This is all your fault, you know
This is all your fault for refusing to give your money and freedom to government #ClimateCrisisScam https://t.co/jvdi0po65m
— William Teach2 ??????? #refuseresist (@WTeach2) September 15, 2022
Behind the paywall link, which I’m reading using Pocket
It was the first morning of summer, the start of fog season. But the sky above the Golden Gate Bridge remained clear and blue.
Chris Dzierman, a bridge painter and foreman, looked to the west. Near the horizon, where water usually meets sky, a thick fog bank lurked. He wondered if and when it would roll in, as fog usually does on summer afternoons, smothering the bridge and beyond in wind and whiteness.
“It could last three minutes or three hours,” Mr. Dzierman said. “It’s fog. It’s got a mind of its own.”
Every summer, fog breathes life into the Bay Area. But people who pay attention to its finer points, from scientists to sailors, city residents to real estate agents, gardeners to bridge painters, debate whether there is less fog than there used to be, as both science and general sentiment suggest.
“Suggest” is not science.
The ecological, economic and social effects of fog are profound, perhaps no more than in Northern California. Changes would be life-altering. But understanding fog is one of science’s toughest tricks. Quantifying the changes and determining possible causes, including global warming, is climatology’s version of chasing ghosts.
So, they really do not know? They’re going to prognosticate doom on chasing ghosts. Skipping way deep
Otto Klemm, a professor of climatology at the University of Münster in Germany, is more certain. He has studied data from airports all over the world.
“Fog has decreased, more or less everywhere,” he said, attributing the link both to climate change and to lower levels of air pollution, as water droplets have fewer particulates to cling to. “Of about 1,000 stations, 600 or 700 show a statistically significant decrease. All over Europe, all over North America, South America — everywhere.”
So, cleaner air is reducing fog? Huh. You need to pay penance for this.
Teach: “Suggest” is not science.
We’re not convinced that Mx Teach understands what science is or isn’t.
That is exactly wrong. Scientists are very conservative, and the language of science reflects that. For example, ‘available evidence suggests that cigarette smoking causes cancer’. Great populist scientist Rush Limbaugh famously said that there was ‘no proof’ that smoking caused cancer since not every smoker got cancer, and many non-smokers got cancer. Ironically, Limbaugh died from lung cancer.
Smoking correlates with cancers of the bladder, blood (acute myeloid leukemia), cervix, colon and rectum, esophagus, kidney and renal pelvis, liver, lungs, bronchi, and trachea, mouth and throat, pancreas, stomach, larynx. But correlation is not proof, is it?
Going down the rabbit hole regarding pancreatic cancer…
Additional evidence shows the presence of carcinogens in the blood stream after smoking. In vitro, these chemicals can induce transformation of cells including various cell types in the pancreas. ‘Computer models’ predict from chemical structures what chemicals are ‘likely’ to cause mutations. That not all smokers develop pancreatic cancer ‘suggests’ there are other factors involved, ‘possibly’ genetic predisposition, pancreatic inflammation and fibrosis triggered by other non-tobacco toxins (diet?, air or water pollution?), random mutations, breathing radon gas etc. ‘Perhaps’ it takes 3 or more of these factors to trigger pancreatic cancer. That not all cases of pancreatic inflammation lead to cancer ‘suggests’ there may be other factors.
See how weaselly the scientists are here? They say ‘certain’ risk factors have been ‘identified’ but no mention of proof!!
It’s all about probability, not proof. The statement, “The probability that you will be killed by a rabbit is not zero” is true.
Fog over the river at the farm this morning, which is the norm in the mornings here.
An Indian summer is forecast for the Bluegrass State in the coming days, though such is, I suppose, known as a Native American summer or indigenous American summer in the St Louis area.
Our concept of Indian Summers differ. Here in St Louis we don’t call a brief warm spell an Indian Summer until after the first frost. It is forecast to be in the 94-96F here next week, up from mid 80s. We just call that more summer. Average first frost here is mid October, but sometimes earlier, sometimes later.
Our esteemed host wrote:
I’m shocked, shocked! that you aren’t a New York Times subscriber!
[…] Pirates Cove: DUDE, Save the Fog! […]
Dearest Elwood:
“For example, ‘available evidence suggests…”
Suggest is a verb, a word that denotes actions. It is not proof.
“See how weaselly the scientists are here? They say ‘certain’ risk factors have been ‘identified’ but no mention of proof!!”
A man much smarter than us wrote, “An Engineer is not a Scientist. He doesn’t think like a Scientist. He doesn’t have the same value-system in his judgments. But he’s even more anti-mystic than the Scientist!- John W Campbell, Jr – Analog Science Fiction Science Fact, December 1966
Which explains why many scientists buy into the man-made warming hoax and many engineers reject it. Scientists want to know why and believe. Engineers want to build.”
“Smoking correlates….”
The cock crowing and the sun rising correlates…. Correlation is not causation.
“It’s all about probability, not proof. The statement, “The probability that you will be killed by a rabbit is not zero” is true.” Stupid is as stupid writes.
We live our lives on probabilities. I don’t smoke because it is a high probability that smoking causes cancer and the act of not smoking yields a very high positive return.
I don’t believe in the lies you warming chicken little folks are always whining about because to do so would lead to actions that will destroy our economy. A very high negative return.
No charge for the education.
James,
What you call education we call incoherent ramblings. Stupid is as stupid types. But we get what we pay for your advice.
Do you have any proof that global warming actions will “destroy the economy”?
You are correct that engineers are not scientists any more than physicians are scientists.
I didn’t say that correlation equals proof or causation did I, dummy. I just listed a number of cancers that are more prevalent in smokers. Maybe smokers drink more than non-smokers. Maybe smokers are genetically predisposed to craving nicotine. My point was that it is probable that smoking causes cancer, but what would be the proof? My apologies if that was over your head.
We’ve notice that wingers scream the same things over and again. “Correlation is not proof of causation!” you bellow. No shit, Sherlock. No one is making that case. Yet, even a slight dip in warming during La Nina spawns a chorus of deniers shrieking that that proves there is no correlation between CO2 and warming.
Yet, with no proof that smoking causes cancer you chose not to smoke, because the risk of cancer was higher than for not smoking and because, other than the pleasure smokers derive from their habit, there is no benefit.
Do you have any proof that global warming actions will “destroy the economy”? We hear Deniers screech that all the time as if it’s a fact. Even a shred of evidence?
On the other hand, if the climate scientists are correct (95% probability that they are) what is the downside of doing nothing? What if the Earth has warmed 3C (5.5F) by 2100?
You science deniers are trapped in a maze of your own construction. At first, there was no warming, then there is warming but not from CO2, now communists want to destroy the world economy.
Do you have any proof that global warming actions will “destroy the economy”?
Yes, the Earth is warming as the CO2 is increasing. The increase is CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels. There are physical reasons to attribute warming to the CO2 (you know all these, so no need to repeat).
And here I thought “global warming” was supposed to put more water vapor in the air, potentially causing more fog….
So you don’t understand that warmer air holds more water vapor? Wow, just wow.
Is water vapor the ONLY ingredient needed for fog?
Based on that, maybe even the higher water vapor in the warmer marine layer doesn’t condense if the CA coast is just a bit too warm.
Look at Jeff, acting like he knows something. Jl, Jeff has more time to comment because he destroyed his cooperation by allowing a key study to be published that had errant stats. That moved his listed cooperation into the penny stock category.
Jl,
Warm air holds mor water than cold. So your statement is true. Production of fog will still occur at dew point and Jeff is just acting the fool.
Jeff,
You are not a scientist, not by a long shot.
Yes, we proved smoking causes cancer. After identifying the carcinogens, animal lab testing, and withdrawal with improvement. But look, smoking is still legal. Smokers have just been moved to areas away from non-smokers.
Now, compare that to the climate hoax. You have a very, very loose correlation, math models that don’t work and your answer for the issue is elimination of fossil fuels with the inherent destruction of our wealth and way of life and we are reassured that these actions will not have influence.
Compare this to cholesterol. Correlation was obtained, but no causation. In fact, it has been found that the original studies were lies. Drugs were formulated that have little to no influence, but make money for the drug companies. The best that these drugs can do is in a small subset and only reduce the possibility of a CV event by 1 in 33.
Sounds familiar? The cholesterol hoax ranks up there with the climate hoax.
Why do you lie about it. Is it because you desire world communism or just the destruction of the US as per our corrupt, demented, pretender president.
Porter,
You are rapidly deteriorating. Seek help.
Porter typed: Yes, we proved smoking causes cancer.
“We”??? LOL. What did you do in the war on cancer, daddy?
BTW, CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels is causing the Earth to warm.
Jeff,
As usual your rants have little to do with reality.
BTW, there’s still no evidence that it’s the CO2 doing the warming. Cult members are funny-they think that if they keep repeating unsupported assertions they’ll magically be true..
Just because you Deny science doesn’t mean truth doesn’t exist.
If CO2 molecules absorb infrared but not visible electromagnetic wavelengths, isn’t that a piece of evidence?
If the stratosphere is cooling as the troposphere warms isn’t that evidence.
Isn’t the 40% increase in CO2 evidence?
We educated Porter diva yesterday by showing him some elementary school experiments that demonstrate that CO2 heats air. Isn’t that evidence?
The 420 ppm CO2 now is the highest amount in 1 million years. That seems like evidence.
Dear Elwood:
“Do you have any proof that global warming actions will “destroy the economy”?
You might just see what the gas price run up has done already. Or you may want to wait until we have a winter with unaffordable utility bills.
“I didn’t say that correlation equals proof or causation..” No dumb ass, you just describe it over and over and over.
“On the other hand, if the climate scientists are correct (95% probability that they are) what is the downside of doing nothing? What if the Earth has warmed 3C (5.5F) by 2100?”
Uh, since none of you wackos predictions have proven true, what is your support of “95% ?” The answer is; none.
“Do you have any proof that global warming actions will “destroy the economy”?…… The increase is CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels. …..”
If you are correct, then fossil fuels must not be burned. Since our economy is based on energy derived from fossil fuels you have answered yourself.
BTW – You should remember that civilization has always expanded during warm cycles and contracted during cold cycles
Mr Lewis,
Gas prices have been dropping.
Anyway, you appear to be just another MAGAt demanding “proof” but unable to supply any yourself.
Lewis typed: BTW – You should remember that civilization has always expanded during warm cycles and contracted during cold cycles
Human civilization is some 12,000 yrs old, max. Can you point out the expanding civilization that happened in warm cycles and the contractions during cold cycles? If not proof, how about evidence. Thanks.
Lewis typed: If you are correct, then fossil fuels must not be burned. Since our economy is based on energy derived from fossil fuels you have answered yourself.
Only Deniers spout the nonsense about stopping all burning of fossil fuels immediately. It’s the same all-or-none type argument you sophists use often.
The Earth is warming, a result of our burning fossil fuels. There is no scientific reason to expect it to stop. There is more evidence for this than for the notion that transitioning away from fossil fuels will destroy the economy.
Dowd said: The Earth is warming, a result of our burning fossil fuels. There is no scientific reason to expect it to stop. There is more evidence for this than for the notion that transitioning away from fossil fuels will destroy the economy.
I would like to know how you can make this statement and then pretend to call it evidence.
Secondly, I would like for you to point to evidence that a warmer planet has been harmful to mankind in any way. Rising seas? How have rising seas affected Mankind who in your own words above is only 12,000 years old? Or basically, mankind has only existed during a Warm period.
There is no evidence that a warmer planet will be harmful to mankind. There also is no evidence that C02 in the 420-550 range will destroy humanity. If so I would like for you to point it out.
Additionally, you point out that transitioning away from fossil fuels will not destroy the economy and yet you offer no proof. Only conjecture and opinions based upon what you hope and believe will happen.
So while you believe the economy will be just fine with nothing to replace fossil fuels, you offer no proof that the economy will be just fine. Will windmills and solar panels propel fighter jets and supersonic rockets? How will the defense industry which finds itself crippled by the lack of fossil fuels, be able to produce solid rocket propellant? Much of the common products we depend on today are produced with the use of byproducts of petroleum made from fossil fuels.
I invite you to move into the first skyscraper built in San Francisco with green cement that has not been tested to stand the test of time.
I do not doubt that at some point in the future fossil fuels will be extinct from our economies. But not in 10 years or 15 which is the goal of the radical leftist AGW NAZI’S. It is those we fight against. And Your children will look back on You one day and curse you for strip mining this planet into oblivion to power a world with GREEN ENERGY while shivering and sweating and pining for their vaseline to take it up the ASS by the Goose Steppers who have taken over the world.
Dear Elwood:
“Gas prices have been dropping.”
Prices are around $3.50/gal. That is $1.50 above $2.00. That’s not a reduction from the base.
“Anyway, you appear to be just another MAGAt demanding “proof” but unable to supply any yourself.”
I’m not the one claiming 95%.
“Lewis typed: BTW – You should remember that civilization has always expanded during warm cycles and contracted during cold cycles”
Check out the Dark Ages.
“Only Deniers spout the nonsense about stopping all burning of fossil fuels immediately. It’s the same all-or-none type argument you sophists use often.”
Bull. No one is claiming that. But CA has out lawed EV’s by 2050.
Make that….. “The decision, to take effect by 2035, will very likely speed a wider transition to electric vehicles because many other states follow California’s standard.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/24/climate/california-gas-cars-emissions.html
Jeff,
Don’t you think you should give it a rest. You are making a fool of yourself and every comment you make substantiates that you have no idea as to what you are saying and you take away from any legitimate message you have. I sense that your life is coming apart, but don’t display it here in a public forum.
Portnoy,
Thank you so much for the advice. You’re too kind and thoughtful.