Well, I Can At Least See That Climate Nutters Are Still Spewing Red Herrings And Being The Cloddish Simpletons We Know Them To Be …..

So Tammy, over at Closed Mind, wrote a post about New Mexico’s snow pack ……. well, it really wasn’t about the snow pack, it was about casting dispersions, which , is all alarmists are really good for.  They’re the ultimate purveyors of FUD.  

I haven’t ran down his claims about Curry or Parsons, and I won’t.  It’s a waste of time.  I would bet, however, that Tammy’s interpretations of the facts would widely vary from a normal and rational person’s view.  That’s said, I wanted, rather, to focus on this hand-waving bit of lunacy. 

His post starts off like this ……

Senator Heinrich of New Mexico mentioned the declining snowpack in his home state during the senate’s recent all-night session about man-made climate change.

He was criticized in a comment at WUWT by Bill Parsons, who claimed ……..

LOL!!!  So, now Tammy is trolling comments in WUWT for someone to write something he disagrees with??  Congratulations Tammy.  Out of the thousands and thousands of comments generated weekly at WUWT you found one!!!!!  Meaning what, exactly?  Again, I haven’t run down the specific claims, so I don’t know what is or isn’t true specific for this instance, but, even if Tammy is correct, which would be a rarity in and of itself, so what?  Did Mr. Parsons have an off day and look at the data incorrectly?  Is Mr. Parsons some sort of measuring stick with which we all should be measured by?  I seem to recall some of his comments at WUWT and he seems to be a bright guy, but, that doesn’t mean he’s incapable of an honest mistake, as we all are.   ….. Trolling the comment section……. wooooo!!!  But, maybe that was to make a greater point?  Like the snow pack in New Mexico ….. as New Mexico is indicative of what, precisely?  Well, Tammy gives us some insight to what he’s thinking ….

We’re more interested in the trend, as a better indicator of whether or not changes are truly meaningful, and whether or not they may be a harbinger of worse to come. So, let’s look at trends in snowpack in New Mexico.

Trends, in and of themselves are meaningless.  They are not meaningful.  They can only be meaningful when attached to something meaningful.  Any high school sophomore algebra student should be able to tell you this.  It’s laughable that Tammy would note that a trend of New Mexico’s snow pack may hold some harbinger of things to come.  Well, maybe more idiotic than laughable, depending upon one’s mood and perspective. 

Certainly, New Mexico’s snow pack isn’t meaningful to global climate change, which is what Tammy is trying to tie it to.  It’s sophist, simplistic, and entirely wrong. 

Water is essential for all life. Changing the amount of water available, and shifting the timing at which water is available, is bound to have serious consequences for all living things, not just in New Mexico, but everywhere that man-made climate change is altering the hydrological cycle. In fact, changes to the hydrological cycle might just be the single most dangerous aspect of global warming.

One of the life forms most threatened by climate change, is the life form which has caused it to happen: humankind. We are also the only life form which can make the choice actually to do something about it. I say, let’s make that choice.

I don’t know, maybe a show of hands ……  Raise your hand if you thought and expected New Mexico’s snow pack to remain static!!!  Anyone?  You know what would be alarming?  I’d become very alarmed if the earth’s climate was shown to become static, which, of course, it cannot. 

Look at how Tammy puts a value judgment on the question of New Mexico’s snow pack ….. “harbinger of worse to come”.  Well, sure, snow can be a good thing and it can be a bad thing.  Is less snow in New Mexico necessarily a bad thing?  I used to live right next to New Mexico, in El Paso.  We didn’t have much snow there, …. what if the precipitation moved eastward just a bit?  Would that be bad?  IDK, spend some time in the desert and come back and let me know how you feel about it.  Because that’s all the climate babbling is about.  It’s an emotive response to nature.  And, that’s what Tammy is engaged in.  Do hydrological cycles change?  Yes, of course they do and have since man started recording such.  Could there be reasons for these changes other than using electricity and driving SUVs?  Well, Steve had a reason …….. but, of course, as lunatic alarmists are want to do, after insulting Steve, he won’t post Steve’s comment …….


Oh, wild fires, which are in decline in the US in terms of frequency and acreage, could be the cause of the temporary decline in New Mexico’s snowpack, but, it’s easier for Tammy just to curse humanities progress, and play ostrich. 


I’m so giddy with anticipation to see if Tammy can see this trend and find some meaningful harbinger.  Yes, yes, I knew … But, New Mexico and a comment on WUWT!!!!! 

And, people read his tripe. 

Oh, yeh, here’s some data to check ….

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Well, I Can At Least See That Climate Nutters Are Still Spewing Red Herrings And Being The Cloddish Simpletons We Know Them To Be …..

  1. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    I’ll have you know that Tammy is a serious climate scientist™ who has published with that most astounding of climate scientists Stefan Rahmstorf of PIK.

    I always like it when the climateer kiddies invoke Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, as I can, and do, falsify it with one graph.

    Sadly Tamino is either dumb or a lying ideologue. I hope he is the former for his immortal soul’s sake.

  2. philjourdan says:

    #1 – I served with Tammy. I knew Tammy. Tammy was a friend of mine. Grant is no Tammy.
    #2 – When your site has a bounce rate over 80%, and an Alexis rank over 1 million, you got to do something to try to draw in readers – so you insult them. Curry is way too high class to bite at a gutter troll.
    #3 – So is Parsons. He is not perfect, but without researching the issue, I will believe him before a gutter troll.

  3. squid2112 says:

    Ummm, errrrr, excuse me …. But I believe I have been told, over and over again, that a “warming world is a wetter world” … you know, floods and all from too much moisture in the air. I also recall being told by these same asshats that “record snowfall is consistent with a warming world”, prior to that I was told “children just aren’t going to know what snow is” and “snow will become a thing of the past”. And now once again, being told that there is a decline in snowpack?

    WTF? … which is it? .. more snow or less snow? .. Which one of these is consistent with a warming world? One cannot have it both ways…

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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