Al Gore blames record U.S. cold on climate change — then meteorologist drops truth bomb on him

[M]

Source; http://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/01/07/al-gore-blames-record-u-s-c...

Al Gore took to his Twitter account last week to blame the recent record cold-snap on climate change. But he was sharply rebuked with facts by a famed meteorologist.

What did Gore say?

Gore tweeted the link to an article stating that bitter cold is exactly what should be expected from man-made climate change.

Steve Milloy

✔@JunkScience

Al Gore: Freezing is the new warming.

But what can you expect from someone who relies on Fake Nobelist Michael Mann?

8:14 AM - Jan 5, 2018

• •  6666 Replies

 

• •  140140 Retweets

 

•  251251 likes

The article was written by Dr. Michael Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University. Mann argues that heavy lake effect snows this year near the Great Lakes are a sign of global warming because the warming temperatures cause the lakes to stay warmer longer therefore producing more snow. He also argued that despite the recent cold snap, the U.S. has seen many more days of very above normal temperatures than very below normal temperatures over the past several years.

He also argued that despite the central and eastern U.S. being locked into an arctic cold pattern for more than a week, the western U.S. and much of the rest of the world has been warm. Mann also blamed last week’s major east coast snowstorm on warmer-than-normal ocean water.

These allegations, however, are more narrative and opinion rather than fact, according to meteorologist Joe Bastardi.

What did Bastardi say?

Bastardi challenged whether the recent cold has anything to do with climate change, saying cold in the 1980’s was colder than this year’s recent cold snap and it was never connected to climate change or global warming. Bastardi also questioned whether or not the upcoming thaw is connected to climate change.

Joe Bastardi

✔@BigJoeBastardi

So let me get this straight, This cold is from climate change, Previous cold shots werent, Previous cold shots like 83-84 this period colder. So what these guys want us to believe is the cold is from climate change, but climate change made it come up short of previous cold shots https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/949267935683596288 …

8:34 AM - Jan 5, 2018

Joe Bastardi

✔@BigJoeBastardi

Heh @algore Big thaw coming like numerous years with as cold or colder starts, is that climate change? Is a Jan thaw,which happens enough to be in US weather lore,also a crisis, Why were previous shots colder? So climate change causes cold but prevents it from being as cold?

8:38 AM - Jan 5, 2018

Joe Bastardi

✔@BigJoeBastardi

Only thing I can do is try to reach people that want to know the WHY BEFORE THE WHAT ,Said hurricane season would see end of major hit drought in spring along with big wildfire season, Had roaring start to winter from October, None of that had anything to do
with climate change

8:43 AM - Jan 5, 2018

Sometimes if you want to see forward, you have to look back. No one is anti science, anti model, anti "climate" But one must question authority of models and causes of variances if one truly wishes to pursue the answer

8:44 AM - Jan 5, 2018

After four tweets, Bastardi concluded by chiding Gore and other climate change alarmists about pursuing narrative over truth.

[M]

Thomas,

Einstein, Dirac, and Hawking have some pretty conclusive arguments in favor of Relativity, so I wouldn't discount it. Many Many holes in Evolution Theory though.

[T Amnesia]

Coffee:

We are discussing science, are we not?  Because in the scientific field, which you are obviously unfamiliar with, a Theory is the complete opposite of unproven. A scientific theory is one or more hypotheses that have been proven.  Merriam-Webster defines the process thus: A hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory in the scientific method, and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. 

The University of California, Berkley, defines a Theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Newton's Theory of Gravity is a proven theory.  Likewise is the Theory of Evolution.  They have been proven.  And Einstein's hypothesis of relativity is now the proven Theory of Relativity.

The way you use the term is more akin to Joe the Plumber when he says, " I gotta theory about all these illegal aliens you hear about and their flying saucers..."

Any day now........

[marrand]

Thomas Coffey,
We have had many disagreements about role and meaning of science, as practiced today, long time ago, or very long time ago. I won’t go into that again.

You are right on this point: “Climate Change has morphed into a religion…”. You and I have to accept their conclusions on faith or else!! Or else be called denier, a term designed to be dehumanising, insulting, and offensive.  It’s the kind of word bullies love.

Imagine a true and honest scientist of today, who is trained, knowledgable, brilliant and honest. Let’s say he discovered after years of research that the globe is warming and that human activity is the cause of it, and that you and he must do something about it. He is asking for your agreement. You consider his case, but say no, you don’t agree. This particular sceintist, believing in the importance of his finding and caring about survival of humanity, would try to persuade you. That is the mark of a true, honest scientist.

But would he try to insult you? Because you don’t agree? Call you a denier? Just on common sense alone that approach would be self defeating, since then you will never agree. The fact that the Climate Change alarmists do that, that they try bully anyone who disagrees with them, is a pretty good proof that they:
1. Don’t understand the science of their argument
2. Don’t give a darn about the fate of humanity.
3. Want to impose their will on you reagardless of any reality.

And how can you tell you are facing such a bully? Well, a common technique is to lecture you about the meaning of the word “theory”, claiming that you are unfamiliar with sceince (when in fact, it is they who are ignorant). In a sense, to belittle you in front of others. Yet they are completely oblivious to the fact that Evoilution and Relativity are theories in the process of being proven, and not the laws of nature to be followed automatically. Then they really insult these two by claiiming that human cause of global warming is also a proven theory. Heck it isn’t even a theory, only a statistical correlation.

Bullies often are hypocrites. Claiming that Evolution is a proven theory and attempting to apply it to humans, they blithely go along and reject one of its core tenets: survival of the fittest. If this tenet is really true, then why are they advocating welfare? Why give anything free to those who didn’t survive? If you are moral and believe what God taught you, you will help them anyway. But not because an activist says you must.

On this point we do agree Thomas: Relativity is a theory yet to be proven. All the evidence gathered so far confirms it, but to true sceintists, what we have today just ain’t enough.

[Virginia Foulk]

I do remember 1940's and 50s back in Madison, WI.. I loved walking around barefoot, even in winter, taking the garbage out, walking to the swimming area in Tenney Park. And, going without coats on Halloween. We were out until almost midnight, back then. Still do walk around barefoot  sometimes, but now I have warm socks on.- no shoes. So, personal experience, I agree with those who say human interference does not create climate change. Of course, if we keep on sending out satellites, and rockets , and the counter thrusts of these explosions change our position in the cosmos, then that could be considered human interference.  LOL

(Anyway, thanks for all the information being shared by all; seems I'm not as ignorant as I was before.) 

[M]

Virginia,

Thank You for your comments. It was my purpose with this admittedly Conservative Forum, to have it open to diverse ideas where a real discussion of differing ideas could be discussed. That is also the reason for the extensive printed rules of the site, so everyone is on the same page. I don't expect anyone to totally agree with anyone else, but I do expect the discussions to be able to allow everyone to see the reasoning behind their beliefs.

You,T, Kevin and everyone else seems to be doing just that very well. 

Please everyone, join in on the debates and share your views and the reasons behind them understanding there will be people who have divergent views but still can interact with each other on a pleasantly civil level. Over the years, I have seen that as the rule on this site.

[marrand]

This thread reminds of a very well tested verity: how often well verified and certified experts go wrong, even in their own field.

The case Paul Krugman comes to mind. A distinguished professor of Economics with many publications and awards, and finally a Nobel Prize in economics. Impressive. He could be equivalent of Michael Mann in earth sciences. Should we listen to him when he pontificates on politics? Well, we really shouldn’t because that is not his field. On economics? Maybe.

Let’s see. After Trump got elected, Paul predicted that the stock market will crash. Hey, that’s economics, isn’t it? Did you rush and sell your stocks? Why not? Why didn’t you listen to the true expert in his own field? Well, people are generally not that well versed in economics but they know when a good thing is coming. And now the 401k and portfolio accounts, as well as union pensions, are fatter because they ignored this “expert”.

So, why shouldn’t we ignore another expert, like Michael Mann? Especially when his conclusions do not make sense?

[M]

Sometimes the 'experts' are right, sometimes they are wrong. Time will tell whether their opinions on things are actually right or wrong.

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

Marrand, appreciate your previous commentary.

For me, the enduring worth of any scientific discovery is plain and simple, namely; what did it do and what does it continue to do, to better the condition of Mankind!

As such, the Greeks of antiquity are unsurpassed; listing and describing but a handful:

* Thales postulated the concept of our Universe governed by the Natural Law; the foundation of culture/society.

* Hippocrates created the science of Medicine, developing the concept of diagnosis leading to treatment.

* Eudoxus developed formulas to measure the volume of curvilinear objects such as flasks and urns.

* Theophrastus created Botany allowing the development of agriculture.

* Euclid visualized continuous points in space creating a line and allowing the development of two and three dimensional shape; w/o which structure and therefore urban development is not possible.

So how do the Theories of Evolution and Relativity measure up applying my benchmark?????

Climate change is the current cudgel of the left and for what purpose??? To better Mankind??? Why don't be silly!

It's to replace the established order on a 4.500,000,000 (that's billion) years old planet for the purpose of control.

Think I'm joking? If principled conservatives ever want to turn things around, it's way past high time they aroused themselves and got real about the objective of the hard left.

And expecting Trump to be the savior is comical.

[marrand]

Thomas Coffey:

You and I have had our arguments about judging the worth of scientific discoveries. We disagreed in broad concept. But for now I want to bring up a two specific items

1. You claim to judge scientific achievement on what is does to improve the conditions of mankind. Ok, let's look at Theory of Evolution. The concept of evolving changes in small steps, indroduced by Darwin by direct and careful observations of plant and animal life has been applied to explain conditons and changes of present animal and plant life. This helps us understand why certain animals behave in a certain way today, but haven't in the past, which in turn helps us understand their needs for survival and improve our attempt to help them survive. I find such knowledge as benefitng mankind. On the other hand, it was the liberal/progressives who repeatedly maintained that man, in one way or another, evolved from monkeys; that is not part of Theory of Evolution. That's propoganda. And to distort and cheapen this theory even further, the lefties pusposely ignore one of its basic tenets: survival of the fittest. (Remember who vehemently Obama denounced darwinian society?) So please Thomas, don't ever judge a theory, any theory or scientific achievement by the words from the lefties.

2. Climate change? By that you mean man's guilt in causing warming and all other disasters? Oh Thomas, if you delved deeper into their work you would readily conclude that this isn't even a theory; it is pure statistical  correlation of measured data. And what's worse, these globalists pay no attention on how the instruments measure, how they are constructed, how they themselves cause many errors, and totally ignore, in their quest to evaluate long term trends (in decades), the progress of in instrumentation itself. They learn, and then display their virtuosity with equations of statistics, to somehow impress the reader that they know what they are talking about. Their math is impresseive; their understanding of science almost nil.

In a way Trump is a savior. He saved us from Hillary. Aren't you thankful for that????

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

Hmm.......

A few points; then we can give it a rest.

* Since we assess the worth of Art (Music, Portraiture, Architecture, Literature and the rest) in terms of their psychic/spiritual benefit to Mankind; in my judgement, measuring the material benefit of Science on Mankind is an absolutely appropriate benchmark and I am uninterested in well meaning intentions.  As such, we have a difference of opinion as to the worth of the Theories of Evolution and Relativity.

So be it.

* Herbert Spencer not Charles Darwin was the coiner of "survival of the fittest."

* Voted for Trump and wish him well but have no illusions about him, given his daily tweet behavior. Suggest his biggest enemies are not the D's; they are the R establishment. Watch. 

Stay well.

[marrand]

Thanks for the corection.

I looked the wording up. Darwin called it natural selection, and later Spencer coined survival of the fittest, both phrases describing the same phenomenon. Just that in common usage, the tendency is to assign that wording to Darwin.

Still, the idea is the same.