DOOOOOOM!

Today is the 10th anniversary of Man-bear-pig’s prediction, that in 10 years, if the left was not allowed to institute the draconian and freedom robbing rules that are part and parcel of the SJWs on humanity, that the world would end.

The left has not really gotten its way despite the orchestrated anti-science consensus shaming campaign, so I am now going to hunker down in my basement and wait for the end…..

No, seriously…

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    To steal a story from Bill James: when he was in high school, he knew a guy who drank like a fish and drove like a maniac. Everyone swore he’d die in car accident before he was 30.  Boy were they wrong; he didn’t die in a car accident until he was 40.

    Algore was always full of shit with his doom and gloom.  But the fact remains that over the last ten years, the case for global warming has gotten stronger, the planet has gotten hotter and the fingers of global warming “skeptics” jammed even deeper into their ears.

    Thumb up 1

  2. Hal_10000

    Yes, it helps if you compare apples to apples.  Watt is deliberately confounding two different temperature analyses, which he admits in his later comments.  This is why temperature plots of global warming usually use a differential (i.e, today’s temperature minus the average) so that they can avoid that problem.  The 1997 measure was a different scale than the 2015 one.  This would be like measuring GDP excluding Texas, then running on including Texas and claiming the economy grew 10%. From the website:

    Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time.

    But keep digging, please.  You’ve gone one round with the “the planet isn’t warming” bullshit.  I think you’re required to go to the “it’s all natural variation” line next.

    Thumb up 0

  3. richtaylor365

    Oh boy, another battle of links;

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/06/satellite-data-shows-2015-wasnt-even-close-to-being-the-hottest-year-on-record/

    Sorry Hal, 2015 was NOT the hottest year on record.

     You’ve gone one round with the “the planet isn’t warming” bullshit. 

    See, this is why both you and CM are soooooooooooo full of horseshit when it comes to this topic. I never ever (repeat ever 20 more times) said that the planet is not warming, got it? My “skepticism” has always been the degree at which you warmists claim is man made.

    Now my apology’s to Alex, sorry for hijacking your post (actually is was Hal, that did that, but I bit, so bad on me). From now on I will just let them tout their nonsense. Personally I think they do it to convince themselves more than us.

     

    Thumb up 0

  4. Hal_10000

    Yes, here’s an explanation of why the satellite data should not be used to contradict every other piece of data we have.

    Short story: satellites do not measure temperature, they measure radiance.  To convert that to temperature, you have to use a model.  Remember models?  Those are the things you guys get in a huff over.  The satellite guys for YEARS claimed that the planet was not warming, it was cooling.  That everyone else was wrong and that they were right.  Except, OOPS, it turned out they hadn’t corrected the satellite data for orbital drift and decay.  And then they claimed that everyone else was wrong and the temperature was flat.  Except, OOPS, they screwed up those corrections again.  But now they assure us that no, this time they have it right.  And everyone else is wrong, just not quite as wrong as they were saying yesterday.

    It’s not that the satellite data are useless.  But why on Earth would people treat the model-dependent sloppily derived satellite data (which still shows significant warming and shows 2015 as one of the warmest years) as holy writ and ignore everything else? <i>Because it gives them the answer they want</i>. So what’s going to happen when the next correction brings the satellite data in line with literally everything else?  I’m sure they’ll find something else to talk about.

    I never ever (repeat ever 20 more times) said that the planet is not warming, got it?

    You just linked to someone who claims — falsely – that sea ice is recovering. One who claims — falsely — that the satellite data is the “best” data. One who claims — falsely — that global warming is a product of temperature homogenization.  One who claims — falsely — that the analysis doesn’t account for changes in weather stations. Don’t site people who deny global warming exists and then tell me you don’t deny the reality of global warming.

    CM and I full of it? Which of us was it who just linked “proof” that 2015 wasn’t the hottest year and didn’t bother to click through and read the disclaimer?  Which of us is it that links to crackpots and which of us links to actual data and actual climate scientists with actual analysis?  Which of us it is that constantly jumps on the latest “global warming is fake/exaggerated” claims without bothering to find out what the real story is?

    I am constantly doing this on the AGW debate.  I am constantly batting down this bullshit.  Half-assed half-baked analysis from people who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about, the disproof of which is literally two mouse clicks away.

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT *

    To steal a story from Bill James: when he was in high school, he knew a guy who drank like a fish and drove like a maniac. Everyone swore he’d die in car accident before he was 30.  Boy were they wrong; he didn’t die in a car accident until he was 40.

    I won’t even bother to point out that your story hangs on the premise that the idiotic predictions by the AGW cultists have some parallel with your story where you had someone that drank to excess and drove like a maniac. Earth’s temperature has fluctuated, and done so drastically, for the 4.5 billion plus years of its existence and the whole problem is that we have a few people pretending they are the only ones that understand a system they can’t model and constantly have to lie and fake things about blaming man now for purely political reasons. Are you equating that bullshit to the scenario of your acquaintance that drank to excess and drove like a maniac? Because what you are doing is a comparison of apples to assholes.

    Anyway, I know a good story myself. Practically every doomsdayer that predicted the end of the world on a given date, then as that date came and went, slapped their foreheads, claimed they made a math error, computed a new end date, usually a few months or a couple of years down the line, then repeated the cycle. Some fed their people the koolaid to make sure that doomsday came for them.

    Some of them got real smart and realized that if they pushed the date out way beyond the human life expectancy, they would be long gone before anyone could call them on their bullshit.

    Last I recall the AGW cultist today no longer claim that the “immediate danger” if we don’t let them rob us of our freedoms and money we are in means we will be living in waterworld in a few years or even a decade anymore, but cleverly have pushed their doomsday out 100+ years into the future. Conveniently this maneuver will then let them avoid the shame so deservedly heaped on on Man-Bear-Pig for his bullshit.

    Two can play at this idiotic game.

    Thumb up 0

  6. CM

    ….the fingers of global warming “skeptics” jammed even deeper into their ears.

    You said it Hal. I can’t believe people are STILL trying to argue “the climate has changed before” as though it helps them, when in fact it does the opposite. As I keep saying, this is a great litmus-test topic to showwhich conservatives/libertarians are simply blind ideologues (impervious to reason or reality) and those who aren’t.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Biggie G

    But, Hal would be considered a heretic in the AGW community.  He believes it is happening, but not that we need to cripple the economy to fix it,  I think how you feel it should be fixed is more important to the scientific consensus than anything else.  Any solution that does not include massive wealth transfers or highly subsidized alternative energy is dismissed.

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    The irony is of course that the longer we delay adapting the more it’s likely to cripple our economy. I personally am not too sure what we should do, but ‘nothing’ seems obviously the worst of all options. I certainly don’t want to cripple the economy as I live and work in if, as do my kids and the rest of my family. What is truly ludicrous is dismissing the science and promoting any old bullshit you come across (as Rich and Alex do) simply because you don’t want ‘your side’ to ‘lose’. They can’t even be part if the discussion at this point because they’ve opted to keep stamping their feet and pushing their fingers more firmly in their ears. The more overwhelming the case, the further the fingers go (research has looked at this mentality).

    Thumb up 0