« Photos of 2010 Salem Hoopla | Main | Arizona immigration law drives this leftie leftward »

July 26, 2010


Brian likens himself to a scientist, but he’s a far better student of Saul Alinsky. As he does above right from the outset, over and over you’ll see Brian using this Alinsky rule throughout his blog:
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

Another of Brian’s favorite tactics is to set one standard for his readers and a lesser standard for himself. He does this above by ridiculing Marcia with, ”Marcia, you need to take a look at the globe.” And he says that AFTER he himself talks about Arctic sea ice only WITHOUT mentioning the growth of Southern Hemisphere sea ice and the overall state of global sea ice balance.

Brian, you need to take a look at the globe.

DJ, if you or Marcia have evidence that the Goddard Institute for Space Studies data/conclusions about global climate change are incorrect, you need to publish your research and enlighten the scientific community.

Until then, I feel entirely justified in ridiculing people who downplay science and elevate personal political views. The future of our planet is too important to future generations to put up with those sorts of petty games.

The evidence is hiding in plain sight. Click on the URL linked to my name and you'll see southern hemisphere sea ice growth over the past 30 years.

GLOBAL warming? Not.

DJ, you need to dig deeper into the science of global climate change. Note the word, "global." Check out:

The southern oceans have been warming more than the northern oceans. Sea ice growth isn't solely dependent on the temperature.

Climate is complex, which is why we need to trust the expert consensus of climatologists, 97% of so of whom support the conclusion that global warming is happening and humans are responsible for it.

Brian says you should trust the self-consenting “experts.” It’s all too complex, so leave the thinking to them.

That said, maybe we can tease some thought out of Brian anyway.

First of all, let’s quote the study Brian cited:
- “There are many uncertainties with both the model and the reanalysis data, and the results must be viewed with caution.”
- “The author (Zhang) is grateful for the support of NASA (Grant NNG04GB03G) and NSF (Grant OPP-0240916).”

Now set aside reason and assume Zhang is not influenced by making a living on grant money. Further assume his model and the data are indeed correct. In short, the model shows that increasing ocean surface temperature ultimately leads to a net increase in sea ice.

Question for Brian…Why did Zhang stop there and not comment on the logical effect of ice growth on AGW? Since arctic AGW models heavily factor the ice-albedo feedback by which melting begets lower albedo, which begets increased radiation absorption, which begets even lower albedo and increased AGW – then the flipside must also be true: Antarctic ice growth begets higher albedo, which begets decreased radiation absorption, which begets even higher albedo and decreased AGW.

Why is the AGW crowd so loud about the effect of ice MELT on AGW – but silent about the effect of ice GROWTH on AGW?

The AGW crowd can’t have it both ways, Brian. Start thinking, stop blindly following.

DJ, I'm not quite sure what global warming denying argument you're using in the comment above. Fortunately, the Skeptical Science web site has cataloged the groundless arguments anti-science types come up with in this area.


So when you leave a comment, why don't you reference the number of the unfounded global warming denying argument you're using? See:

I'm not sure, but # 10 ("Antarctica is gaining ice") and #79 ("The science isn't settled") seem germane here. Here's the truth about these unfactual claims:


Brian, it's funny that you think I'm citing an anti-AGW argument. It speaks to how little you really know about the subject and makes it apparent that you like to "post a link" that you haven't critically read let alone understand.

The albedo-effect is basic common knowledge in the science of heat transfer. It's the reason you don't wear a black t-shirt in the sun on a hot summer day. It's a common element in climate models (especially where snow and ice are growing or retreating) and is not disputed by scientists on either side of the AGW argument. That's why it's so glaringly obvious (for someone who reads studies and doesn't just link them) that the study you cited conveniently stops before the albedo effect kicks in and undermines its pre-determined conclusion.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight

  • Salem Political Snark
    My local political rants are now made on this badass blog. Check it out. Dirty politics, outrageous actions, sleaze, backroom deals — we’re on it. 

  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.

  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.