Borenstein And The 10 Mental Dwarves



Well, it isn’t uncommon for alarmists to misrepresent skeptics or facts, or science.  And, HuffPo is at it again. 

Climate Change And Blizzards May Be Connected, Global Warming Studies Demonstrate

Even the title is facetious.  We’ll get to that in a second….. here’s the article.

WASHINGTON (AP) — With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.

Then when a whopper of a blizzard smacked the Northeast with more than 2 feet of snow in some places earlier this month, some of the same people again blamed global warming.

How can that be? It’s been a joke among skeptics, pointing to what seems to be a brazen contradiction.

Of course, that’s not what the lunatics have been saying.  They’ve been saying we are suppose to have more snow and less snow simultaneously, depending upon what’s happening at the moment.  Seth Borenstein did get one part right, it’s been a joke among skeptics.  Then Seth elucidates…. on his bizarre, and dishonest mind.

But the answer lies in atmospheric physics. A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say. And two soon-to-be-published studies demonstrate how there can be more giant blizzards yet less snow overall each year. Projections are that that’s likely to continue with man-made global warming.

I won’t bother with the never been proven “man-made global warming“.  Regardless of what is stated, what the facts are, and what science really states, Seth simply accepts, as a matter of faith, that there is warming, and it is man caused.  None of this has ever been proven.  But, I would point out that even a journalist should know that projections haven’t demonstrated anything.  If a projection demonstrates something, then it is no longer a projection.  But, maybe Seth is too stupid to understand the distinction.  He continues with his banal stupidity.


— The United States has been walloped by twice as many of the most extreme snowstorms in the past 50 years than in the previous 60 years, according to an upcoming study on extreme weather by leading federal and university climate scientists. This also fits with a dramatic upward trend in extreme winter precipitation — both rain and snow — in the Northeastern U.S. charted by the National Climatic Data Center.

Oh, okay, the Northeast is now the entire US, which, in turn, is the entire planet, according to the nutters.  I thought Rubio lined them out on this?  And, besides, I don’t know if Seth realizes this or not, but how the NCDC measure extremes is what is beyond a certain arbitrary conception of what is average.  It could be more or less precipitation which would be labeled extreme.  Seth continues….

— Yet the Global Snow Lab at Rutgers University says that spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has shrunk on average by 1 million square miles in the last 45 years.

Oh, so now spring snow is indicative of the cumulative yearly snow we have?  Even is Seth is too stupid to understand the NCDC’s metrics or that projections don’t demonstrate anything, he can’t be this stupid.  He’s being intentionally deceptive.  It is true, spring snow has declined.  It probably has more to do with astro-physics than it does atmospheric physics.  But, where spring snow has declined, winter and fall snow has increased.  This makes the amount of snow we get unchanged.  Because Seth thinks the US is a planet, I’ll narrow this down to the North American continent….. here’s all of the less snow we’ve been getting for the past 30 years.


Yes, dramatic, I know.  This graph was created by the same source Seth Borenstein quoted, Rutgers.  Either Seth is too stupid to run numbers himself, or he’s being disingenuous.  Given the length of time he’s been covering the climate issue and the interactions he’s had, I know he’s both. 

Back to having demonstrated something……

And an upcoming study in the Journal of Climate says computer models predict annual global snowfall to shrink by more than a foot in the next 50 years.

Yep, those demonstrating models again.  Seth even brings in the experts to back him up! 

“Shorter snow season, less snow overall, but the occasional knockout punch,” Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. “That’s the new world we live in.”

Wouldn’t it be grand if the climate scientists actually looked at the real world and numbers instead of their computer games?  But, from what I’ve read about Oppenheimer, he’s the mental equivalent to  Borenstein, so there’s no point in have such lofty expectations.  Numbers and their meaning don’t seem to hold their context or relevance with these people.

Ten climate scientists say the idea of less snow and more blizzards makes sense: A warmer world is likely to decrease the overall amount of snow falling each year and shrink snow season. But when it is cold enough for a snowstorm to hit, the slightly warmer air is often carrying more moisture, producing potentially historic blizzards.

Oh, well, that settles it then!  Ten whole climate scientists say so, so, it must be true regardless of what the numbers say.  The story, and that’s what it is, goes on and on, but I’ll just add one more quote, then a small graph, and a short comment and leave it at that.

But when Serreze, Oppenheimer and others look at the last few years of less snow overall, punctuated by big storms, they say this is what they are expecting in the future.

Yep, the last few years have had less snow………..


Serreze, Oppenheimer and others ……

Sneazy, dOppey, and the rest of the mental dwarfs don’t know what the heck they’re babbling about.  The are completely delusional and too stupid to understand numbers.  Borenstein shouldn’t try to write about science and Sneazy and dOppey, shouldn’t be pretending to know anything about it. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Borenstein And The 10 Mental Dwarves

  1. James says:

    Well, no.

    a) The vast majority, and by that I mean more than 90%, of articles published by climatologists internationally to scientific journals, agree that the climate is changing because of humans emitting too much greenhouse gas. Those that deny this tend either to be far-right wing in their ideology, free-market economists or nutters. Very few experts actually refute the evidence.

    b) The phrase ‘global warming’ confuses people, and it’s obviously confused the writer of this blog. Cliamte change is more useful, because that’s what is actually happening. No one event can be attributed to climate change, but when you look at the global picture, it’s clear that the climate IS changing. Also, the model that the Goddard Institute (a division of NASA- and you’re calling global warming-ists stupid?) used over 20 years ago, has turned out to be pretty much right.

    If in doubt, ask the experts. As I say try NASA- rather than spreading lies.

    • suyts says:

      Welcome, James. I seem to have confused you. I wasn’t writing specifically to climate change nor attribution.

      I’m familiar with GISS. That’s headed by another James, the activist James Hansen. No one can refer to GISS for science because they are clearly biased in their research, as witnessed by Hansen’s several arrests while promoting his cause. If he can’t be objective, then clearly the science is in question.

      Further, skeptics don’t claim the climate doesn’t change, that’s a deceptive claim. Skeptics state that the climate always changes, always has, and always will, and there’s been nothing to change that.

      People who tend to deny the natural variations of our climate tend to be Marxists, Malthusians, or just plain nutters.

      Lastly, your last sentence of the your first paragraph stated, “Very few experts actually refute the evidence.”

      It doesn’t escape me that your response didn’t even bother to mention any evidence, while the post contained evidence contrary to the article written and contrary to the climatologists quoted. So, tell me, James, are you going to address and acknowledge the evidence I provided, or are you going to deny the evidence, and keep repeating the mantra of the Malthusian Marxists?

      • James says:

        Mr James Hansen has seen that the evidence is clear, and has tried to get the non-scientific world to respond. However, because you seem to be confused, I will provide some evidence.

        If you refuse to listen to the science from the GISS (though I believe you are shooting the messenger), what about the National Climatic Data Centre, part of the National (USA) Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? Or do they count as a Marxist group?
        Anyway, there’s a nice, clear graph on this page:
        I’m interested in what part you ‘refute.’ Is it ?
        a) The climate isn’t changing -this graph challenges this
        b) Greenhouse gas emissions aren’t causing this change -this graph challenges this also.

        Although you write off the GISS, the Earth Observatory is another division of NASA, and look- at they too agree with the scientific consensus- the climate is changing, we are causing it.

        I note that with some amusement that you provide no sources when you make various claims, your graphs could have come from anywhere…evidence please? and from a reputable source?

        • miked1947 says:

          Just like you I do not recognize NSIDC as a “Reputable Source”!
          But then I do not recognize GISS as a reputable source either!
          I do not recognize NOAA NWS CDC as a reputable source either!

      • suyts says:

        James, you really need to read things in their entirety before commenting. Or, at least the title of the graphics I present. If you had read the piece, you’d see where I did, indeed, source the graphs. Risking redundancy, I’ll quote myself a couple of times in an effort to keep us on topic. From the post, I stated, ……

        This graph was created by the same source Seth Borenstein quoted, Rutgers.

        I event linked to the source in the post. I’ve written over 2000 posts on this blog. While I can’t say all of my graphs are sourced, because of haste at times, it is something I strive for. It is something I’m meticulous about. >99% are sourced.

        Had you read the entire post I believe you would have been able to pick up on the fact that I’m responding to the article’s subject, snow. More precisely snow in the NH/US and the claim that we’ve had less snow in total. Serreze, Oppenheimer, and the climate journalist Borenstein are in error when making such claims. You get bonus points if you can tell me the organizations who employ Serreze and Oppenheimer. It would go to the credibility of some of the outfits you’ve quoted.

        Now, I’ll quote myself in part of my response to your first comment……

        Further, skeptics don’t claim the climate doesn’t change, that’s a deceptive claim. Skeptics state that the climate always changes, always has, and always will, and there’s been nothing to change that.

        Now, I’m wondering if you care to address the statements made in this post or in the comments made? As to the other issues raised in the links you’ve provided, this post and comment section is probably not the best venue to address all of the topics to discuss. However, most of the topics have been addressed throughout the course of this blog. For instance, the earth’s average temp….. I’ve addressed this several times and several ways. It’s utility in determining our energy balance is severely limited. But, that’s for another post.

        Again, welcome.

        James Sexton

    • miked1947 says:

      OH! BOY!
      Here we go again!
      This one is worse than Appell and Tammy combined!
      He sounds almost like the Gav or one of his team mates, either on RC or SS. I will refer him to NASA GISS to see how realistic their computer reports really are!
      Maybe we should explain how Hansen got his model so wrong in 1986 with his weird ASSumptions about CO2 abd other GHGs. How Hansen was so wrong about sea level rise in the late 80s! How Hansen’s model results are some of the worst predictors of all the models used to provide Possible What-if Scenarios.
      But the one called James that is annoying us today will not understand what we are trying to explain!
      We could explain how “Climate” is variable and how those variations can be seen in ALL the history books. We could explain the only way climate could “Change” was if it was to stop being Variable!
      It is nice to have a Denier stop by your site so we can show how ignorant the true “Deniers” really are!

      • suyts says:

        Now, now. We don’t expect the casual blog traveler to be as sophisticated as the typical “suyts” reader, do we? 🙂 We’ve been at it for some time now, I’m trying to find the best place to start explaining to the other “James” about climate, the experts, the relevance of some of the numbers he’s referenced and the implications.. 😉

    • philjourdan says:

      So James, please tell us (and link to) when the null hypothesis was disproven.

      Also link to your 90% number.

      Both claims are totally bogus. Making 2 lies in your first post is not getting off to the right start.

  2. miked1947 says:

    I agree that Global Warming is a misnomer as we do not have the ability to determine the current temperature of the GLOBE. We do not even have the ability to determine the true temperature of any particular region of the globe. That means they do not know if the globe is warming or cooling at any given time!
    Climate Change is a tricky ASSumption! Climate is the study of weather patterns that are constantly changing and seem to come in cycles. That means that Climate Change can not affect weather, because Climate is the study of weather. Looking at the historical records, from geology and other sources, I have seen many changes in long term regional weather patterns. Due to Geological and astrological changes that affect regional weather, over the Eons the globe has experienced many dramatic shifts in regional weather patterns. The current Ice Age is an example of dramatic changes in regional weather patterns. It has been going on for some 30 million years and we do not know when it will end. On a shorter time scale we are also experiencing an Interglacial that started about twelve thousand years ago and, if history is correct, we have been sliding into the next Glacial Maximum for about five to eight thousand years. That means, overall, the globe is cooling into the next glacial maximum, and we just happen to be experiencing some of the mildest climate of the last 30 million years! A few degrees warmer, like it was during the Holocene Optimum, would be nice, as that would mean more arable land and fewer death due to extreme cold conditions.

  3. Jim Masterson says:

    miked1947 says:
    February 19, 2013 at 7:26 am

    I agree that Global Warming is a misnomer . . . .

    Originally it was global warming as that’s how GHGs work. But since the (heavily modified) temperature record wasn’t cooperating, they’ve had to rename the process several times. Climate change was one of the older names. I think it’s now called climate disruption. Still, it’s a lot to expect from GHGs that can only raise the temperature.

    None of the other so-called tipping points have occurred, but by not occurring they have somehow affected the climate. It’s not science–it’s just made-up nonsense.


  4. tckev says:

    Global warming – The hypothesis that just keeps giving.(c)

    • J Sue says:

      I’ll only add that this is a lot of fun to follow. (It’s really a “hoot”) Thanks providing this graphs that really speak for themselves, and for patiently addressing James’ response.

    • suyts says:

      Your welcome sis! When commenting, you can just start typing and click on “post comment”. When you click on “Reply” under someone else’ comment, it appears like you’re replying to the specific comment they left, like you did with tckev.

      It is a lot of fun playing with the alarmists. We don’t get many to come play with us. There was a study done a while back. For the average person engaged in the climate discussion, it was shown that skeptics have a greater degree of general scientific knowledge. The alarmists are reduced to parroting the activist scientists with little understanding of what is being stated. Much fun!!! 😀

  5. Pingback: Alarmist Points To Natural Oscillating Events As Proof Of Climate Change!!!! | suyts space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s