‘Nuff said.
— PAG
Hottest July on Record!
—
by
in Business and Economy, Crime, Corrections, Law Enforcement, Demographics, Disasters and Disaster Preparedness, Energy, Environment, Federal issues, Government Finance, Land use & Development, Media, Money in politics, Planning, Public safety & health, Regulations, Gov’t Oversight, Science & Technology, Taxes, Water-waste water
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
-
Hottest July — where? Virginia? The U.S.? The globe?
-
Hottest in Va and hottest in USA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/science/earth/july-was-hottest-month-ever-recorded-in-us.html
-
By itself, that data is meaningless, more arguing by anecdote. It’s unseasonably cold in the southern hemisphere this year. What’s the average global temperature? If *that* hits a record, then it may mean something…. I say that it “may” mean something because there is a vigorous ongoing debate about the NOAA methodology for adjusting for heat island effects in the U.S. data which may or may not have the effect of exaggerrating the reported temperature increases.
-
-
http://news.yahoo.com/july-hottest-month-ever-continental-u-noaa-154039073.html
It is time to stop listening to the climate change deniers. The evidence passed them by long ago. It is now time to start doing something about cutting C02 emissions. Let the deniers stew in their juices like doddering old men arguing that the world is really flat. They are irrelevant but can be dangerous.
-
with respect – I’ve always been curious how lay people can look over scientists shoulders and tell them when their conclusions are wrong or worse, lies.
We don’t look over their shoulders when they tell us what causes cancer or how to deal with ebola or the harm of dioxin … so why is this particular area subject to citizen lay person “review”?
-
Larry, the science isn’t subject to citizen peer review. It’s subject to scientist peer review. Scientists are the ones raising objections to GW orthodoxy.
I dare say that you, Peter and most others who follow the GW debate are not intimately familiar with the science yourselves. You are familiar with how the science is packaged and peddled to the public. I don’t trust the people who do the packaging and peddling.
-
-
Bacon,
Now that’s quite a statement. “We” are too dumb to “get it.” Most reputable scientists in the world say we have a very serious problem, but you and the conservative naysayers still say we do not understand the science, only how it is packaged. What are your qualifications, exactly? I thought you were a history major. Like me, you have no authentic scientific background, unless you haven’t told us something. -
science is packaged and peddled to the public
yup, I’m very familiar with this but it still strikes me as a double standard with regard to other science that we don’t hear is “peddled” to the public.
When NOAA shows you a hurricane track – do you think they are “peddling” incorrect science because the actual hurricane does not perform as “peddled”?
When “science” tells us it has concerns about BPA – do we attack the scientists and claim they must have stock in companies that make non-BPA containers?
when science tells us that young girls and HPV or swine flu – do we say there is a conspiracy to fabricate data?
I do not buy any/all science, never have but when a large number of the are saying something, it’s at that point that I do not understand why tips people against them when in the past, most people would be more convinced, not less.
-
The murder of Hard Science comes from Group Think, particularly the sort the attempts to silence the opposing skeptics by intimidation and professional discrimination.
Hard science without skeptics is neither hard nor science. It’s pure theory. And if the theory protests too much it’s fanatical religion.
PS – how come the second hottest July (only 2/10 of degree cooler) was 75 years ago.
-
If you want to see the infallibility of hard science in Virginia, one need only review the state’s romance with Eugenics.
As with most really terrible ideas, Virginia was front and center with the Eugenics movement. Also, in form, Virginia was among the very last to give up the practice. The last sterilization performed under Virginia’s Eugenics law was performed in 1979. Yes, 1979.
Top scientists from around the world and particularly from around Virginia were convinced of the truth of Eugenics. The head of UVA’s Medical School was a leading proponent.
However, as always, Virginia managed to take one bad idea and combine it with another. Not only was Virginia Ground Zero for the Eugenics movement, it also combined anti-race mixing laws with the immoral Eugenics practices. Inter-racial marriages were banned in the same set of laws that implemented Eugenics-driven sterilizations.
Of course, the race mixing laws had an exception. Anybody with 1/16th or less Native American blood could marry without violating the race mixing law. It was the only exception. Why was this exception made? So that the racist, useless, worth less “First Families of Virginia” could cling to the hallucination that they were descended from Pocahontas.
Two things to remember:
1. Scientists have been known to be very, very wrong with some of their theories.
2. Given the chance to take make a catastrophe out of a bad idea – Virginia will lead the way in creating the catastrophe.
-
this is like looking at twenty different prospective tracks for a hurricane and ultimately 5 are very close 10 are not bad and 5 are outliers and then accusing the scientists of not only being wrong but being nefarious in their different models and condemning them all because not a single model was dead on.
the deniers keep looking at the 5 outiers and claiming that the outliers “prove” that the rest of science is wrong.
it boils down to what you what to believe I guess but when most of the scientists in the world are in consensus – and the deniers shift the argument to a global conspiracy – you know that logic has gone off the rails.
It’s entirely true that a majority of the world’s scientists could be eventually determined to have been wrong but since when in all the rest of science, prior to now, has society adopted such a stance?
what has changed?
the science said that cigarettes caused cancer and despite some naysayers, they were ultimately proven to be correct.
science said that refrigerants were causing ozone holes and they were heeded and it appears they were not only correct but their solution is working.
Now we have scientists warning of a potential calamity and rather than take them serious and hedge our bets..a little, .”just in case”.. we just flat out deny…and attack them as not only wrong but evil.
now how dumb is that?
-
I have stopped arguing about this.
I just ask oine question: “How many times would this need to happen before you change your mind?”
Usually, they do not have an answer, which I interet to men that my mind is made up, regardless of the facts.
As soon as some climate naysayer says, “Five years” or “Twenty Years” then we will have made some progress. The next question is “What should we (can we) do about it in the next 20 years?”
-
Scientists have been known to be very, very wrong with some of their theories.
=======================================
So has the Church. the government, and dogmatists of all stripes.
Despite their errors there is an Objective Truth, and it will still happen.
-
for me it’s a fairly simple calculation. What if science is largely correct like with the generality of most of their hurricane model tracks?
not dead on… not even precisely correct but more correct than not?
the idea that the are dead wrong, not even close and engaged in a conspiracy, even among NOAA and NASA scientists to defraud the public is so far out there that it would be comical except a good number of people do believe this.
and as far as I remember, we never really had an issue like this before where a large number of people openly doubted the majority of scientists.
They might well be wrong but it’s dumb to doubt them when you have that many around the world pretty much agreeing and just a few credible ones that disagree.
I think this is involved with the internet era that has given voice to many who reject any and all institutions that used to be accepted as credible.
-
And human record-keeping of weather began when? Why do we have both NOAA and NASA working on climate? How about one agency?
Can’t wait for sequestration! -
re: NOAA and NASA – different but overlapping missions but mentioning both of them is to point out that there are countries around the world – each with it’s own academic and govt institutions that deal with climate – and that most of them are in relative agreement about climate change and why but disagreements on scope, scale, future trends and what can be done (or not).
seems to be …. that……in order to really buy into the “skeptic” argument, one has to buy into the idea that both NOAA and NASA as well as most academic and other scientific institutions -around the world – are engaging in some kind of subterfuge to defraud people – around the world.
It’s too big a step for me but I’m amazed that it’s not for many others. But even if they are wrong on some things but generally correct, we are in for one hell of hard time and maybe we can’t do much about it but it appears that we WERE able to do something about ozone holes so I have some measure of hope that IF we did ACT SOON.. we may have some chance.
but there is no hope of that now.
too many sci-fi- movies and books and too much internet and too much toxic politics I guess.
-
People become skeptics when you have a guy like Gore pushing the agenda like a Pentecostal preacher at a revival, and then kicks back in his brand new megamansion sitting on the beach he said is going to sink.
They become skeptics when the scientists join hands with the same UN totalitarians who then demand $billions for climate change while conveniently ignoring the millions killed by famine, poverty and outright genocide by their fellow oligarchs.
Most of all they become skeptics when they see EU fingerprints all over this issue, knowing these same people can’t run their countries, an Olympic event, or even a bicycle race, without randomly imposing the heavy thumb of government on the slightest violation of a rule.
-
Thanks for making these points, Darrell. Like the Guppy in his Bowl, we often cannot see what is right in front of our face.
-
-
wow Darrell…. remember.. we’re talking about NOAA and NASA also. This almost sounds like some some of disease that is infesting all of Europe and has spread to NOAA/NASA and other scientific institutions in the US.
At this point – like Hydra had asked – what would it actually take to convince people?
It appears to me that there is no institution on Earth that would convince the skeptics.
I just LOVE the way that non-scientists are playing with data these days like knowing how to add and subject and graphing the result is “science” and analysis or questioning how not one or two, but hundreds, thousands of sampling stations are all wrongly sited, wrongly calibrated or falsely reported.
I fully expect to hear soon that scientists are manipulating the hurricane models to affect the stock market or some such.
-
people can’t run their countries, an Olympic event, or even a bicycle race, without randomly imposing the heavy thumb of government on the slightest violation of a rule
===============================================
Kind of like the way Fauquier County government works so hard to promote agriculture.
-
I’d like scientists to disclose their funding, both existing and requested. I would like to hear an explanation of the many cycles of hot and cold that the earth has experienced, such that ordinary cycles cannot be the cause of climate change. I’d like to know the implications of earth versus air measurement of temperatures. I’d like to know why many scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s, but now predict warming and how this switch in position does not affect their credibility. I’d like to hear how science can reconcile the concept of urban heat islands with advocacy for more urbanism (sprawl contributes to urban warming).
And I still want to know why we have two federal agencies (NASA and NOAA) working on climate matters instead of one.
-
Early morning today here on the river in Talbot County was quite marvelous. Usually the rising sun dominates the scene. Today it did the same, but in a remarkably odd and wonderful way.
The orange orb never appeared. Rather it got lost behind heavy clouds that cast an eerie light that lit the river silver. Mists then rose off the river water, whitening into rising curtains all strangely silver too. Dark trees massed on the far side of the river framed the transparent scene, lending contrast further accented by black clouds rolling overhead. The transparent shades of light and dark were totally silent, yet glowing, transforming with energy.
It was like watching a particularly wonderful negative emerge from black film you’d submerged under the solution in your darkroom pan. It was all quite magically, until my wife hollered “Come here?”
I found her in the back room.
She stood before a Weather Service Emergency Bulletin that had interrupted her Morning Show. The Federal Government’s voice wasn’t pre-recorded. It was live and urgently so. Suddenly listening I stood amid Armageddon, complete with all the lighting bolts, and jagged strikes, and high winds, and Tornadoes ripping my world apart. The disembodied voice went on and on, urgently, WARNING, WARNING.
Finally, I looked up. The sky had cleared. The storm had moved on silently.
But the Federal Government’s Voice kept up its grating intrusive voice in my wife’s back room: WARNING, WARNING. So I went out for a bike ride.
-
I am happy to report my subsequent research has revealed that nothing weather wise happened in Talbot County this morning shortly after dawn beyond the report filed above by this reporter.
The National Weather has asked however that I note however an electrical outage at Easton’s Acme Market at 6.o7 a.m., due to a blown fuse.
With regard to the urgent and rather hysterical interruption of TV service in the Talbot Area at around 6:30 this morning: Apparently National Weather Service Personnel were rattled and agitated by a wind storm that passed through Oxford Maryland some 12 hours earlier, causing minor tree damage and quickly restored power outages. Apparently too, these Personal remained rattled and agitated throughout the night and earlier morning hours, but have now recovered and have returned to their day job of monitoring several approaching threats due to Global Warming. We’re assured by the Service, however, that all is well in hand. All involved Weather Personnel are acting under the direction of the Academy of Concerned Scientists, experts deeply concerned about such threats.
-
-
re: “I’d like to know”
all good and legitimate questions – that could be asked anytime including years ago.
why now?
-
Larry, I was reacting to your comment “It appears to me that there is no institution on Earth that would convince the skeptics.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.