Comments on: Climategate may doom cap and trade legislation; but it will still be up to us

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:54:17 +0000

I feel better now. I did intend to read that link you provided the next day until you told me it was a link to my own post.
I also find it laughable that the weather cannot be accurately predicted more than two or three days out but we are supposed to believe these people can predict the weather years and years in advance.

By: mamapajamas

mamapajamas — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:43:38 +0000

Oh, certainly don’t be embarassed! I didn’t make it clear in my earlier post that I was linking to THIS website.

How did I remember? I pretty much remember most of what I write over the years. And I especially remember it when it’s a hot-button topic for me.

As for computer models, it isn’t just that the data entered has been modified. It is also problematic that we DON’T KNOW how 90% of the green house gasses work together in our dynamic climate system. All of the climate models are plotting linear progressions, but that does not work in a dynamic system. Thus my original complaint (in the 2-year-old post) that the models could not possibly work.

As things stand right now, no one knows when and where a cloud will appear more than a few days out. But clouds… water vapor… is our most IMPORTANT green house gas.

We just don’t know enough about it all to even try to forecast weather more than a week or so in advance.

The old fashioned method of tracking sunspots (which is the method the Old Farmer’s Almanac has been using for a couple of centuries) is better than the climate models, given that solar activity (indicated by sunspot counts) IS a major weather driver.

But the CRU gang left both clouds AND the sun out of their model. So how can it be right and how can it predict anything? Answer: It can’t.

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:38:43 +0000

Now I am embarrassed. I thought the link was to a post that you had written, I didn’t realize that you were linking to a post that I had written and you had commented on. How did you ever remember that post? It is over two years old.
Anyway, the comments that you made then were very interesting. The fact that we just do not have enough information from the past to look into the future seems to be a very valid one to me. Computer models can be flawed, especially when the people entering the data are manipulating the data they use while excluding data that is contrary to the result they are seeking.

By: rjjrdq

rjjrdq — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:23:30 +0000

You said it Terrant. Its a a religion to many, where faith trumps the facts. In this case, the “facts” were manufactured.

By: mamapajamas

mamapajamas — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:08:06 +0000

FWIW, that link is to your website, two years back. I sounded off here when the founder of the Weather Channel sounded off about AGW.

I’m a couple of comments down, with my old “Don’t Tread on Me” flag avatar.

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:01:00 +0000

Thanks for the compliment and the link. I will check it out.

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:00:22 +0000

These alarmists are truly infuriating, they manipulated the evidence to support their harebrained conclusion and now that they have been exposed they do not want to debate any more.
That is a great quote!

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:58:42 +0000

He has just turned a blind eye to this scandal. In my opinion he is guilty of being an accessory after the fact. And most likely an accessory before the fact.

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:57:36 +0000

Yes, I don’t understand why anyone would expect the Republicans to go along with Obama’s left wing agenda. If they do it will spell the end of them in the next election.

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:56:04 +0000

Evidence contrary to the global warming agenda will be ignored, it always has been. To expect anything different now would just be naive.
Republicans and Democrats have different views on most of the issues so I wouldn’t expect them to be the party of “yes” to Barack Obama’s agenda. I would say that the minority party over the course of years has always been the party of “no.” The Republicans playing this part are no different than the Democrats over the last six years.