Again. http://www.videosift.com/video/Oh-Boy-14-to-22-inches-of-snow-Meteorologist-freaks-out?noredirect

Apologies, but your video was a dupe

http://www.videosift.com/video/Oh-Boy-14-to-22-inches-of-snow-Meteorologist-freaks-out -> http://www.videosift.com/video/Oh-Boy-14-24-Inches-of-Snow-Oh-Boy

"The experts in the video didn't say either."

That isn't true. The first meteorologist in the video said that it was all El Niño.

Why do you think that I doubt the in-between? I didn't claim that there is no in-between. I think that climate change is very likely to change our weather patterns. I'm just annoyed by the people I've heard blaming El Niño weather on climate change, which I see as irresponsible reporting meant to sensationalize the truth. Anyway, I've seen and heard this on local news stations. I'm sorry that I didn't provide quotes/links? I'm not writing a research paper, just commenting on a video on the interwebs.

Both of the meteorologists in your example are straw men, especially if you can't provide quotes/links to any real meteorologists saying those things. One says it's all climate change, the other says its all El Nino. The experts in the video didn't say either.


Could there not be something in between that is closer to the truth?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yeah, I suppose I was trying to say that. The professional/practice component is where the dogma, patriarchy and business surface - and for me at least brings medicine out of the pure science realm into something else. We aren't cowed into carrying umbrellas at monthly check-ups with meteorologists.

In reply to this comment by longde:
Re: 20% dogma, patriarchy, and business. You could say the same for the pure sciences. To me, medicine is as much a science as physics and biology, with the difference that there is a professional/practice component that isn't there with the 'pure' sciences.

In reply to this comment by dag:
^Yes, how dare anyone question the all-knowing oracles of medical knowledge.

I think the reason that many geeky type people always toe the main-stream medical line is because they conflate medicine with science (which we all love). Yes, it's almost the same, but if I had to draw it as a venn diagram, there would be a crescent of over-hang. Medicine to me is 80% science and then the rest is filled in with dogma, patriarchy and business ($$).

That crescent of non-science is the part that makes me squirm. I don't think it's that wrong to question medical programs like vaccinations- with the idea that it may be being pushed non-scientifically by the medical industrial complex. (big pharma).

Bill Maher is not a kook.

>> ^maximillian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallstreak_hole


I always heard about hole punch clouds when I was a meteorologist, but I never actually saw one. That strikes the weather side of me with a bit of awe.

>> ^StukaFox:
>> ^Payback:
Yes, I agree, what the Hell IS up with the game industry and Africa?

Because we already done all them other places:
Germany, Ukraine, New York City, LA, The Blue Mosque, Hell: First-person shooters
Middle Earth, a lot of places roughly modeled after medieval Europe, radioactive wastelands: role playing games.
The 9th level of hell, a godless place seen as an unending sea of child molesters and furries: Peggle.
So Africa was all we had left over. And Antarctica. But who wants endless random encounters with Leopard Seals and bored NOAA meteorologists?


Gunship 2000 also had an expansion where you flew choppers in Antarctica. Ah white-outs. Awesome.

>> ^StukaFox:
And Antarctica. But who wants endless random encounters with Leopard Seals and bored NOAA meteorologists?


Check out Penumbra: Overture. I think its actually set in the arctic, but its suprisingly fun and scary.

>> ^Payback:
Yes, I agree, what the Hell IS up with the game industry and Africa?


Because we already done all them other places:

Germany, Ukraine, New York City, LA, The Blue Mosque, Hell: First-person shooters

Middle Earth, a lot of places roughly modeled after medieval Europe, radioactive wastelands: role playing games.

The 9th level of hell, a godless place seen as an unending sea of child molesters and furries: Peggle.

So Africa was all we had left over. And Antarctica. But who wants endless random encounters with Leopard Seals and bored NOAA meteorologists?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations.

Rambling nonsense, in science there is no such term as "unproven theory" A theory is a construct and means to explain the available facts

Correctamundo. Is anyone seeing a distinct "intelligent design" element hovering around this thread?

>> ^quantumushroom:
You (QM) lie on a routine basis.
Yeah, lying with the truth, supported by facts and logic.
You represent all that is filthy, lazy, and ugly in mankind.
But only compared to the socialist utopia dreamed up by frauds, thieves and charlatans. And of the three adjectives above, I'll agree with 'lazy' but that's it.
Thousands of years ago, the shaman stood on a little dirt mound, waved a bone and proclaimed the tribe was in danger of being killed by evil spirits; therefore give the shaman a portion of your harvest and he'll save you.
Thirty years ago, some poindexters in white labcoats stood at a podium with fraudulent computer models, trying to frighten people into believing the world would be destroyed by WARM WEATHER; therefore shut down all progress and give us half your income in taxes and we will save you.
There is no scientific evidence for man-made global warming, only govt-sponsored scientists trying to lick the hand that feeds them (with OUR tax dollars).
When it comes to the man-made global warming religion, I'm an atheist.

And also, when did those scientists start demanding money? They're just providing their opinion on the research they've conducted. If you think they're trying to scam money out of us by making us use cleaner more efficient and safer equipment WHICH THEY INVENTED!!!!!11oneoneone, then please re-read this sentence. Where the fuck is the HARM in using cleaner more efficient and safer equipment?

If they're right, and we change how we live to be cleaner and safer, we win.
If they're wrong, and we change how we live to be cleaner and safer, we didn't lose.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations.

Rambling nonsense, in science there is no such term as "unproven theory" A theory is a construct and means to explain the available facts

Let’s see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

This is more nonsense. while it is true that the highest peak on the scale so far is 1998,( or 2005, depending on how you measure) the point is that that the TREND is what counts, every year temperatures vary, some years are hot, relative to their time, some are cold, relative to their time. However, the upwards trend is not in question if we look at 128 years of recorded weather history, this is the image this report provides See image That image is scary enough, but it gets worse as we compare it to millions of years
Full report here

3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures


Again, not quite right, the actual data shows a complex pattern of both increases and decreases, overall, it is correct that there hasnt been any dramatic changes over the 4-5 years these buoys have actually been in operation, however, this is consistent with known patterns that includes "quiet years" in 5-10 year periods. The 50-year perspective is whats important

Argo Blog:
The results of Domingues et al (2008) do not show a constant rate of warming. Instead there are periods of warming interspersed with multi-year cooling periods. There is also regional variability in the multi-decadal trends. Moreover, there is uncertainty in the results because of sparse sampling of the oceans and instrumental errors during the pre-Argo era. In spite of the variability and the uncertainty, the evidence for a 50-year warming trend in the oceans is compelling.

The Argo site and the Argo blog




4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)


Since you give no source of this information, I can only take your word for it, but the term "arctic ice" on google, comes up with report after report confirming that the ice is thinning, melting, receding and dissappearing. Every climate report I've seen lately seems to say the same thing

"December 3 , 2008
Ice growth slows; Arctic still warmer than usual"


6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)


No, infact any data I can find shows polar bears are negatively affected by the climate change. again, this is either an extreme oversimplification of bits of data from an unnamed report, or simply a lie. Here is an actual article by a real scientist, showing a complex but worrying future for polar bears


7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation”


http://www.livescience.com/environment/070611_gw_kilimanjaro.html

This is the first point that actually holds, its still melting tho, and snowfall is decreasing, I'm no glacier expert, so I'll leave this one alone.


The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows

Yes it is, as all sources indicates. You can say different, doesnt make it so.

9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)

no sources here either


10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)

It is correct that 07/08 was the coolest winter since 2001, but it was still warmer than the average 20th century, and more importantly and the fundamental flaw in most of these points, seemingly contradicting data from 1 year does not "wipe out" the last 100 years of temperature increase. If the trend continues on a steady reversal for 10-15 years, THEN we are talking.




11) Al Gore's film was deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just revealed that some of the footage in Al's film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)



13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)
This seems to be based on this article...which has been refuted here and here


14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.


Irrelevant, see my earlier post.


15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)

No.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2] Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.


16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.


By "Many scientists" you mean of course this guy his prediction is based on 30 years cycles.

17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured



Again, wrong. it is true that we humans didnt create the greenhouse effect, and compared to the total effect it actually has, our contribution is miniscule. However, since the earth, or more precicely, the creatures living on it, are evolved to fit the environment as it is, even relatively small adjustments in the system can potentionally have catastrophic consequences. Or perhaps not, and thats one of the things about GW, we do not know for sure what happens, which could prove costly


I hope to have shown, with no other preparation than google at my disposal, that nearly all of the above points are based on shallow, irrellevant cherry-picking of data, unreliable sources. One to take a closer look at the sources of these claims, it turns out that either these points are willfull misrepresentations of the full source, or that the source itself turns out to be single individuals with no actual evidence to back it up.


I also found QM's entire post on a facebook post which ofcourse doesnt mean its not true, but it indicates that this is some kind of "fact-sheet" spread around the net with little or no actual source-checking like I've just done. Its one of those things that , just because someone's written it down and cited a few reports (dishonestly represented) people will believe it and think they've become "climate Skeptics".

A proper skeptic would check the sources.

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
I really hate how science these days is being portrayed by some of you one the sift.

Half of you say the scientist are in the pocket of the government and the other half say we are patsies for the liberal left.

You have no idea how insulting it is to me when I read crap like that.


Imagine how much more insulting it would be if you were a "real" scientist.

>> ^quantumushroom:
You (QM) lie on a routine basis.
Yeah, lying with the truth, supported by facts and logic.


That's the point.

You have yet to support your "truth" with either facts or logic.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Well, my liberal/socialist/communo-anarchist friends, with the arrival of the Obamessiah and the lowlifes already in Democrat-controlled Congress now it's YOUR TURN at bat, and when these dopes start really FUBAR-ing everything I'll be here to point out your FOLLY.


And if things are better at the end of the Obama administration than they are now, are you going to be man enough to admit you were wrong and are an idiot? Or at least do us the favor of discontinuing your internet access so we no longer have to tolerate your trolling posts?

I doubt it, you'll probably be there saying how any success Obama has was entirely due to the Bush administration.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Will you make that shit up too? Cause I can just use your old defense: whatever happens during this administration was the last guys fault because the decisions a president makes have sweeping, long-term consequences. Uh, unless it was something good that happened, in which case this rule doesn't apply.

Didn't you get the memo? 40 years ago the Republicans decided that every negative political decision is the fault of the Democrats, and every positive one was thanks to the Neo-Con agenda. Why if it weren't for all those damn commie liberals there'd be no poverty in the world, no global warming, and no threat from terrorists.