remaining 96% contributed by Volcanoes, oceans, natural decay and cows (according to UN). CO2 only makes up .05% of the total atmosphere.
So enlighten us all . . . what about WATER VAPOUR??? 100's of times more prevalent in the atmosphere (clouds) and the major heat trapping gas.
Been waiting for years for the facts . . . they taught me in Grade 9 that CO2 was plant food not poison.
Would is not make more sense to just stop volcanoes???

Oldschool said...

Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

An example of the Y2K discontinuity in action (Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies)

While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or “jump” in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA’s Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an “oversight” that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again—maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.

Anonymous said...

CTV actually has a story on their site about that today...strangely enough it isnt written from a chicken little/doomsday perspective. Hope you neo-marxists are watching because true peer review is on the way.

Ti-Guy said...

Sure. True peer-review is on the way. Got it.

God, the stupidity...

Oldschool said...

Ti-Guy . . . sounds like you are a believer!!!
Why not answer the questions I asked of Holly???
The globe has warmed up 1 degree F in the last century . . . most of that before 1940!!! Was it the SUV's in the 20's and 30's that the poor folks in the depression were driving???
Hanson of NASA has been exposed as a fake . . . . Al Goar is a hypocrit, and Suzuki and Club Seirra are making millions with their religious zeal.
Where's the science? The UN Panel revises "DOWN" their scarey forecasts everytime they release a "Summary" . . . these folks are politicos not scientists . . . fact!!
Either show me the "FACTS" or just sit quietly in the enviro pew!!

bigcitylib said...

Old school,

the numbers did not change at all globally, only for the mainland U.S. Even McIntyre himself described his finding as a "micro-change".

Oldschool said...

Hey Lib . . . we are talking about a computer model . . . these are speculation at best, total fabrications at the worst!!!
Why not show us the real provable science??? Oh, I know . . . it does not exist . . . so just believe!!!

bigcitylib said...

Computer models are used in all aspects of science these days, Old School, including in determining weather patterns on other planets.
You think its all junk?

And as for the global cooling thing in the '70s, that lasted about six months. AGW as a theory has been around since at least the late 80s.

Its not even as though the climatologists in the 1970s were incorrect; they simply felt that the cooling brought about by aerosols would overwhelm the warming brought about by AGW. That was what they got wrong.

Anonymous said...

oldschool, are you seriously trying to claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans do? Prove it.

Oldschool said...

Holly . . . . you must be very young!!!
When Mt Penatubo in the Phillipines errupted in the early 90's it changed the weather around the world for 2 years. Volcanoes emit vast amounts of flourohydrocarbons and CO2 gas. The CO2 gas is believed to have killed all the people in Pompai before they were burried in volcanic ash.

Lib . . . computer models cannot tell me what the weather will be like next week for my sons soccer game . . . . how does it relate to 10, 20 or 30 years from now.
I have worked with computers for 25 years . . . . we tell them what we want them to do . . . garbage in . . . garbage out!!!

Oldschool said...

Funny . . . you folks want proof . . . but no one has answered even 1 of my questions with proof!!!

Here is a couple of interesting reads . . .

Dr. Jonker . . . Calif EPA

ps: Holly . . . Penatubo emitted more CO2 and Fluorohydrocarbons in one week than man has made since the industrial revolution . . . or 150 plus years.

Ti-Guy said...

Prove it, Unschooled.

Deno said...

"oldschool, are you seriously trying to claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans do? Prove it."

Holy, you are really showing us how ignorant you are. May I suggest you read up on volcano before you post again.


Oldschool said...

deno . . . . all human activities on the planet produce only 3 or 4% of all CO2. FACT!!!
93% of CO2 is attributable to volcanoes, oceans, decay. The UN even said cows produce more CO2 than humankind.
CO2 only makes up .05% of the atmosphere.
So my challenge to you is to show us all how the minute amount of CO2 created by man (4% of .05% of the atmosphere) could possibly effect anything??
Water Vapour is 100's of times more common in the atmosphere than CO2, it is called clouds and is the predominant insulating gas. Would it not make more sense to control water vapour since it is so prevanent.
CO2 is plant food . . . without it life as we know it would cease to exist.
This is the fourth time in the last hundred years we have had chicken-little senarios. Two Ice Ages and now Two GW scares.

Deno said...


I'm on your side buddy, I was responding to a post by Holly stick. I know everything you have written is true and it is nice to see someone here who has the ability of think logically about AGW.


Anonymous said...

"One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) ."

and comment #2, with a reply from gavin:
"# mlmitton Says:
16 May 2006 at 3:27 PM

QUOTE: “One point that is also worth making is that although volcanos release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions ”

One thing I regularly see from skeptics is exactly the opposite–that anthropgenic emissions are completely negligable compared to volcanic emissions. I’ve seen them say things like (if not exactly) the Pinatubo eruption released more greenhouse gasses than all human activity in history combined.

Is there any reason for the disconnect here?

[Response: Yep. I know what I’m talking about ;) There are both direct measurements of volcanic outgassing (from which I got the 0.15 Gt/year integrated number) and also isotopic and mass balance arguments that absolutely, 100%, no question about it, mean that the current rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. Ask them why there isn’t an obvious spike in the Mauna Loa CO2 record after 1991 if indeed Pinatubo released more CO2 than all human activity in history combined - because that is a big number! - gavin]"

Anonymous said...

See also comment #6, here, and the rest of the comments for more discussion and links.

"# Grant Says: 16 May 2006 at 4:34 PM Re: #2

There is an obvious spike in the rate of CO2 increase at that time — in the other direction!

I’ve been all over the CO2 record from Mauna Loa, and I can tell you that just after the Mt. Pinatubo explosion, the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 decreased. From about 1977 to 1990, atmospheric CO2 was increasing at about 1.5 ppmv/yr, but from 1991-1992 the rate dropped to about 0.9 ppmv/yr. It rebounded quickly, and by 1994 was above 1.5 ppmv/yr.

Gavin? Could the Mt. Pinatubo explosion have caused a decrease in atmospheric CO2 increase rate? Or is the dip due to some other cause?

[Response: A small dip is completely understandable in terms of the carbon cycle response to the cooling. It could be a solubility effect (cooler oceans take up more CO2), but it’s more likely a biosphere effect - reduced soil respiration maybe. I’d have to look up the relevant literature to be more precise… - gavin]"

Here comment # 47 compares US cars to Mt St. Helens:
"# Rod Brick Says: 4 June 2006 at 1:49 AM

re my own question, #41, re CO2 emissions from Mt. St. Helens vs motor vehicles. My math was close — only missed by three decimal places! (Never could get those right!) Vehicles in the US put out 1.8 BILLION tons a year, not 1.8M tons. This is 10,000 times the volcano, not ten times, and more in line with everyone’s assertions that I was questioning. Sorry."

Anonymous said...

"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"

"Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend."

Anonymous said...

One of my favorite "Volcanoes are responsible for more ____ than all of mankind" links is this one from Limbaugh. Limbaugh, as you recall, is the person who widely distributed this piece of nonsense in the early '90s. He got it from Dixy Lee Ray, who's sources on ozone depletion and global warming was Lyndon LaRouche's toadies and Fred Singer -- but even they didn't mess up the Volcano numbers.

In any case, here's the link:

Read Limbaugh's "commentary" and then read the article he was basing it off of. Read to the end. It just shows how absolutely illiterate these nuts are.