Record High Temperatures in Moscow But Apple Sauce Can Kill You & Some Women Might Prefer Small Babies

Each of the next five days in Moscow is forecasted to break the 1920 record high of 36.8 degrees (making that record broken about 15 times in one month):

So, why does Moscow matter?

Because both the believers in the theory of man made global warming, like the Economist, and the man made global warming deniers, like Putin’s administration, agreed that whatever the cause, Russia would benefit.

But thanks to the users on this site, I spent about 10-12 hours this weekend reading all the anti-global warming material I could find. One of the things I discovered was that a majority of the talking points on the subject originate from just a handful of ‘think tanks’ almost all of them funded at some point by Exxon and/or Koch. But that wasn’t the thing that interested me as it was to be expected, the bit that interested me was that many of the lobbyists at these ‘think tanks’ were veterans of Big Tobacco propaganda and lobbying. So I went over to Youtube to look for the infamous ‘nicotine is not addictive’ testimony; and I found these instead;

First, DENY there is scientific consensus:

Yes, those who have any scientific evidence that smoking may be harmful, are missionary zealots involved in a big hoax to force the world to stop smoking.

But what about the dangers?

Yes, applesauce can kill you; and it has been warmer one time in the distant pre-human past and it’s cold today in Topeka.

But what about when some of the data is just too overwhelming to deny? Well, here is Philip Morris, CEO, Joseph Cullman in 1971 on that one:

That’s right, smoking might cause smaller babies, but some women might prefer to have small babies. And yes, the greenhouse gas effect might cause global warming, but Russians will love global warming.

And, now, Russia’s economy is getting hit hard, something that is meant to only happen if something is done to stop global warming.

The sweltering summer has hit Russia’s economy, primarily agriculture, as the country rebounds from last year’s record 7.9 percent contraction. The government may spend more than the 5 billion rubles ($165.7 million) already earmarked to help the country rebuild from the fires, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said today in televised comments.

The government estimates that destroyed homes will cost an average of 2 million rubles each to replace, with another 1 million rubles to repair utilities and infrastructure, Putin said.

Anyway, so this is what I found from my research. I have only used google and wikipedia as a tool and also looked at the data available on the biggest think tanks in the climate skeptic space. I haven’t found any peer-reviewed research, most of the information fits into one of the above propaganda paradigms; but, as I know that most of the people on the site believe in what the tobacco guys are now selling us. But once a salesman, always a salesman, and sometimes salesmen have good things to sell, so I’d love to have some links to actual peer-reviewed scientific data that falls outside the paradigm of the above. I have only seen two and they both involve satellite data, but, in one case the scientist is rebutted by several more who disagree and in the other case, the satellite itself was shown to be at fault.

536 comments on “Record High Temperatures in Moscow But Apple Sauce Can Kill You & Some Women Might Prefer Small Babies
  1. frances snoot says:

    “Thanks for your concern and compassion about my plight glad to see you haven’t succomb to much to much Objectivity and cold reason that you lose basic Empathy”

    “I eat my peas with honey
    I done it my whole life
    It makes the peas taste funny
    But it sticks em to the knife.”

    (American e-piss-tem-ology)

  2. Jim says:

    Great opinions!

    http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=6599

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8FhmuWWcGw

    http://news.discovery.com/space/incoming-the-sun-unleashes-cme-at-earth.html

    Maybe some people just want to get rid of white trash, or the scum of the earth who use tax dollars that the so-called elite could use to in rich themselves.

    Maybe this is the Final Solution perhaps

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(2001_film)

  3. frances snoot says:

    just ask snoot

    Yep. He do do that.

  4. WL says:

    @chArles

    I have used ecomarxist several times and I stand buy what I said. As a subset of Marxism my comment is valid. Perhaps I should have used Maxs exact global redistribution of wealth statement for reference but since I was trying to call him out, he probably knows it. It was not intended to smear Marxist but rather have Max define himself and separate his ideology from science.

    Your reaction is emotionally disproportional.

    Answer this..

    Assume that c02 (human activity) did not cause climate change..

    Do you believe in a global redistribution of wealth?

    Without the premise an ecomarxist fails, a marxist still believes.

    So I was trying to separate Max the ecomarxist from a marxist

  5. WL says:

    time for a poem…

    One thin September soon
    A floating continent disappears
    In midnight sun

    Vapors rise as
    Fever settles on an acid sea
    Neptune’s bones dissolve

    Snow glides from the mountain
    Ice fathers floods for a season
    A hard rain comes quickly

    Then dirt is parched
    Kindling is placed in the forest
    For the lightning’s celebration

    Unknown creatures
    Take their leave, unmourned
    Horsemen ready their stirrups

    Passion seeks heroes and friends
    The bell of the city
    On the hill is rung

    The shepherd cries
    The hour of choosing has arrived
    Here are your tools

    AG

  6. frances snoot says:

    who am I to believe?

    caveat: just ask snoot

    Ahhh. chArles. Go outside. Find a nice large oak preferably next to water. Set down a large cozy blankie or sheet. Bring a large repast (my suggestions? cold ice tea/ light risen bread slathered with butter made fresh/ peaches/ fried chicken/ homemade oatmeal cookies. Eat. Lie down. Look up at the leaves and see how the shade plays.

    You’ll be free in no-time flat.

  7. frances snoot says:

    So I was trying to separate Max the ecomarxist from a marxist

    Don’t break the yolk, WL! If you do you can’t get those whites to whip up nice!

  8. WL says:

    @frances

    don’t bring race into this

    I recently discovered that I am not white, now I am tired of being oppressed by my former self and seek reparations which I deserve

    shit life is a bag of crazy

    As for Max

    Why does he hate America so? an emotional trauma perhaps

  9. Dedo says:

    @Frances,..and WL,..Loved reading your posts,…..fanks,..: )

  10. frances snoot says:

    It’s more about housekeeping skills than racism, WL. Looky:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0FXHwIRTC8

  11. frances snoot says:

    Sounds like the Atlantis myth, WL. AG must be ‘one-of-them’. Ya think?

  12. frances snoot says:

    He’s not quite Yeats, is he? Well, well. It’s all about the muse.

  13. WL says:

    @snoot

    Ok, I must have emotionally over reacted to your use of the terminology ‘whites whip up nice’, which I am not… anymore…. but was….. I think.. I dunno but I am tired of being oppressed by the man, I think

  14. WL says:

    a good muse is hard to come buy…

  15. chArles says:

    @ WL

    ok …don’t think it was dispoportinant because my criticism is as a whole against anyone who bandied about terms for the sole reason to Freeze the debate….I don’t run into an arguement against you or other Libertarians calling y’all a bunch of Ayn Rand Diciples

    as to this

    “Do you believe in a global redistribution of wealth?”

    to varying degrees, I am not sold completely on Globalization and fully intergrating the whole of the human community….(there is to much varying degrees of development to not run the risk of explotation in some manner through any process of integration) we as a specis may get there if our duration of existence permits…but not as keen on Internationalism as Marx

    but to the question

    Do I favor REDISTRIBUTION of WEALTH? the answer is yes…even though I am a commited anarcho-syndiclist I am a Pragmatist at what is to be done…so I have come to make peace with some sembalence of Government and accepting ANY FORM OF GOVERNENCE is accept REDISTRIBUTION and a Monopoly on Violence…
    so unless anyone on this site is willing to argue from strictly the point of view of Egotistical anarchism in the Max Stiener varity…I do not wish to hear that they don’t favor REDISTRIBUTION….

    y’all do…sucks but you do

    Snooty, thanks for Poem…not Al Gores which doens’t seem to be structured that well and feels dead…as to finding Freedom ala Thurow too FREAKING HOT to go outside and they cut all the treees down except for the stupid Palm Trees that line the Roads

  16. Bel-Ami says:

    Snoot,

    If words are shared and socially mediated people have the ability to enjoy life without fear of valorized truths. Words are not enough. Goethe, in Faust Pt. 1, has the Great Doctor translate the opening of the Bible as “In the beginning was the Deed”, not the commonly used “Word”. It’s a very Christian, albeit Protestant, mindset you espouse by placing such power in words. Every human, until his or her death, should strive to be liberated from ignorance. Socrates wasn’t above calling himself ignorant. To look around and state blithely people do not need liberation from anything in these times is simply self-immersed(and self-enamored) ignorance.

    You seem to imply words are miraculous demiurges of the world? Words do have power. They can inspire. But, they “jump off the plate”? They exist outside human relation?

    I have a simple belief. I think we should use language instead of allowing language to use us. We’d be less liable to fall for the Climate Theory propaganda which stokes paranoia(conspiracies) and ignorance( the infantile denial of all credible Climate Science). We’d liberate ourselves from being the tools and fools of those who wish to destroy our habitats and lives for profit.

    A bookbound world? We need liberation from those binds. Again, the similarities to the “Revealed Word of Christ” theology is amusing when used by someone who doesn’t need to be liberated. A 12th century Monk and you are like two peas in a pod(cloister). I guess the promised land awaits!

  17. chArles says:

    @ Bel-Ami

    I enjoy your comments especially since we share similiar thought processes on what happend in Acedemia when the Left crashed upon America’s “Roast beef and Mash Potatoes” Shores (Capitolism was able to provided a sembelence of upward mobility via off shoring its cost so the illusion of middle classness was granted in america) the intellectual Left became consummed with the Snake Pit of Language and Identity politics and allowed the working class to wallow in desperation and ingnorance (Snoot before you climb on your chArles is elitist saying “those folks are ignorant”…yea Snoot thy are…family spent 10+generations in the South and in that region and the working class have succombed to ignorence)

    the reason the LEFT did this is because it got captured it is that simple, they needed to maintain a certian prety plastic lifestyle and in accordence since the school structure in the States is a for profit industry they played ball….but they wanted to feel like they were part of THE MOVEMENT so they stormed the English Departments crippling any sembelence of intellectual rigor the Left had to offer society….Rorty wrote once that around 2010 this would collapse because all the PHD canidates after this point would never want to hear Bianary opposition, discourse, Foucouldean power structures… the rest of their lives

    yet I do take issue with the fact that you seem dismissive of Language/words as the demiurge of humanity….I believe this is the case and maybe it is my Baptist upbringing but I believe the world can not exist to us unless we have aquired some form of language and by language I mean any form of sign/symbolic encoding system which all social animals have…I would maintain than anything alive would have some form of inturperting system just to navigate the world it inhabits….but I may just be entrapped in some form of Kantean understanding of the world…but I do believe we can’t have direct ccess to the WORLD but only come to see it via mitigation

    see even us hardcore Materialist succomb to the Siren Song of Idealism

  18. F. Beard says:

    Speaking of liberty:

    And I will walk at liberty, for I seek Your precepts.
    Psalm 119:45

  19. frances snoot says:

    To look around and state blithely people do not need liberation from anything in these times is simply self-immersed(and self-enamored) ignorance.

    Well, then we, the self-immersed and self-enamored, make lousy liberators. Oh, unless you are not considered to belong to that happy throng. Are you more enlightened? You’ve read more? You attended more college classes? You can distinguish between haves and nots, right and wrong, up and down? You can, through some alchemy of force (mind you not words, as words have not force inherent) may sway the fat, the lazy, the cruel, and the rapacious to good deeds? You are capable of incising evil without delineating life?

    “Every human, until his or her death, should strive to be liberated from ignorance.”

    Define ignorance without revealing yourself to be just an self-enamored as the rest of us lot.

  20. frances snoot says:

    I tried reading Faust and found it insufferably boring.

  21. Chris says:

    @WL:

    Here’s the scientific basis for the 33 C number:

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS6/6EquilibriumTemp.html

    (This same calculation can probably be found else where better presented.)

    Basically, its a relatively simple question: Given how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun (very well known) , what temperature would you expect the Earth to be? Is it, in fact, this temperature?

    The answer is no, it is about 33 degrees hotter. The question is then WHY? If you can come up with an answer other than greenhouse effect, post it here.

    Thanks, and ps. I like your event horizon.

  22. Oreo from south says:

    I think it should be renamed as a north hemisphere warming for this year as the south had pretty record cold weather in june-july, even snow in places where it wasn’t very often seen. Australia had also been nearly record cold this year.

    This is the problem with word global an word warming, because it seems that the global weather dynamics simply are getting more extreme in both ways. You may be stuck with the ‘global warming’ tag if you repeat it enough and simply pretend that the other, less fashionable hemisphere that had record cold this year doesn’t exist. Yes it is very easy to forget that the earth goes beyond north.

  23. WL says:

    @Chris

    I give you credit for looking, that is exactly how the 33 degree number is derived. Problem, these calculation are static equilibrium equations which are perfectly acceptable if the Earth were within a glass jar there are no variables and the Earth and Sun are not moving. They ignore spins, tilts, elevations, C02, atmospheric elevation differentials and negative feedbacks. The calculations purport to achieve a useful number which they clearly do not. The atmosphere is hugely dynamic system, can you decipher this in those calculations? Of course in actuality the Earth is nothing like a glass jar and this is applied .. the thermodynamics which cause the warmth in a glass jar have no scientific reference to the Earths climate process, Why, read the paper

    The author explains the flaw in these calculations..

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

  24. Chris says:

    @ WL,

    I got a chance to look at some of the supposed “800 papers in peer reviewed journals questioning AGW”. Most of the papers I looked at don’t actually challenge Anthropogenic Global Warming. For example the paper on Kilomanjaro’s declining glaciers admits the obvious that the glaciers are melting fast, but says the cause *might* be lack of precipitation as opposed to hotter air temps. But lack of precipitation could be a symptom of climate change in that particular area.

    Similarly, one other paper cited by the “denier” site you mention relies on temperature data from Ice cores. So apparently, global warming “skeptics” feel that ice cores are reliable, where as you don’t. So basically the papers cited as debunking AGW mostly in fact support it, and in any case are written by just the type of people whom the anti-AGW people are trying to discredit with the climate-gate break-in.

    By the way can you tell me why you don’t regard ice cores as a reliable approximate gauge of past CO2 levels? Don’t they match up with direct measurement levels going back to the 1950′s. (I’m trying to look into this right now).

    In the mean time I found a great CO2 global measurement video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7jvP7BqVi4&feature=player_embedded#!

    @Stacy you might like the link above

  25. Randy says:

    “Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond.”

    Last October scientific organizations in the United States issued a common
    statement that says in part:

    “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver…. If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.”

    Testimony before Congress by James McCarthy, Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University, May 6, 2010 and signed by the directors of the following scientific organizations:

    American Association of Science
    American Chemical Society
    Amer. Geophysical Society
    Amer. Institute of Biological Science
    Am. Society of Agronomy
    American Meteorological Society
    Am. Society of Plant Biologists
    American Statistical Association
    Assoc. of Ecosystem Research
    Botanical Society of America
    Natural Science Collection Office
    Society of Systemic Biologists
    Soil Science Society of America
    University Corp for Atmospheric Research

    Adobe file (takes a moment to load)
    http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/JMcCarthyTestimony_Foundation-of-Climate-Science.pdf

  26. omi says:

    It’s not the heat that killed it, but rather lack of irrigation facilities. Generally speaking, things grow really well in fertile lands in Russia and people did not feel that they have to take out insurance against black swans such as instant drought by building irrigation systems. It worked for many years… until it didn’t.

  27. Aaron Richoux says:

    Whats the point of arguing about global warming? Does anyone think that we are going to stop using oil until it become uneconomically viable? The world cant stop the US from invading Iraq, Iran from building a nuke, Israel from holding the Gazans in a prison camp, and genocide in Rwanda. Do we really think that we are going to get the developed world to go renewable before they have to and to pay for the developing world to build the infrastructure to use wind and solar? Before we run out?

    Its better to invest in mitigation for the effects of the change that we cant stop.

  28. Chris says:

    @WL:

    Its true that that calculation is not a time-dependent climate model as you might wish for. (I presume,since you call for this, that you therefore have a lot of trust in climate models and their predictions–for the record I do not.). The simplicity of that calculation is however an advantage:

    Energy goes into Earth (from the Sun). Energy goes out (radiated by IR). I believe you’ll agree that its undisputable that the difference between energy out and energy in is energy that is trapped within the Earth.

    As with my other critiques of your viewpoint, I’m still waiting to hear what your answer is for the a better number. That is, if the simple model of energy transfer I’ve presented is superceded by a much better model you are aware of, then please tell us what that model predicts for the temperature of Earth in the absence of greenhouse effect?

    Ironically, even if you were to produce the results of such a (presumably complex) climate model, its conclusions were be weakened by the arguments of climate skeptics like yourself who assert that climate models can’t be trusted.

  29. Josh Fulton says:

    You really have got to be shitting me. Again, read this link:

    http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2010/02/75-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-global.html

    Let me summarize just a bit for you: Carbon dioxide contributes to only 4.2 – 8.4% of the Greenhouse Effect. Only 4% of all CO2 is man-made. Water vapor contributes 90 – 95% of the Greenhouse Effect. 99.99% of water vapor is naturally occurring. How could man’s contribution of CO2 have any effect on this?

    This isn’t to mention the fact that in the Ordovician Period CO2 was 12x what it is today and it was COLDER. Come on. Just read the link. The pro-global warming arguments just don’t stand up.

  30. Chris says:

    @WL

    Ok I read that alleged-AGW-rebuking paper which is written using numerous valid scientific formulae, though as far as I know, unpublished. I think I can now see why its unpublished. To sum it up in laymans terms, its mainly saying: “We can’t know anything about anything”. We can’t know the global temperature, so you’re not allowed to ask. We can’t try to calculate the energy balance of light coming from the sun, so don’t try. Etc. This last part is rather silly because, in fact we can calculate the energy balance for other planets, indeed some anti-AGW people try to use this as part of their argument!

    Where he does claim to be able to say something he uses standard “Straw Man” tactics. That is he (I should say they) deliberately misinterpret AGW documents in the wrong way then easily criticize their (mis)interpretation. Examples: he interprets a scene in An Inconvenient Truth as if it’s talking about radio waves in the ionosphere when it is obviously talking about IR light emitted & absorbed by the atmosphere. He misinterprets a diagram which apparently shows energy flow from the sun to the earth, as if it could be a Feynman diagram for particle physics!! (He has 4 other ideas for what it could be but it never occurs to him that it could be energy flow!)

    I’d that that this person’s points are no better supported than the typical AGW crowd, but they certainly sound better since he can couch them in the language (and well-typeset equations) of someone with a PhD in science. Just because someone has a PhD doesn’t mean they can’t deceive!

  31. Chris says:

    @Joshfulton

    I looked at those “75 reasons”. You’ve got to be kidding if you think people are going to believe that stuff. For example the graph you attribute to “solar activity” is in fact cosmic ray flux, and has nothing to do with the 11 year solar activity cycle. The page also claims that having one year or two in the last decade with an abnormal temp is important. (2008 and 2009 are cited as cold, which itsself is dubious). But given that claim then you’d have to accept that with 2010 coming in as one of the hottest on record we’ve got significant warming right now.

    (In point of fact any individual year is meaningless compared to decadal averages.)

    And yes a change in CO2 from a small percentage to a larger but still small percentage can cause massive world wide effects, its happened many many times before in earth’s history (when the changes were induced by a variety of natural phenomena)

  32. Chris says:

    @WL & others,

    I’m stopping posting in this thead. If you post, I’ll read it but I’ll continue the discussion (if needed) in a future thread.

  33. Josh Fulton says:

    @Chris

    *Yawn* Way to dismiss an entire essay for one fact that you think is wrong. There’s a difference between solar ray flux and solar strength? Okkkk. I don’t claim to be a climatologist, so if you have some proof that these things aren’t correlated, I’d like to see it.

    As I mention in that article, the IPCC is even willing to attribute about half of the warming in the past decade to solar activity, so there’s clearly a correlation. If I remember correctly, there’s something like a 6% variance between solar activity and temperature. They’re very closely linked. I can’t seem to find that exact link right now, and it’d be time-consuming for me to get it (after I already did all the other work for that article nonetheless), but I’m sure it’s out there.

Watch the latest Keiser Reports:

Watch our Google Hangouts: