Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Weeping Face in Arctic Ice! Or, Global Warmingers' Version of the Virgin Mary Grilled Cheese Sandwich Revealed!
Remember the good ol' days in Bushitler's AmeriKKKa when the religious freakazoids where shaming fetuses by making them ask morally outraged pharmacists for the Plan B emergency contraceptive after having unprotected sex? When we were awash in magical (read: religious) thinking and right-wing Christians were seeing the grim visage of apocalyptoid preacher John Hagee every time they split open a pomegranate (once known on the East Coast as "Chinese apples")?
And if you don't remember any of that, you surely remember the Virgin Mary Grilled Cheese Sandwich saga and the tale of the Jesus Potato, don't you? Those were signs of how retarded and gullible we were as a society, right?
Yeah, those sure were good times. But now that we've pushed
past all that religious crap in everyday culture and can finally
breathe good, clean, cosmopolitan air with a president who
doesn't speak a foreign language and stumbles when
pronouncing heads of state's name, we can take a gander at
secular versions of
the same crap. Now it's global warming that's making found
sculptures.
THIS sad face, eerily etched into melting Arctic ice, has been dubbed Mother Nature in Tears by astonished environment experts.
The weeping image was "sculpted" by water pouring from a glacier retreating under the effects of global warming.
Lecturer Michael Nolan captured the photo at Norway's Austfonna ice-shelf. The glacier has been vanishing at the rate of 160ft a year for 12 years.
Michael, from Arizona, US, regularly visits the area. He said: "Every summer there is less ice. I was struck by this image of a face - a saddened, motherly face, crying about our inability to reduce global warming."
As Baylen Linnekin (hat tip!) puts it, "see whatever you want, dude."
Meta4|9.3.09 @ 10:05AM|#
"That is totally Michael Jackson's death mask."
No way. Michael is still alive.
Tomcat1066|9.3.09 @ 10:06AM|#
"I was struck by this image of a face - a saddened, motherly
face, crying about our inability to reduce global warming."
Oh give me a fucking break. She's probably crying because Obama is
trying to ram through bullshit legislation to make turdnuggets like
old Michael there feel warm and tingly.
|9.3.09 @ 10:11AM|#
On Althouse they came up with a great term for these people "eco-douschebags". There was a post on there a couple of days ago about a sign in a hotel lobby that read something to the effect of "our begal slicer is used on both organic and non-organic products". In eco-douschbag land organic is now like Kosher and does not tolerate cross contanination.
DX|9.3.09 @ 10:13AM|#
we can take a gander at secular versions of the same
crap
Secular? That's debatable.
Kyle Jordan|9.3.09 @ 10:15AM|#
"Every summer there is less ice. I was struck by this image of a
face - a saddened, motherly face, crying about our inability to
reduce global warming."
If anything it looks like some housewife in her late 30's with a
cold pack on her face sleeping.
And you know what?
MOTHER NATURE, IF SHE WERE REAL, WOULDN'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT
GLOBAL WARMING!!!
This planet has existed for over 4 billion years! 4! BILLION!
YEARS! It does not need our help to "save" it or any other such
nonsense. Other than blowing it completely apart, this planet can
take ANYTHING we can currently do to it and it'll be just fine for
another 5 billion or so years until the Sun destroys it.
|9.3.09 @ 10:18AM|#
There used to be ice 30 feet thick in Illinois. Did mother nature cry when that ice melted? Did she rejoice when the ice melted and turned into the great lakes? Fucking eco-douschbag moron.
Fist of Etiquette|9.3.09 @ 10:18AM|#
I could be wrong, but it looks like they cropped off the right side of the picture where the thing is whipping us the finger.
Tony|9.3.09 @ 10:31AM|#
The glacier has been vanishing at the rate of 160ft a year for 12 years.
Everyone seems to have missed the most important fact here.
|9.3.09 @ 10:33AM|#
Everyone seems to have missed the most important fact
here.
What was the rate of retreat of this glacier 1,000 years ago? 500
years ago? 250 years ago?
I know know, pesky details get in the way of the orthodoxy.
Tony|9.3.09 @ 10:36AM|#
Looks much like my face after my boyfriend Dale and his drinking buddies make me do bukakke!
|9.3.09 @ 10:38AM|#
No one missed the point Tony, we just don't care. See, we independent types have this ability....called adaptation.
|9.3.09 @ 10:42AM|#
Mother Nature in Tears
Mother Nature is ugly and has a busted up grill.
Maybe I'd care about the planet if it was prettier.
|9.3.09 @ 10:42AM|#
That "they believe anything" quote is from GK Chesterton. Sorry,
but people believing anything includes organized religions who also
believe all sorts of crazy stuff. It bugs me how religious people
act as if their stuff is somehow less crazy.
Mary's house in Italy anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_della_Santa_Casa
Tony|9.3.09 @ 10:44AM|#
Please ignore my first post. I forgot that I troll on environmental issues under "Chad."
Jordan|9.3.09 @ 10:44AM|#
I was struck by this image of a face - a saddened, motherly face, crying about our inability to reduce global warming
Strange. I saw the face and thought it was crying out for more
yummy carbon. I'll leave my coal-powered hummer running overnight
to do my part.
|9.3.09 @ 10:44AM|#
first: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA good gravy people
second:
"Michael, from Arizona, US, regularly visits the area [in
Norway]."
Hmmmm, how does he get from Arizona to Norway I wonder?
|9.3.09 @ 10:47AM|#
And it's long been known that Arctic ice dramatically melts
every...single...fucking...summer...in...known...history...and then
it magically reforms in the winter!!!! OMG!!!!
The ice is melting!
|9.3.09 @ 10:47AM|#
Completely OT, but I wonder what the Feministing crowd would think of this Fail.
Tony|9.3.09 @ 10:49AM|#
What was the rate of retreat of this glacier 1,000 years ago? 500 years ago? 250 years ago?
Here,
some facts.
I know know, pesky details get in the way of the orthodoxy.
What, like denying scientific reality because your quaint little
economic philosophy can't handle it?
|9.3.09 @ 10:51AM|#
I'm just waiting for all that ice covering Greenland to slide
into the sea.
Never mind, a co-worker just informed me that's not possible. So
much for my hope that most of Cali would end up under water. :(
Mike M.|9.3.09 @ 10:57AM|#
I'm going to idle my car a bit longer today just to make that poor little glacier cry even harder.
|9.3.09 @ 11:01AM|#
And Tony, I hope those glaciers are retreating. If they start advancing on a net yearly basis, it means we're in another ice age and it's going to be a lot harder to grow enough food to feed your fat ass.
|9.3.09 @ 11:01AM|#
Here, some convenient facts.
FTFY.
I asked about *this* glacier of over a significant amount of time,
not a cherry-picked trend line that shows what you want it to
show.
Chad|9.3.09 @ 11:03AM|#
What was the rate of retreat of this glacier 1,000 years ago? 500 years ago? 250 years ago?
Here, some
facts.
I know know, pesky details get in the way of the orthodoxy.
What, like denying scientific reality because your quaint little
economic philosophy can't handle it?
Tony|9.3.09 @ 11:04AM|#
It's been a long, long time, so I thought I might update my
nonexistent and/or apathetic audience with what's going on in my
life.
Nothing much, that's why I haven't been posting. Let's see. I've
lost about 50 lbs the old fashioned way: very unhealthily.
Basically I've stopped feeding my oral fixation with food and
replaced it with ramped up quantities of booze and cigarettes. I
want to look damn good for that open casket!
I work a cushy but boring 8-5 M-F job where I basically get
increasingly excited as the hours pass about the prospect of going
home and doing nothing every day.
I'm spending a lot of time reading and obsessing over the
presidential election. Kind of a waste of life since my vote won't
matter, but it's good fun. After initial reservations I've decided
to throw my considerable (completely nonexistent) influence and
support behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why, when I'm such a
libbrul and she's obviously in the pockets of AIPAC, the neocons,
blahblah, blahblah? (or is she a bleeding-sickle socialist? I can't
keep track) Because she has a most impressive political machine
that I think can beat the coming swiftboating, and she's a woman
and I'm gay and I can't resist a diva. Also, she's got Bill and the
Democratic establishment and frankly all I care about is
Republicans and their soul-crushing existence being beaten to a
bloody, whimpering death like they deserve.
Just signed a new lease so I'll be in my apartment at least until
May. Nathan's still my roomie and that proves tense and highly
absurd sometimes, but at least it's not lonely or dull. We're in
the middle of what I've propagandistically termed a decorating
blitz, but it's more of a decorating
smart-bomb-missing-its-target-and-hitting-an-aspirin-factory kind
of situation. Anyway the current plan is to begin thinking about
possibly buying a house next summer, depending on whether I want to
get off my lazy butt and do something with my life or ease ever
more apathetically into my current routine/rut. We shall see.
|9.3.09 @ 11:10AM|#
THIS sad face, eerily etched into melting Arctic ice, has
been dubbed Mother Nature in Tears by astonished environment
experts.
You keep using that word, "experts." I do not think it means what
you think it means.
Tony|9.3.09 @ 11:11AM|#
I asked about *this* glacier of over a significant amount of time, not a cherry-picked trend line that shows what you want it to show.
I don't fucking know. In my book if you're a global warming denier
you're no better than an intelligent designer moron. There is
absolutely no reason you guys have to be anti-scientific in this
context. All it does is paint you as ideologues and idiots. The
world's glaciers and ice caps are disappearing at an alarming rate,
and you guys fall over yourselves trying not to notice, and God
knows why. It's either because you really are a bunch of rightwing
morons who jerk off to Michelle Malkin or because the prospect of
global warming being real means--horror!--governments might
actually have to do something. I mean I know why Reason behaves
like an unscientific propaganda rag, but surely CATO isn't paying
you guys to be idiots?
The Libertarian Guy|9.3.09 @ 11:13AM|#
Could've made book on the enviroweenies getting all hand-wringy over this "sign"...
|9.3.09 @ 11:15AM|#
Let's all get ready...US govt will fix all the ills. Govts are
good at running fiscally nightmarish budgets and waging wars.
Anything more is asking too much. Raising taxes...something else
done well.
"being real means--horror!--governments might actually have to do
something"
Tony|9.3.09 @ 11:17AM|#
I mean I'd love to hear a libertarian solution to climate change. But we don't get that here. We just get a bunch of morons denying reality so they don't have to think about it. Doesn't help the cause much, I must say.
|9.3.09 @ 11:18AM|#
You idiots will fall for anything. No wonder you're Republicans. I haven't even posted anything on this thread yet.
|9.3.09 @ 11:24AM|#
Tony, Arctic sea ice shrank from 1979 to 2005, since then, it has begun expanding again. The summer ice cap in 2008 was 9% larger than the minimum reached in 2007. The gain in just one year was greater than the loss over a whole decade during the 1980's and 1990's.
|9.3.09 @ 11:25AM|#
The world's glaciers and ice caps are disappearing at an
alarming rate
Some of us consider evidence that we're not sliding back into
another fucking ice age as less than alarming, if not downright
comforting.
And I chose to live in Hawaii, where the temperature approximates
something far worse than the most dire worse case scenarios for
global warming on the Mainland. And guess what? It's really, really
nice here. Liberal envirowackos from cold places like Minnesota
come here regularly to escape the snow and ice, and don't see the
fucking irony at all.
|9.3.09 @ 11:26AM|#
Tony, Tony, Tony, you're behind the times, buddy.
You're supposed to ignore the Antarctic ice cap, because
it's above its average.
Citation needed, you say? Okies!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
Now you have to focus on the Arctic ice cap,
because it's below the arbitrarily-specified average!
Ice CAP, not ice CAPS, man. You're clearly behind on your
propaganda!
Tomcat1066|9.3.09 @ 11:31AM|#
You know, one of these days, Tony's head is going to explode when he finally realizes that the environment isn't as cut and dried as he thought and I just hope I get to see it.
|9.3.09 @ 11:31AM|#
Cap and trade is not a solution. And the US consumer would end
up paying more; corporations pass on these costs, duh.
How's about supporting wind / solar as supplementary but not
primary sources, and get rid of ethanol. Pursuing more stores of
natural gas, right here in the ol' USA, which burns cleaner to
boot. Nuclear power...France and Japan use it, so why don't we. But
dear god, it could get scary...the US has plenty of coal but let's
just ignore that for the moment. Since it's not really an option,
is it.
What the hey is China planning to do with all them coal-fired
plants though ?? I don't see them or India signing onto anything.
That's ~ 2 billion people still shittin into the wind...
|9.3.09 @ 11:33AM|#
The world's climate "scientists" are wrong because they're
modeling something without fully understanding it. Furthermore,
they're going into their studies with preconceived biases that
directly affect their work. As an engineer who uses models on a
daily basis, I can tell you that it's impossible to make a model of
a complex chaotic system that's worth more than nothing. They use
some damn impressive technology, but the results produced by that
technology are useful only as an indicator of how little we really
understand about what drives our climate.
They might as well be playing Quake all day. If there weren't
millions of dollars in federal government grants supporting their
fiasco, their efforts would have precisely no value.
Michael Ejercito|9.3.09 @ 11:35AM|#
I guess we had better start resuming detonating hydrogen bombs
at test sites.
Maybe a layer of thick dust in the upper atmosphere will cool
things down (TTAPS study).
As an engineer who uses models on a daily basis, I can tell you that it's impossible to make a model of a complex chaotic system that's worth more than nothing. They use some damn impressive technology, but the results produced by that technology are useful only as an indicator of how little we really understand about what drives our climate.
The TTAPS study was pretty accurate.
I mean I'd love to hear a libertarian solution to climate change.
See the TTAPS study, Tony.
You do remember history, right ?
Tony|9.3.09 @ 11:39AM|#
DanD,
It is not controversial in science that climate change is happening
and that it is caused by humans and that the consequences are
likely to be devastating. That is the scientific consensus. You can
claim bias or conspiracies all you want but you can't deny that
reality. You may think you have better information than the people
working all over the world whose job it is to understand this
phenomenon, but probability suggests that it's you who has the bias
and not the world's climate scientists. And being an engineer
doesn't impress me. I was shocked by the number of creationists and
scientific illiterates who majored in engineering when I was in
school.
|9.3.09 @ 11:42AM|#
Tony, Mike Hulme who is a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia in the UK who helped write reports for the IPCC that are commonly cited by alarmists and one of the most prominent scientists declaring that "the debate is over" and that man-made global warming will be a catastrophe has come clean about the uncertain state of scientific knowleged about global warming in his new book "Why We Disagree About Climate Change". He wrote on page 75 of the book that "the three questions examined above - What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? - represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change." On the IPCC's credibility, he admits it "governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the Pane's work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists." All of this is what the skeptics have been saying for years. Hulme has admitted that his views on global warming are inseparable from his politics. He's a self-described socialist. Hulme has admitted, "We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilise them in support of our projects." Hulme is not practicing science, he is using science to promote his socialist agenda.
Tomcat1066|9.3.09 @ 11:45AM|#
Well. Looking at the info bookworm just added, climate change sure as hell looks controversial in science now.
Tony|9.3.09 @ 11:45AM|#
Link.
"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a
warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is
new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over
the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international
standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."
Tony|9.3.09 @ 11:49AM|#
You guys could be right. It could be a massive worldwide conspiracy of scientists under the control of evil socialist governments in order to... do God knows what. But I really think the burden of proof is on you guys. And you can't even articulate a coherent reason why the world's scientists would decide to engage in such a conspiracy, beyond paranoid speculation.
|9.3.09 @ 11:52AM|#
"That is the scientific consensus."
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch carried out a survey of 500 climate
scientists and found a full 35% of the scientists did not believe
climate change to be caused by human activity. In my book, such a
large percentage as that shows there is no genuine consensus among
climate scientists that man's activity is causing climate
change.
Tomcat1066|9.3.09 @ 11:52AM|#
Holy fucking shit. Wikipedia?
Oh yeah, the second part, here's the line you didn't
quote:
"A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
Non-committal...meanting they don't fucking know.
and just before that little quote, we have this one:
National and international science academies and scientific
societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in
particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely
followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
Now, isn't the IPCC the organization who's report bookworm just
shot all to hell with one of the author's own words from a book he
wrote? I think it is!
Yeah...there's no reason to doubt the almighty liberals [roll
eyes]
Tony|9.3.09 @ 11:53AM|#
Attention all OKC H&R chubby chasers: I'm having an
absolutely FABULOUS party this weekend and you're invited! We'll be
rocking out to Pet Shop Boys and Rick Astley all night! Just bring
a bottle of Boone's Farm, astroglide, and a bag of flour!
P.S. Goatees and mullets are a big +!
|9.3.09 @ 11:55AM|#
Tony,
Actually, I totally agree that climate change is happening. It's
laughably obvious. There's no such thing as a static climate.
I don't care how many climate modelers sucking the gov't teat tell
me that the planet will warm, I still won't believe them until they
can give some convincing evidence. And this is coming from a former
liberal and former believer in the anthropogenic global warming
suggestion.
What's "controversial" is extrapolating our poorly obtained data x
years into the future based on models that incorporate the
assumptions and biases of their creators instead of
empirically-derived data. We probably agree that climate is not
static. So, pick any average timespan you want. Now, pick another,
shorter timespan. The "climate" will have had to have gotten warmer
or colder within that time. It says nothing about what will happen
over another given length of time.
To suggest that we can accurately predict the climate is chicanery.
We can find out some interesting things (mostly about how little we
really know) by trying to model past phenomena, but tweaking
certain aspects of models to fit the past says little of value
about the future.
Paleoclimatology is mostly an exercise in theoretical measurement
modalities. Its findings are highly suspect, but it's the best we
can do. Even our current temperature records have a myriad of
problems that I will be happy to elaborate upon if you want to keep
this up. The point I want to make with this is that we have a very
imperfect way of understanding how to measure and record
temperature and temperature changes on a global scale. So even
saying that we can fully understand in the present how our climate
changes is bunk. Ergo we don't have even the first steps in place
to begin to suggest that we can predict what any part of the earth
will be like in one, two, twenty, or one hundred years.
|9.3.09 @ 11:55AM|#
"I really think the burden of proof is on you guys."
No, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. It has not
been proven that man's activity has caused a majority of the global
warming that we've experienced and that there will be catastrophic
weather conditions resulting from man's activities. The burden of
proof is not on us to prove a negative.
Tony|9.3.09 @ 11:57AM|#
bookworm,
There are
problems with the Bray and Storch surveys.
But even if there weren't, what makes YOU so sure the other 65% are
wrong?
Tony|9.3.09 @ 12:01PM|#
No, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. It has not been proven that man's activity has caused a majority of the global warming that we've experienced and that there will be catastrophic weather conditions resulting from man's activities. The burden of proof is not on us to prove a negative.
Actually, no. The earth's warming is observed fact. The
preponderance of evidence is that this warming has been caused by
human activity. You should know this if you're at all interested in
an objective survey of scientific opinion on the matter. When the
vast majority of the world's scientists believe something, the
burden shifts to you to say why they're wrong.
JB|9.3.09 @ 12:02PM|#
You mean the president that can't pronounce 'Orion'? The same
tard who thinks Austrians speak German?
That bright affirmative action bitch?
|9.3.09 @ 12:06PM|#
And I'm not suggesting any intellectual fortitude by revealing
that I'm an engineer. What I'm saying is that I use models. If I
wanted to learn about welding, I'd ask a welder. I employ models,
so I understand their purpose, requirements, and limitations. When
I'm trying to understand how air might flow over a
structure of a particular shape, I have a lot of empirical data to
assist me. I'm also working with closed-system situations that are
not very complex and not susceptible to stochastic
occurrences.
But even the best, most, expensive models out there to model such a
relatively simple physical system still have limitations, and the
results of the models are used as guidance towards the final
design, not as a substitute for rigorous and thorough
testing.
Climate models, on the other hand, are pretty much all the data
that exist. Climate models are not something subject to controlled
experimentation. Therefore, they are (sometimes interesting)
scientific explorations, but they are not science and are not a
substitute for real data and a realistic understanding of our own
ignorance. Therefore they *should* have little value in the
decision-making process.
But what do I know? After all, there are lots of creationists in my
field.
Tony|9.3.09 @ 12:08PM|#
Climate models, on the other hand, are pretty much all the data that exist.
This is simply not true.
|9.3.09 @ 12:12PM|#
"This is simply not true."
OK, shoot.
Keep in mind that climate has to warm or cool. Whether it is
"warming" or "cooling" depends on a frame of reference that is
necessarily arbitrary. To my knowledge there are no empirical data
that can tell us what global climate will do in the next month. We
can hazard a guess based on a lot of imperfect information, but
it's still a guess and not one that would be a good idea to place a
monetary bet on.
But you seem to think I'm wrong, so I'm waiting.
Tomcat1066|9.3.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Once again, we hear the argument that a majority says so, so we
must go along regardless of whether we agree or not. Once upon a
time, the majority of thinkers thought the world was flat.
They thought the Earth was the center of the universe. They thought
that objects fell at different rates becaues of their respective
weights. And they thought black people were mentally and pysically
deficient when compared to white people.
The majority can be wrong. You make a claim that something is
happening because of people. Most of us are unconvinced. That
places the burden of proof on you, despite your assertions to the
contrary.
|9.3.09 @ 12:17PM|#
In retrospect, my sentence was perhaps vague if you didn't read
my entire comment, which it seems you didn't.
Here's a less vague clarification:
"Climate models, on the other hand, are pretty much all the data
that exist in support of the anthropogenic global warming
suggestion.
|9.3.09 @ 12:17PM|#
The scientific consensus is a myth. If you just look a little,
you can easily find well regarded climate scientists that dissent.
Regardless, the "proof", is almost exclusively based on highly
complex (but not nearly as complex as reality) computer models that
are highly dependent on a lot of variables being extremely
accurate. Frankly I don't trust those much, especially when the
same models are applied to historical data, they don't fit without
extensive data gymnastics.
Another area of concern I have is that no one has proven beyond any
reasonable doubt that a few degrees of warming will be a net
negative. Nor has anyone proven beyond any reasonable doubt that
the small percentage of CO2 that we contribute to the very small
percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is forcing this
warming. In fact historical data seems to indicate that CO2
increases follow warming, not the other way around.
Also, the current temperature is not unprecedented in our history.
As of yet, I haven't seen any thorough examination of what the
ideal temperature for human existence would be. Maybe it's actually
15 degrees warmer? Maybe we should be trying to figure out how to
warm the planet, increasing atmospheric greenhouse effect allowing
more arable land, and possible more stable temperature and weather
patterns? The thing is, we just don't know enough to make those
decisions. Nor do we have the ability to make significant changes
without setting off some nukes.
As for solutions to the potential problem, they are out there. If
we added approximately 50 new nuclear plants within the country, we
could add dramatically to the energy availability while eliminating
a large portion of the so called pollution. However don't count on
hybrid and electric cars to help on the other front too much. We're
running short on the rare earth metals that are necessary for
electric motors and batteries that are so heavily depended on for
their production. ICE engines will be around for a long time
still.
|9.3.09 @ 12:17PM|#
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human
activities."
Yet, temperatures have been declining for most of this decade which
fits the 30 year cycle of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. From
1850 to 1880 the temperature increased, from 1880 to 1910 it
decreased, from 1910 to 1940 it increased, from 1940 to 1970 it
decresed, from 1970 to 2000 it increased and it has been decreasing
since about 2000 and will probably continue to decrease for 20 more
years. This pattern has been going on all the way back to 1470. It
seems that this has more to do with our climate than man's
activities. The charts that the IPCC uses don't even factor the PDO
in their calculations. No wonder they predicted temperatures to
continue rising this decade.
|9.3.09 @ 12:19PM|#
It should further be noted that the IPCC came into being with a preset pro-AGW agenda and is largely composed of non-scientists.
|9.3.09 @ 12:56PM|#
Frank: It could be a miracle. It could be bullshit. There's only
one thing we know for sure.
Charlie: What's that?
Frank: It's a goddamn gold mine.
The Gobbler|9.3.09 @ 1:01PM|#
"It's either because you really are a bunch of rightwing morons
who jerk off to Michelle Malkin or because the prospect of global
warming being real means--horror!"
I'm not right wing, but I'd let her jack me off. As long as she
didn't talk while doing it.
۞|9.3.09 @ 1:13PM|#
"Once upon a time, the majority of thinkers thought the world
was flat.
They thought the Earth was the center of the universe. They thought
that objects fell at different rates becaues of their respective
weights. And they thought black people were mentally and pysically
deficient when compared to white people.
One out of four isn't great, but still, it's one right.
|9.3.09 @ 1:23PM|#
What about Neptune?
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/neptune.php
Again, it's silly to talk about a "climate changing" because you
can't compress the behavior of climate down to one numerical value.
"Climate" is a term that encompasses a swath of phenomena, each of
which can be quantified in one or sometimes several ways.
If someone says the "climate is changing" what they are saying is
basically meaningless. The stock market is changing. Right
now. And it's silly to say that because it has to change
whenever it is functioning. The questions that need to be answered
are "what?" and "how?" And the answer to how the climate is
changing at this moment is "we don't know, but here are some
observations." You can't possibly observe and quantitate every
facet and every perturbation of Earth's climate. You can only
observe selected windows of it, and in doing so using imperfect
instrumentation that carries its own uncertainties and
limitations.
It's like your eyesight. You can only see so much at once, and your
perception of reality is directly affected by simple things like
the curvature of your eye structures and more complex things like
how the information travels from the optic nerve and is processed
and distributed in the visual cortex. What you are perceiving or
measuring is relative to your instrumentation or biology
thereof.
Tomcat1066|9.3.09 @ 1:45PM|#
"It's either because you really are a bunch of rightwing
morons who jerk off to Michelle Malkin or because the prospect of
global warming being real means--horror!"
I'm not right wing, but I'd let her jack me off. As long as she
didn't talk while doing it.
Go for a blow job instead. Then, she can't talk.
If she can, then you have bigger (or would smaller be a better
term?) problems.
|9.3.09 @ 2:15PM|#
I guess we had better start resuming detonating hydrogen
bombs at test sites.
But we need dusty test sites for maximal globey coolness.
Hmm. What region of the world is notably dry and dusty?
danny|9.3.09 @ 2:33PM|#
http://northwardho.blogspot.com/2009/09/crying-face-in-glacier-fake.html
http://northwardho.blogspot.com/2009/09/denial-by-photo-agency-that-crying.html
Some say it is a hoax photoshopped faked photo. see links above
coyote1284|9.3.09 @ 2:47PM|#
OK, we can ALL agree that the global climate is changing, right? We can ALL agree that we should all strive to be better custodians of our environment, right? Then why do we continue to insist that the climate we enjoy today is the "norm" and use evidence that the climate is changing as a scare tactic to shock others into being environmentally friendly? Whether or not it is influenced by human interaction, THE CLIMATE IS STILL CHANGING. We keep thinking of humanity as an influence outside of the natural system, WE'RE NOT. We came from the system, we are part of the system. We are animals uniquely able to adapt our local environment to our comfort as well as adapt to it. It's damn time we stop debating and prepare.
۞|9.3.09 @ 2:51PM|#
In other whacky Progessives neoreligious news:
MSNBC's Schultz: "I believe Jesus would vote yes for a public
option."
"Now, I have been referring to the health care reform deal as the
real moral issue of our time," Schultz said. "I believe Jesus would
vote yes for a public option, but some Bible thumpers don't see me
eye to eye on this one."
"Fixing health care in this country is a moral obligation," Schultz
said. "There isn't any way around it, at least that's how I see it
and I think the public option to make health care affordable and
accessible is a key, fulfilling moral obligation in this country.
But some religious leaders don't agree with me on that."
Schultz lamented that some religious leaders had been campaigning
against the Democratic-controlled Congress and White House's idea
for so-called health care reform. He cited a letter from church
leaders in Kansas that were concerned with the government's
involvement in medicine.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/09/03/msnbcs-schultz-i-believe-jesus-would-vote-yes-public-option
|9.3.09 @ 2:59PM|#
Every year this granola eating tree hugger goes down to check
out the damage of global warming. I am just going to assume they
don't make the trip paddling sea kiyaks to get there? So perhaps
someone should tell them if they stopped going they might actually
help the environment out, after all that is their basic rational
for all of us to not use fossil fuels.
I do love the face in the grilled cheese concept though, very
interesting how shapes can actually form what appears to be a known
image of someone or something.
Perhaps I will start to use the laser engraving machine I have to
start etching Jesus and the Virgin Mary into pieces of lightly
toasted bread. Would be really simple to pull off and the profit
margins per slice on Ebay look like Bernie Madoff kind of profits.
Perhaps a run of Obama on Rye would be a good seller since he has
that Messiah thing going for him.
|9.3.09 @ 3:01PM|#
God, Tony, you are such a dipstick. The argument is not whether
or not humans have some (small) effect on the climate, the argument
is whether or not rolling back progress a thousand years will do
anything to help. The "climate scientists" you bravely invoke
(yawn) can't even agree on sunspots, can't predict rain accurately,
and use the same kinds of tendentious computer modeling that your
likely hero, Paul Ehrlich, used to make his, er, incorrect
predictions -- like 50 million Americans dead in the 80s and 90s
from starvation.
Climate science, like any other science, is never a done deal.
There is always more to be learned. In this context, there is SO
much more to be learned that it is just plain stupid to take
drastic "corrective measures" when you don't know what to correct.
The facts are pretty clear, to any up-to-the-minute climate
scientist, that the Earth has gone through more, and more drastic,
climate change than it is going through now -- and recently, in
geological terms.
The battle is an important one, since the Tonys of the world seem
to want everyone milking their own cows and cobbling shoes for the
1.2 kids you will be allowed to have. The answer, throughout
history, has been more freedom for more action, more ideas, more
options, more arguing, more learning, more of all of it. It's not
as tidy as a Soviet Five-Year Plan, but liberty has other
advantages. For one thing, it works.
Oh, I almost forgot -- Republicans? Here? Maybe a couple.
Conservatives? God, call me one within earshot and I'll deck you,
bub. The GOP is just as worthless as, well, your party, Tony.
Unless you're really not a Dem but an Independent-for-Obama. Obama?
Oh, bummer!
Tony|9.3.09 @ 3:10PM|#
The facts are pretty clear, to any up-to-the-minute climate scientist, that the Earth has gone through more, and more drastic, climate change than it is going through now -- and recently, in geological terms.
And how often during geologic time would human civilization as we
know it been possible? Even if the changes were entirely natural
(they're not) or gradual as over geologic time (they're not) it
would still be worth figuring out ways to preserve the climate that
has sustained human civilization for the past few thousand
years--during which time civilization probably would not have even
started if not for a fortunately long period of climate
stability.
The answer, throughout history, has been more freedom for more action, more ideas, more options, more arguing, more learning, more of all of it.
Current science indicates that we don't have a lot of time to begin
reversing the damage before feedback loops start causing
uncontrollable warming. Science already knows what's happening,
why, and how to reverse it. We can start trying to solve the
problem, and nobody will be forced to stop having ideas in the
meantime.
The Typical Nature-Hating Libe|9.3.09 @ 3:24PM|#
One of my Hummers has a mud stain that looked like a laughing Patrick Michaels. You don't see me getting all sappy about it.
|9.3.09 @ 3:50PM|#
"Current science indicates that we don't have a lot of time to
begin reversing the damage before feedback loops start causing
uncontrollable warming."
Tony, you're still confusing models with science. Answer my
criticism of climate models or chalk up another loss in your
column.
T|9.3.09 @ 4:05PM|#
Science already knows what's happening, why, and how to
reverse it.
Science know if you've been naughty.
Science knows how to knit sweaters and darn socks.
Science knows how to divide by zero.
Science knows the universal solvent.
Science knows your mom... biblically.
Science isn't a person, and can't know anything. Much like
Tony.
Henry|9.3.09 @ 4:23PM|#
Tony,
didnt read everything...but the burden of proof def rests on
whoever is making the claim...which is not the global warming
disbelievers. they dont want to pass drastic legislation...you guys
do...so the burden of proof is on you i would think.
Tony|9.3.09 @ 4:33PM|#
DanD,
The (increasingly sophisticated) climate models are not the only
evidence that exists for global warming. It's not computer models
that tell us there is increase CO2 in the atmosphere or that the
planet has a higher average temperature than 100 years ago, it's
actual data.
As far as predicting the future, the models are far more detailed
than they were 5 or 10 years ago, and will get even better. The
predictions are not a mash of random possibilities but show a
definite trend with an increasingly complete account of (mostly
harmful) side effects. Are you really trying to posit that all
predictive computer modeling is completely bogus?
Tony|9.3.09 @ 4:36PM|#
Henry,
You're right. But they've proved it, you guys just don't accept the
proof.
Some here are making extraordinary claims about worldwide
conspiracies of scientists and socialist countries and such...
these are also positive claims, for which they have no evidence, of
course.
T|9.3.09 @ 5:16PM|#
You're right. But they've proved it, you guys just don't
accept the proof.
Tony, this is a physical science. Here's how "proof" works in the
physical sciences. You have a set of conditions under which your
idea about reality holds. You make quantifiable predictions about
what will happen under those conditions. You run the experiment
under those conditions. The data gathered, within the limits of
measurements, matches your predictions. Every. Single. Time. Not
once today and once last week and the intervening tries give wildly
divergent data. 100%, or you're still guessing. And before you tell
me that isn't possible, me and the rest of the bright boys in
science and engineering have built the entire modern world on that
basis.
That's proof, and climate scientist aren't there yet.
|9.3.09 @ 5:21PM|#
LO freakin L
"What region of the world is notably dry and dusty?
Nancy Pelosi's vagina."
|9.3.09 @ 5:48PM|#
Tony,
Yes, quite simply. When it comes to modeling a complex chaotic
system such as global climate, doing so is impossible because of
the large number of stochastic variables that have not and cannot
be quantified. You have to be able to quantify something in order
to model it mathematically.
Have you looked at the source code for climate models? Do you
understand how they work? Have you studied the output of the best
models and followed their accuracies? I have and do, and the
numbers they put in are assumptions that are not grounded in any
empirical foundation. People who understand models and aren't paid
bukudles by the gubmint to make climate models scoff at climate
models.
As for data, we don't have a reliable temperature record.
www.surfacestations.org is just the beginning of a long list our
problems. Are the thermometers we use today the same as we used 100
years ago? If they aren't, is there a calibration standard to
ensure that their measurements are consistent over time? Are the
data acquired by these thermometers presented "as is" and not sent
to the hands of people with a pro-AGW bias, such as the GISS headed
by Dr. James Hansen, the founder of the AGW madness? If not, do
they at least have some level of transparency as to what makes them
shift the temperature data upward at precisely the time periods
that suit their theories and pet causes?
The answer to every question in the above paragraph is
NO.
|9.3.09 @ 5:49PM|#
Despite the risk that you will, I'm going to go ahead and say "Don't get me started on CO2 as a driver of global temperature."
smartass sob|9.3.09 @ 5:51PM|#
@T,
Science know if you've been naughty.
Science knows how to knit sweaters and darn socks.
Science knows how to divide by zero.
Science knows the universal solvent.
Science knows your mom... biblically.
Not that I'm not on your side in this, but unless something has
changed in the last 40 years since I took Algebra, I don't think
it's possible to divide by zero. ;-)
Michael Ejercito|9.3.09 @ 6:44PM|#
But we need dusty test sites for maximal globey coolness.
Hmm. What region of the world is notably dry and dusty?
The Nellis test site in nevada and the area of New Mexico where the
first atomic bomb was detonated.
Current science indicates that we don't have a lot of time to begin reversing the damage before feedback loops start causing uncontrollable warming
Current science indicates exactly the opposite.
We have the technology to plunge global temperatures by
thirty-seven degrees . (TTAPS study)
The TTAPS astudy is the greatest scientific paper since Einstein's
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Why is the TTAPS study
is deliberately ignored?
Tony|9.3.09 @ 7:02PM|#
DanD,
Even if your skepticism were warranted by the available evidence,
because climate scientists don't know everything, or even if they
know very little, that is not necessarily a reason to do nothing.
It's really an awful lot like a creationist refusing to believe in
evolution because we don't know what caused the big bang (we only
have computer models for it after all).
Since you accuse what the majority of relevant scientists of being
part of a conspiracy or being so blinded by bias they collectively
manage to succeed in overcoming all the checks for bias science
has, let me just ask you to think about another possibility.
Isn't it possible that there are powerful people (more powerful
than scientists) whose interests (not just some vague political
bias) align with the anti-GW stance? Do you think they've been just
sitting on their hands in the interest of objectivity all these
years? Do you have confidence in the ubiquity of science in our
culture? Which side do you think has the most resources and motive
to deceive people?
Michael Ejercito|9.3.09 @ 8:53PM|#
Isn't it possible that there are powerful people (more powerful than scientists) whose interests (not just some vague political bias) align with the anti-GW stance?
Is it not possible that there are powerful people whose interests
align with the pro-GW stance.
I mean, the obvious solution to global warming was
revealed as early as 1983 and yet these "scientists"
ignore that just like Japanese militarist sympathizers ignore the
Rape of Nanking.
The Libertarian Guy|9.3.09 @ 10:19PM|#
"In my book if you're a global warming denier you're no better
than an intelligent designer moron."
I thought we were supposed to be like Holocaust deniers.
Fuck off, Tony. The world isn't going to die. WE are.
Mike Laursen|9.4.09 @ 12:14AM|#
Is it not possible that there are powerful people whose
interests align with the pro-GW stance.
Not just might be, there was an article about it on this here blog
a few days ago. "GE's Political Agenda":
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/135660.html
Which is to be expected. Players are gonna figure out ways to play
either side of the game.
danny|9.5.09 @ 1:49AM|#
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Michael Nolan, who snapped the photo on July 19, 2009, reportedly
said the image looked just like mother nature in tears, "as if she
was crying about our inability to reduce global warming".
But did he really use those words? WHO interviewed him? This photo
story has all the markings of a hoax. A UK hoax. A UK tabloidy
hoax. Is anyone looking into this? Just me? And if I am wrong? I
will say so and apologize to Mr Nolan and Starcraft. But if I am
right? I do not want to be right....
|9.5.09 @ 1:53AM|#
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Crying Face in Glacier: Fake Photoshopped Photo or Real Photo?
Comments welcome below: we believe Barcroft Media with
SpecialistStock is faking this
Who really took that photo and how did it get global exposure, no
pun intended？
NOTA BENE: a cooment on this blog, just in, says:
As a photoshop guru, I was able to find a 700 x 459 (pixels) photo
at 72 DPI on the web. There is quite a bit of bitmapping in areas
that shouldn't have it, and this can be caused by using the clone
or stamp tool without appropriate softness added. Unfortunately,
without the original, high-res photo, it is impossible to say for
certain. Using layer blending, this image can be easily created and
passed off as an original, especially at 72 dpi. Low resolution is
very forgiving when you make mistakes. So my expert opinion is that
it's been faked, with the caveat that barcroft should make the
hi-res available and just put a watermark on it to prevent
theft.
The image of WHAT APPEARS TO BE a crying face looming from an icy
cliff wall ON A GLACIER FACE was ALLEGEDLY taken IN the Svalbard
archipelago in Norway THIS PAST SUMMER BUT HAS EXISTED FOR SEVERAL
YEARS AS WELL BUT MAY VERY WELL BE A FAKED AND PHOTOSHOPPED PHOTO.
Inquiring minds want to know the truth. (Image Credit:
SpecialistStock / Barcroft Media)
Guest comment on UK newspaper comments says: FAKE......FAKE.....its
SOOOOOO obvious!! That is clearly a Photoshop!
Many blogs on the Internet are now attacking this faked
photo.
Many blogs are also saying how cool and wonderful this photo
is!
So which is it? A real true photo? Or a faked photo? When was it
taken? By whom? There are conflicting reports. One report says the
photo was shot this past summer. Another report says this face on
the glacier has existed for several years already. Hmmmm, faces on
glaciers that are moving do not stay the same. Somebody might be
fibbing here. For a good cause, sure. But where does truth
lie?
The photo agency tells this blog: "If you speak to the World
Glacier Monitoring Service, you will find that the crying face in
the ice-sheet is genuine and has actually existed for a number of
years." But sirs, if the face has existed for a number of years,
then the face would change and move, because glaciers move and
change, and drop their calves into the sea or their lakes, no? How
can the face be the same face for a number of years? OUCH! But
let's find out the truth. If you are correct, this blog will
disppear tomorrow. Or in a number of years...
Picture: Melting Glacier
Face Weeps
Updated: Thursday, 03 Sep 2009, 8:13 AM EDT
Published : Thursday, 03 Sep 2009, 7:44 AM EDT
NORWAY - This striking image of a sad face weeping was etched into
melting Artic ice on Norway's Austfonna ice-shelf.
It was captured by ''lecturer'' Michael Nolan. SURE? Dr Nolan
please answer this!
Michael, from Arizona, regularly visits the area. He said: "Every
summer there is less ice. I was struck by this image of a face - a
saddened, motherly face, crying about our inability to reduce
global warming."
The glacier has been vanishing at the rate of 160ft a year for 12
years.
On The Web:
Source: thesun.co.uk -- THE SUN IS A NOTORIOUSLY FAKE CRAP OF UK
JOURNALISM TABLOID STYLE
Michael S. Nolan
About Him
info@wildlifeimages.net
http://mikenolanwildlifeimages.blogspot.com/
http://www.wildlifeimages.net/contact.cfm
I specialize in intimate portraits of marine animals. I have
traveled the oceans of the world in search of what I believe are
the world's most magnificent beings. Since 1990 all of my
underwater images have been created while free-diving, without the
aid of bulky Scuba equipment. As a result, I believe my encounters
with these magnificent ocean creatures are much more personal and
intimate. I currently "migrate" with the whales, spending my
winters in the warmer tropical latitudes where whales mate and give
birth and my summers in the cooler higher latitudes where animals
migrate to feed. I insist on only photographing wild animals in
their natural habitat, believing that there is no place in wildlife
photography for captive or trained animals. All images on this
website are of wild animals in their natural environments. In 2004
I started to capture images with a Canon digital camera system.
Please be assured that I still insist on no digital alterations or
manipulations to substantially alter these images. The images you
see are the animals as they truly are, whether captured on film or
on a compact flash card, in all their wild glory.
============================
NOTA BENE: a cooment on this blog, just in, says:
As a photoshop guru, I was able to find a 700 x 459 (pixels) photo
at 72 DPI on the web. There is quite a bit of bitmapping in areas
that shouldn't have it, and this can be caused by using the clone
or stamp tool without appropriate softness added. Unfortunately,
without the original, high-res photo, it is impossible to say for
certain. Using layer blending, this image can be easily created and
passed off as an original, especially at 72 dpi. Low resolution is
very forgiving when you make mistakes. So my expert opinion is that
it's been faked, with the caveat that barcroft should make the
hi-res
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245