We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, May 6. 2013
There's a style of AGW propaganda that I call the 'Little Lie, Big Truth' format. This is when some tiny lie of the AGW campaign is soundly debunked, making the author look 'clinical, scientific and impartial', then, almost as a 'P.S.', it's noted that, by the way, man-made global warming is here, real, and must be dealt with now. One little lie debunked, but one grand truth revealed.
Allahpundit (aka 'God's Critic') over on Hot Air has linked to a number of these articles over the years in their 'Headlines'. Whether he's just skimming over the article and failing to spot the Big Truth paragraph at the end, or actually believes in AGW and is posting these links to appear clinical, scientific and impartial, is anybody's guess.
He's in good company, though. Matt Drudge does the same thing:
Damn good question, right?
And he gets right on it:
He then goes on to quote a couple of eco-nuts who claimed the 2011 batch of tornadoes were a direct result of you-know-what. And then the capper:
He even has a graph (1954-to-present) to back it up, displaying how the flurry of 2011 tornadoes was only equaled by a particularly bad year back in the early 70's. It was a spike, in other words, not a result.
So, our kinda guy, eh? We're thinking how nice it is to see someone in a major newspaper like the Houston Chronicle totally dismantle this 'AGW produces violent weather' bullshit.
Except that this is the uber-liberal Houston Chronicle.
And, here it comes:
Since this wouldn't be an official Dr. Mercury AGW post if I didn't do a little dismantling of my own, allow me to render the above paragraph to the meaningless pixels from whence it came.
Uh-yup, no question about it. There are graphs like this all over the place.
Nope, nothin' new there.
In other words, majority rules when it comes to science?
Hold on, this just in:
So remember, good friends here in the year 528, the earth is flat. The Science of Majority Rules has declared it so.
Imagine, if you dare, a scenario where God flips a switch and the room you're sitting in is instantly 1.7 degrees warmer. The question is, is the word consequences the word you'd choose for this moment?
And the wrap-up:
I love the "fully" part of that. If we could even remotely understand global climatology and the 'consequences' — if any — from mankind's pitiful contribution, we'd be a lot further along than we are today.
The comments were also terrific, slicing and dicing his last couple of Grand Truth paragraphs every which way, even noting how beneficial a slightly warmer world would be in regards to human safety (deaths via freezing far outnumber deaths from heat every year) and food production.
Mentioning food production reminds me of this:
Maybe I should have titled this post "AGW: The damned good questions edition".
How cruel and insane, indeed.
That's from The Giving of Tomorrows, my plans to start a new environmental movement. If you've got $50 mil lying around, let's do lunch.
My 7,000-word general debunking of AGW is here.
I also have another AGW post cookin', so prepare yourself for more warmth and merriment laced with joy and wonder in the near future.
It's just that kinda site.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Home run, big guy.
"Nope, nothin' new there."
What a great line. :-)
Doc: I presume I speak for many when I say how much I like your approach to this subject. Half the time you're treating it like the joke it is, then you'll turn right around and zero in with laser-like intensity on one specific issue, like this particular style of AGW propaganda. Always a fun read, and I'm already looking forward to more warmth and merriment laced with joy and wonder in the near future.
Weather predictions in the short term are often flawed. Why should we accept that long=term predictions are any more accurate? Because, SHUT UP, they argue.
Where I grew up was near the edge of the glaciers some 15 Kyears ago. I've read about the great Montana ice dam that broke 10+ Kyears ago.
We need to ask these AlGoreBull Wormers what they suggest we do, now that it's "Climate Change" that's gonna happen, what they suggest we do to prevent Global Coldening.
"Because, SHUT UP, they argue."
I love that style of writing. :)
My favorite "weather prediction blow-it" happened about 15 years ago in San Jose. A big storm was headed our way and The San Jose Mercury (no relation) News ran a THREE INCH banner headline that morning that screamed:
BATTEN THE HATCHES!
It sprinkled the following afternoon.
Around my way, from an overabundance of caution, they keep broadcasting warnings about impending tsunamis that turn out to be 1-inch ripples along the shoreline. Of course, when people hear the warning and the civil defense sirens begin wailing at the ETA of the tidal "wave," they all hop into their cars to leave work for home and then they get caught in a big traffic jam right smack dab in the flood zone. My house is inland, at least 500 feet above sea level, but I keep hoping that someday I'll have beachfront property.
Of course! I live in the South, don't I? I'm sure if I go deep enough, I'll find some general store still using the stuff, then all I have to do is buy a pack of gum, hand them the $50 mil Confederate bill and ask for the change in quarters, which ensures it'll be in standard U.S. currency since the South didn't have quarters back then.
Have any articles linked the current brush fires in California to 'climate change'? I am surprised I have not yet seen the conclusion being drawn.
Give them time, old buddy. There's only been one so far this season, and it really wasn't much of a wildfire by CA standards. If -- or rather, when -- you spot one, lemme have it and I'll wrap a post around it.
I'm sure Zachriel will have something to say about this bit of heresy you write.
Personally, I'm all for spending $ trillions, with a T, on something we don't yet fully understand to prevent something that we don't fully understand from possibly happening. I say possibly because we don't yet fully understand it.
Sounds like a brilliant policy strategy.
Actually, I consider this particular AGW post Zach-proof, because what's he going to argue, that AGW does cause excessive tornadoes? The guy's chart would make mincemeat out of his words.
But there's always next time.
Hope springs eternal.
See anything interesting about this graph?
Anybody? Give you a hint - big, yellow, rises in the East every morning?
You wrote, "Some eco-clown with New Scientist magazine called some supposed climate whiz in India named Syed Hasnain (who later admitted he knew very little about glaciers) who 'speculated' that the Himalayas might be bereft of glaciers by 1235. "
Let's see now, the year 1235 was at the peak of the Medieval Warm Period. Sounds like a safe "post-diction" to me, something James Taranto would surely have mentioned in one of his columns. (There I go again, I'm being pedantic.)
Ah, thankee kindly. I hate typos. Please pedanticate to your heart's content.
I just donated, because you are on the right track. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming [CAGW] is a complete hoax. ANY human caused global warming is a hoax.
The whole issue is a hoax on taxpayers — and every government's wet dream — taxing the air we breathe!
Keep the pressure on. Climate alarmists are lacking the one thing they need to make their case: empirical measurements. There are NO scientific measurements verifying that the rise in CO2 is the cause of any global warming. That is merely an assertion, with no scientific basis in fact.
The planet is simply not agreeing with the climate alarmist crowd. Despite a 40% rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, global temperatures have been FLAT for the past decdade and a half.
So who should we believe? Climate alarmists? Or Planet Earth? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Doc, as I know you like magic, I thought I would pass on this 5 1/2 minute youtube video.
It is a hoot. I think the illusionist is quite good.
Yeah, it was fun. With an iPad involved, you could literally say it was a case of 'digital magic'.
Here's another video - about climate policy - that looks like it will be good, but it has not yet been made. http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/50-to-1-project-the-true-cost-of-action-on-climate-change
Very slick! I like the concept of using fire to beat fire -- did an AGW post a while back with that very title. I'll include the link in my next AGW post, and thanks. Best of luck to them.
Thanks! I do hope you can manage to give the project a mention. It looks like their funding appeal could do with a boost. John
Until I read the site more in depth, I'd have to issue a disclaimer at this point. In glancing over the home page, I didn't see many details, and if it turns out they're totally pro-AGW (that it's all man-made) BUT they still think the money would be better spent otherwise, that alters the equation somewhat. I'll pursue it, though.