8 ms·

The human mind is tuned to story. Stories help us make sense of facts and give them meaning. That's probably different from person to person - possibly you beli

The human mind is tuned to story. Stories help us make sense of facts and give them meaning. That's probably different from person to person - possibly you believe you're on the fact end of the spectrum. This is a small part of the overall climate story, but it's actually what you're arguing for I think - it's a factual account of how glacier ice has changed in the park. The same has happened in the Juneau Icefields, Mount Rainier and elsewhere. Stories are also a useful way to summarize the facts and can be misused to support things that are not factual - I understand that's what you're saying here. I'm not aware of the story you allude to around accurate or inaccurate thermometers - the one you believe to be the truth.

graycat 9y ago
This is yet again the NYT talking about climate. Their goal is to create and push a never ending sequence of stories about climate, to create a lasting audience for such stories, and, then, to continue to feed the audience. The stories all have a foundation -- the sky is falling, in this case, the earth is warming, growing warmer, and the cause is sin, human sin from human greed and corruption, for human activities that release CO2 which is warming the planet dangerously, melting glaciers, ice in the Arctic and Antarctic, making the oceans acid and killing the coral reefs, killing off food for the whales, making the lobsters move farther north, raising sea levels, flooding low lands, killing the polar bears, etc. IMHO all this NYT stuff is just totally cooked-up, made-up, stirred-up, gang-up, pile on, nonsense, fake stories to get eyeballs for ad revenue and otherwise from junk down to a dangerous effort to sabotage the economies of the world. Well, then, let's start at the beginning: Warmer. How much warmer, since when, measured how, by whom, reviewed where, published where, when? On this basic, foundation issue, IMHO, the NYT should put up or shut up. Since they won't, and are free to publish their scare sewage, the NYT is dead to me but I am willing occasionally to call them out on their dangerous nonsense. For this foundation, we just need the data, temperature, in degrees F, C, or K. But the NYT doesn't want to do this. Similarly stories at Nova want to say "If temperatures keep increasing ..." Well, from all I've seen, there is no significant evidence that temperatures have increased significantly for 20 or so years. Moreover, I see no significant evidence that so far human activity has had any significant effect on temperature at all. Moreover, I have seen lots of evidence that CO2, from humans, volcanoes, out gassing from the oceans, rotting plant life, etc. has never had any significant effect on temperature for at least 800,000 years. I've seen lots of evidence of significant temperature changes but where CO2 could not have been the cause -- there must be other causes. Basically, over the past 800,000 years, temperature has changed significantly often, up and down, but CO2 could not have been the main cause or hardly ever or even once a significant cause. Why? Never, but never, not even once, in the whole 800,000 years was significantly lower temperature closely preceded by significantly lower CO2 concentration. So, CO2 had nothing to do with the change, and there must be other causes. For higher temperatures, the story is nearly the same. The evidence is clear: It's just ain't CO2, guys. Sorry 'bout that -- the causes are elsewhere. The Medieval warm period, closely preceded by higher CO2? Nope. The Little Ice Age, closely preceded by less CO2? Nope. The cooling from 1940 to 1970 from lower CO2? Nope -- if anything, higher CO2. It's over, guys: The CO2 scare is a scam. So, this OP is just again the NYT flogging their fake story. Sure, the NYT used to have scare stories about global warming, but somehow they got the memo and changed over to scare stories about "climate change" -- well, that's somewhat safe since we can be sure the climate will keep changing. Then, sure, we get lots of stories about why we must fight climate change -- how the heck to do that? Like the Mayans who killed people to pour their blood on a rock so that the sun would keep moving across the sky and, thus, avoid climate change if the sun stopped? What the NYT is doing is essentially the same as the Mayan charlatans killing people. And if the NYT had their way, many people would be killed. Indeed, many are being killed in Africa because of attempts to avoid releasing CO2. The NYT is up to dirty business, very dirty business. So, i'm calling them out on it. Simple.
- dpierce9 9y ago
  Great satire. The way you delicately ignore the evidence of temperature increases (e.g. the hockey stick graph) while saying you are not aware of any significant temperature increases is quite artful.
  - graycat 9y ago
    The hockey stick graph was a lie and a fraud -- there never was any such thing. Moreover, as in Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, ISBN 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, National Academies Press, 2006. the temperature in year 2006 was essentially exactly the same as in the year 1000 before any role for CO2. Moreover, also from that report, the increases from the 100 years before 2006 were essentially exactly the same as in the 100 years before year 1000. So, the increases in the last 100 years or so are not unusual and not necessarily from CO2 -- there can be other causes. Nearly year 1000, there really were other causes. Moreover, we've been pulling out of the Little Ice Age since the late 1800s or so. We were deep into the Little Ice Age when Washington crossed the Delaware and when Napoleon returned from Moscow, and NOT from lower CO2. The real hockey stick curves were from climate models that made predictions of hockey stick increases that have all been proven wildly wrong by now -- only a tiny fraction of the models made accurate predictions, that temperature would stay essentially the same. The graphs are at, say, http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg Again, yet again, once again, over again, one more time, in the whole 800,000 years of the Antarctic ice core studies, there were lots of significant temperature changes but not once was significantly lower temperature closely preceded by significantly lower CO2, and the case for higher temperatures is nearly the same. So, there are other causes -- CO2 can't be the only cause. Moreover, the evidence that CO2 is increasing temperature now is junk -- temperature hasn't changed significantly in about 20 years while CO2 concentrations have increased. Again, It's not getting warmer now. It's not particularly warm now and was significantly warmer often enough in the past. CO2 is from not a cause at all or at most only a minor one -- the main causes are elsewhere. For the last 800,000 years, the good evidence is sun spot activity -- good luck trying to stop or change that!

graycat 9y ago

This is yet again the NYT talking about climate. Their goal is to create and push a never ending sequence of stories about climate, to create a lasting audience for such stories, and, then, to continue to feed the audience. The stories all have a foundation -- the sky is falling, in this case, the earth is warming, growing warmer, and the cause is sin, human sin from human greed and corruption, for human activities that release CO2 which is warming the planet dangerously, melting glaciers, ice in the Arctic and Antarctic, making the oceans acid and killing the coral reefs, killing off food for the whales, making the lobsters move farther north, raising sea levels, flooding low lands, killing the polar bears, etc. IMHO all this NYT stuff is just totally cooked-up, made-up, stirred-up, gang-up, pile on, nonsense, fake stories to get eyeballs for ad revenue and otherwise from junk down to a dangerous effort to sabotage the economies of the world. Well, then, let's start at the beginning: Warmer. How much warmer, since when, measured how, by whom, reviewed where, published where, when? On this basic, foundation issue, IMHO, the NYT should put up or shut up. Since they won't, and are free to publish their scare sewage, the NYT is dead to me but I am willing occasionally to call them out on their dangerous nonsense. For this foundation, we just need the data, temperature, in degrees F, C, or K. But the NYT doesn't want to do this. Similarly stories at Nova want to say "If temperatures keep increasing ..." Well, from all I've seen, there is no significant evidence that temperatures have increased significantly for 20 or so years. Moreover, I see no significant evidence that so far human activity has had any significant effect on temperature at all. Moreover, I have seen lots of evidence that CO2, from humans, volcanoes, out gassing from the oceans, rotting plant life, etc. has never had any significant effect on temperature for at least 800,000 years. I've seen lots of evidence of significant temperature changes but where CO2 could not have been the cause -- there must be other causes. Basically, over the past 800,000 years, temperature has changed significantly often, up and down, but CO2 could not have been the main cause or hardly ever or even once a significant cause. Why? Never, but never, not even once, in the whole 800,000 years was significantly lower temperature closely preceded by significantly lower CO2 concentration. So, CO2 had nothing to do with the change, and there must be other causes. For higher temperatures, the story is nearly the same. The evidence is clear: It's just ain't CO2, guys. Sorry 'bout that -- the causes are elsewhere. The Medieval warm period, closely preceded by higher CO2? Nope. The Little Ice Age, closely preceded by less CO2? Nope. The cooling from 1940 to 1970 from lower CO2? Nope -- if anything, higher CO2. It's over, guys: The CO2 scare is a scam. So, this OP is just again the NYT flogging their fake story. Sure, the NYT used to have scare stories about global warming, but somehow they got the memo and changed over to scare stories about "climate change" -- well, that's somewhat safe since we can be sure the climate will keep changing. Then, sure, we get lots of stories about why we must fight climate change -- how the heck to do that? Like the Mayans who killed people to pour their blood on a rock so that the sun would keep moving across the sky and, thus, avoid climate change if the sun stopped? What the NYT is doing is essentially the same as the Mayan charlatans killing people. And if the NYT had their way, many people would be killed. Indeed, many are being killed in Africa because of attempts to avoid releasing CO2. The NYT is up to dirty business, very dirty business. So, i'm calling them out on it. Simple.

dpierce9 9y ago
Great satire. The way you delicately ignore the evidence of temperature increases (e.g. the hockey stick graph) while saying you are not aware of any significant temperature increases is quite artful.
- graycat 9y ago
  The hockey stick graph was a lie and a fraud -- there never was any such thing. Moreover, as in Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, ISBN 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, National Academies Press, 2006. the temperature in year 2006 was essentially exactly the same as in the year 1000 before any role for CO2. Moreover, also from that report, the increases from the 100 years before 2006 were essentially exactly the same as in the 100 years before year 1000. So, the increases in the last 100 years or so are not unusual and not necessarily from CO2 -- there can be other causes. Nearly year 1000, there really were other causes. Moreover, we've been pulling out of the Little Ice Age since the late 1800s or so. We were deep into the Little Ice Age when Washington crossed the Delaware and when Napoleon returned from Moscow, and NOT from lower CO2. The real hockey stick curves were from climate models that made predictions of hockey stick increases that have all been proven wildly wrong by now -- only a tiny fraction of the models made accurate predictions, that temperature would stay essentially the same. The graphs are at, say, http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg Again, yet again, once again, over again, one more time, in the whole 800,000 years of the Antarctic ice core studies, there were lots of significant temperature changes but not once was significantly lower temperature closely preceded by significantly lower CO2, and the case for higher temperatures is nearly the same. So, there are other causes -- CO2 can't be the only cause. Moreover, the evidence that CO2 is increasing temperature now is junk -- temperature hasn't changed significantly in about 20 years while CO2 concentrations have increased. Again, It's not getting warmer now. It's not particularly warm now and was significantly warmer often enough in the past. CO2 is from not a cause at all or at most only a minor one -- the main causes are elsewhere. For the last 800,000 years, the good evidence is sun spot activity -- good luck trying to stop or change that!