Ohh Nooo!!!

3:30 PM -- Yesterday morning, the President of the United States went on national teevee and said: "I don't think anyone could have anticipated the breach of the levees."

Red Panda's immigration status is somewhat uncertain, so he doesn't want to say this was exactly a "lie." Nor that the remark reveals Mr. Bush, for the umpteenth time, as "dumber than dirt." So let's just comment: "Close, but no stogie."

The fact is, absolutely no one anticipated this tragedy, except of course the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Mayor of New Orleans, and many, many, many, climate scientists, but who listens to what they say? They believe in that "global warming" stuff. 'Nuff said.

But more shocking than the warnings from all those usual suspects is that fact that even Mr. Bill, the animated clay figurine from Saturday Night Live, is smarter than Mr. Bush, the animatronic president-simulacrum.

In a disturbingly prescient ad that CNN aired on May 27, 2004, Mr. Bill shows he has a much better understanding of New Orleans' levee system than Mr. Bush. Then he is eaten by an alligator. Oh nooo!!!

— Red Panda, Picayune Pundit, Light Reading

<<   <   Page 2 / 39   >   >>
rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 3:46:54 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! My 2 cents- as a sailor that studies the weather daily for over 45 years - they don't have much of a clue. Most of my competitors over several decades always do a beter job of predicting the weather every day than the weather men. Especially more than a few days or weeks ahead.

Hey OldPOTs I hope your retirement is going well.

I watched some of the recent testimony to the house and energy and commerce subcommittee. You can find it on cspan.org if your interested. It happened last Thursday. Professor Mann testified along with others who said his models weren't valid.

One of the congressmen made a comment similar to yours about the inability to predict the weather. Professor Mann response was that climate is much different then weather and is predicitable while weather is not.


Climatology is the study of climate, or past weather, and is a branch of the atmospheric sciences. In contrast to meteorology, which studies short term weather systems lasting up to a few weeks, climatology studies the frequency with which these weather systems occurred in the past. It studies the periodicity of weather events over years to millennia, as well as changes in long-term average weather patterns, in relation to atmospheric conditions.
whyiswhy 12/5/2012 | 3:46:53 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! "It will take alarmist rhetoric to make large scale social changes."

Yea, like Hitler's "scientific proof" that the Jews in Germany were the reason for it being behind the rest of Europe technically and financially in the 30's.

Or Al Gores new book: "How I invented Ecology after I invented the Internet".

Yes, Virginia, there are Neo-Liberals just as crazy as Neo-Conservatives.

Both believe the scientific process is to stop debate, ignore facts, make changes, observe only what they want to see.

dljvjbsl 12/5/2012 | 3:46:53 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! I agree that politician's don't tend do science very well. (On either side of an issue). But policy decisions are made via political means, so I don't believe the two can be separated. It will take alarmist rhetoric to make large scale social changes.

The problems arise when scientists do politics. The hockey stick curve is now discredited. It has now probative value yet is was the centerpiece of the IPCC's Kyoto propaganda.

Global warming could be a signficant problem for the world. However it has been captured by zealots who use it to promote un-related social and economic policies. Want to support a particualr form of planning in your city, trot out a recent alarmist pronouncement from a Kyoto scientist/politician.

Now we find out that fo all their claims of scientifc certainty, these climatologists have no real competence in statistics and did not know how to properly interpret the climate data they had.

So to Mann's insistence that climate can be predicted; he can verify it by creating a post-diction from a climate model that accurately matches the weather of the 20th century. Climatological models cannot do that now. However I saw one in New Sceintist that claimed to make predictions out to the year 3000.

Another good prediction reported in New Scientist was that global warming would heat the crust of the Earth and cause more earthquakes. A subsequent letter writer informed these climatologists of the First Law of Thermodynamics and showed taht atmospheiric heating would casue rise in the Earth;s surface of only a few atom's diameters while teh lunar tide in the surface is 60cm. Some prediction and yet is was reported in New Scientist.


Do you believe in global warming?

rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 3:46:52 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! rjm - glad to see you back

Thanks OldPOTs.

If you don't know what causes weather how do you know what causes (predicts) climate (long term) change?

According to Gore's movie there is a periodic nature to the earth's climate between the season. The hypothesis (conclusion?) is that most of the globes land mass is in the northern hemisphere are during summer months of the northern hemisphere the plants are sinking the CO2 via photosynthesis. During northern hemisphere winter months there is more CO2 because less plants are absorbing it. This effect explains the periodic nature of the temperature. A graph can be found here:


The point is that scientist seem fairly certain that greenhouse gases such as CO2 do indeed effect the climate in a predicitable manner. I don't think anybody is predicting next week's weather based on such observations.
OldPOTS 12/5/2012 | 3:46:52 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! rjm - glad to see you back

"Professor Mann response was that climate is much different then weather and is predicitable while weather is not."

If you don't know what causes weather how do you know what causes (predicts) climate (long term) change?

Remember the disclaimer; "Past Performance is no guarantee of future results" Explain that statistical theory to a climatologist.

But many of my competitors predict several weeks in advance as to which races are worth traveling to. Is that climatology?


PS -I did see that on CSPAN and I thought it interesting that a politician (Prof. Mann) define what kind of special scientist (not statistical) he was.
paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 3:46:51 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! rj,

If you do a search, you will find that there is in fact no strong coorelation between average temperature and CO2 levels over geologic times.

An example chart, assuming that the factors previously noted (and ignored by you) that such measurements may in fact not be stable over time....


I believe reducing greenhouse gasses is good. I am not sure what causes climatic change. I do know we are a minority producer of CO2 and am not even sure if we are the largest part of the variation at this time.

rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 3:46:51 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! Why;

A speech by John Browne, as CEO of British Pertoleum.


Breaking Ranks


By John Browne, Sloan '81

The world in which we live is no longer defined by ideology. The old spectrums of left to right and radical to conservative are still with us, but ideology is no longer the ultimate arbiter of analysis and action. Governments, corporations, and individual citizens have all had to redefine their roles in a soci ety no longer divided by an Iron Curtain. A new age demands a fresh perspective on the nature of society and responsibility.

The passing of some of the old divisions reminds us that we are all citizens of one world, and we must take shared responsibility for its future and for its sustainable development. We must do that in all our various roles: as business people with capital to invest, as legislators with the power to make law, as individual citizens with the right to vote, and as consumers with the power of choice. The global environment is a subject which concerns us in all our various roles and capacities. I believe that we've now come to an important moment in our consideration of the environment: the moment when we need to go beyond analysis to seek solutions and to take action. It is a moment for change and for a rethinking of corporate responsibility.

A year ago , the Second Report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was published. That report and the discussion which has continued since its publication shows that there is mounting concern about two stark facts: The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmo-sphere is rising. And the temperature of the earth's surface is increasing.

There's a lot of noise in the data. It is hard to isolate cause and effect. But there is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists and serious and well-informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature. The prediction of the IPCC is that over the next century temperatures might rise by a further 1 to 3.5 degrees centigrade, and that sea levels might rise by between 15 and 95 centimeters.

Those are wide margins of error, but it would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern. The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part.

We in BP have reached that point. We must now focus on what can and what should be done, not because we can be certain climate change is happening, but because the possibility can't be ignored. If we are all to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.
^Eagle^ 12/5/2012 | 3:46:49 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! are you telling me that statisticians are better at interpreting complex math than mathemeticians and scientists?

If so, you need to go back and actually take a statistics class my friend.

statistics and statistical interpretation is very imprecise and many would argue it is not scientific but rather a matter of how you define terms.

a good statistician can make any argument he or she is predisposed to and often that is the case.

I would rather rely on DATA and real mathematical analysis instead of statistical interpretation.

Scott Raynovich 12/5/2012 | 3:46:49 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! I find it interesting that folks are constantly trolling for scientific data to debate exactly what humans are doing to the earth.

It's really common sense: Look around you. Is there a new strip mall in your backyard? where's your water coming from? How's the air? how many cars on the freeway? How bad is the pollution in Bejing? How many people have cancer?

Case closed.
dljvjbsl 12/5/2012 | 3:46:48 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! It's really common sense: Look around you. Is there a new strip mall in your backyard? where's your water coming from? How's the air? how many cars on the freeway? How bad is the pollution in Bejing? How many people have cancer

This is good evidence that the global warming debate is not a sceintific debate and it is not about global warming. It is a political debate and it is about a number of different issues. Global warming is eh stalking horse that allows a host of different political goals to be advanced.

As an aside - cancer rates are falling. Pollution is decreasing as well. Wiht that evidence maybe global warming should be encouraged

Do you belive in global warming?
<<   <   Page 2 / 39   >   >>
Sign In