You just can’t make this stuff up.
Global warming blamed on foggier days in San Francisco:
SFGate reported this seven months ago:
The Bay Area just had its foggiest May in 50 years. And thanks to global warming, it’s about to get even foggier.
That’s the conclusion of several state researchers, whose soon-to-be-published study predicts that even with average temperatures on the rise, the mercury won’t be soaring everywhere.
Global warming blamed for fog-less days in San Francisco:
The Telegraph reported this week:
The sight of Golden Gate Bridge towering above the fog will become increasing rare as climate change warms San Francisco bay, scientists have found.
The coastal fog along the Californian coast has declined by a third over the past 100 years – the equivalent of three hours cover a day, new research shows.
And it is not just bad for scenery, the reduction in the cooling effect of the fog could damage the health of the huge Redwood Forests nearby.
Hat Tip Richard S.
February 16th, 2010 | 11:41 pm | #1
SF weather? Why does The Telegraph care? They must have die-hard warmer on hand or above they have to placated. Let it go, you’re embarrassing yourselves.
These people take any observable change in the weather and turn the event into something that confirms AGW. Fortunately we have ethical and enterprising bloggers to do solid investigative journalism.
February 16th, 2010 | 11:43 pm | #2
When you have a theory, all data must fit it.
Simple.
Not Science.
February 16th, 2010 | 11:49 pm | #3
I’ll say it again, there’s no way to prove “global warming” wrong if it is supposedly responsible for completely opposite effects.
Global warming makes it foggier and less foggy.
Global warming makes icebergs melt and causes blizzards.
Global warming causes droughts and hurricanes.
Global warming causes earthquakes and tsunamis.
People seem to be catching on, as the house of cards continues to fall.
February 16th, 2010 | 11:57 pm | #4
The root cause of everything; it’s either global warming or Bush’s fault. The two most popular running gags of the 21st century.
February 17th, 2010 | 12:31 am | #5
[...] original here: 2009- Global Warming Causes Foggy Days in San Francisco… 2010- Global Warming Causes Fog-less … [...]
February 17th, 2010 | 1:13 am | #6
This is a lie! The city has not been keeping records of the Golden Gate Bridge being covered with fog for over 100 years. First of all the bridge is not that old.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is propaganda bulldoodoo.
February 17th, 2010 | 1:14 am | #7
I think it would better be put:
“Foggier weather blamed on global warming…”
and:
“Less foggy weather blamed on global warming…”
February 17th, 2010 | 1:15 am | #8
Global warming causes Toyota gas-peddles to expectantly accelerate. Global Warming Caused the Nobel Prize council to lose their minds and award Al Gore the Nobel Prize for something -or-other?
February 17th, 2010 | 1:22 am | #9
Why are we hearing about this now?
Posted: February 10, 2010 09:43 PM
“California: The Next Climate Battleground’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hunter-cutting/california—the-next-cli_b_457777.html
—
Why are we hearing it from the Save the Redwood League?
The Save the Redwood League is part of an alliance that sells carbon credits.
(January 16, 2008, Humboldt County, California)
http://www.savetheredwoods.org/newsroom/pr/pr_alliance.pdf
“Today an innovative alliance of private capital investors and conservation interests have joined forces … The Nature Conservancy, Save-the-Redwoods League and the Community Forestry Team — a coalition of Humboldt County-based forestry, conservation and environmental advocates — are working with investment and forestry partners Atlas Holdings, Bank of America, Conservation Forestry LLC and the Redwood Forest Foundation Inc.”
“The Redwood Forest Foundation, Inc. (RFFI) is a private non-profit, Section 501(c)3 organization. Its mission is to acquire, protect, restore and manage forestlands for the long-term public benefit of the region’s citizens….. In 2007 RFFI completed the purchase of the 50,000 acre Usal Redwood Forest outside of Ft. Bragg, California.”
—
(July 2009)
http://www.rffi.org/Usal-management-faq.html
“RFFI is pleased to sell approximately 918 acres to the Save the Redwood League at the same time the conservation easement is sold on the remainder of the property.”
“The 2.9% inventory cap recognizes both substantive and community related goals. Substantively, a ‘percent-of-inventory” or “POI” cap will help recruit larger trees and higher inventories across the ownership regardless of market forces which may come into play.”
“RFFI is currently working to certify the carbon that will be sequestered through implementation of its conservation strategy. This carbon will be certified with the Climate Acton Registry. Once the carbon is certified, RFFI will seek to sell its certified carbon credits to help pay back its loans so long as it makes economic sense to do so.”
—
Where there is climate scientology, there is money.
One other thing. The Redwood Forest Foundation looks like a shell company with less than $100,000 in assets.
The Save the Redwood League on the other hand;
As of March 31, 2009
Commercial paper and cash
$ 6,866,332
U.S. Government and agency obligations
$54,107,505
Exchange traded funds and stocks
$ 6,578,130
as part of a total asstet holdings of
$ 81,355,672
This is typical of the levels of cash I see in other ‘charities’ that fund climate scientology; although this is less than Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.
As for the ‘researchers’ ar UC Berkley;
Bought and paid for.
February 17th, 2010 | 3:35 am | #10
[...] during the 2008 summer Olympics in Beijing…Related:And speaking of environmentalism then and now, "2009: Global Warming Causes Foggy Days in San Francisco… 2010: Global Warming Causes Fog-less D…Global warming: is there nothing it can't do?(Originally posted at Ed [...]
February 17th, 2010 | 4:24 am | #11
[...] 2009- Global Warming Causes Foggy Days in San Francisco… 2010- Global Warming Causes Fog-less Days in San Francisco Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 11:18 PM Jim Hoft via Gateway Pundit [...]
February 17th, 2010 | 4:30 am | #12
In 2011 SFGate will report that ‘fog levels are consistent with historical averages, thanks to global warming.’
February 17th, 2010 | 4:40 am | #13
In both instances, the authors failed to address the underlying cause of the condition – George W. Bush. This evil spawn causes men to go bald and the sun to set, after all.
February 17th, 2010 | 5:21 am | #14
I was in and out of San Francisco on a navy ship in 1952-1955 and it was always foggy. “The more things change the more they stay the same.”
February 17th, 2010 | 5:23 am | #15
Extreme fog conditions actually prove Gobal Fog Thinning is real.
February 17th, 2010 | 6:22 am | #16
[...] nothing new for the global warming crowd. Global warming causes less snow AND it causes more snow. Here’s a story about how it caused more fog & less fog in San [...]
February 17th, 2010 | 6:23 am | #17
Great post
February 17th, 2010 | 6:26 am | #18
[...] Yesterday, Gateway Pundit highlighted how the Alarmists said Global Warming would decrease and increase the amount of fog in San Francisco. [...]
February 17th, 2010 | 6:32 am | #19
I am pretty sure it causes tooth decay too- I’m counting on Uncle Bam to pay for my next cavity through some combination of cap-n-tax and ObamaCare, lol
February 17th, 2010 | 6:35 am | #20
Wow. there is a real lack of critical reading skills going on here. The older article acknowledges differences in temperature gradients from land and sea along the coast and that climate changes could be different in areas along California’s coast; e.g., more or less fog dependent on where you are.
The second article states that the temperature differential at one point, San Francisco, has reduced, causing less fog, but the researcher DOES NOT attribute that to either natural or man-made causes…he says he doesn’t know! You really have to stretch both stories to fit the AGW conspiracy theory, or you are just not willing to read the entire story…so which is it? Are you stretching the truth or just plain lazy?
February 17th, 2010 | 6:45 am | #21
@David
“so which is it? Are you stretching the truth or just plain lazy?”
Neither, you are simply incapable of seeing the forrest for the trees.
February 17th, 2010 | 6:50 am | #22
I stubbed and broke my little toe last Saturday. Global warming caused the molecules in my brain to vibrate much faster than normal and my equilibrium was adversely affected. Really, I asked Dr. Phil Jones and Al Gore about it and they both said it was settled science, you know, that vibrating molecule thing. Dr. Jones said he had PROOF of it last week, but lost it yesterday. But, hey, it’s settled science.
February 17th, 2010 | 7:18 am | #23
In addition to the major news media, we have our own problems with integrity involving, sadly, NASA. One of our greatest national institutions has been sullied, with the same political hackery as we have been trumpeting about the UN IPCC and the CRU at East Anglia in Britain.
In the process, huge amounts of taxpayer money have been directed toward this fraud, and the mission of the entire organization is being re-directed toward a greater emphasis on the study of climate change.
February 17th, 2010 | 7:21 am | #24
I was just beginning the believe that weather is caused by Global Fogging.
February 17th, 2010 | 7:31 am | #25
David #20
Perhaps your superior intellect could discern, and you could then explain to us rubes, how the headlines/ledes claim opposite results from the same condition.
Then you could expound on how this could be taken as examples of journalistic integrity rather than advocacy and propaganda disguised under the banner of a once-respectable journalism.
Then you might tell us, oh so wise, one how the phenomenom of climate change is currently cited as effecting both more snow and less snow, and more hurricanes and less hurricanes, more and less fog, and tsunamis and earthquakes.
February 17th, 2010 | 7:37 am | #26
Tomorrow’s headline: Absolutely no change to fog levels in SF due to global warming …
February 17th, 2010 | 7:47 am | #27
A theory is supposed to serve as an explanation of known facts and as a way to make predictions. It seems that just about every weather phenomenon that’s worth noting at all was somehow the result of AGW, and at the same time AGW keeps making predictions that aren’t coming true. It’s because of this that the climate-science community has come to look like an order of priests threatening the populace with dire warnings of how the gods are going to start punishing them all if they don’t start living right, or how the gods will send a dragon to eat the sun if the people don’t work harder.
February 17th, 2010 | 7:59 am | #28
Interesting link:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html
Excerpt:
February 17th, 2010 | 8:01 am | #29
[...] BIG FAIL. One Year Ago Today Stimulus Signed into Law- Since Then US Lost 2.74 Million Jobs and 2009- Global Warming Causes Foggy Days in San Francisco… 2010- Global Warming Causes Fog-less Days… and Michael Steele Meets With Tea Party Leaders (Video) and Evan Bayh: “If I Could Create One Job [...]
February 17th, 2010 | 8:07 am | #30
As MIT’s Dr Lindzen reported before he resigned the IPCC in 2009, his research work proves CO2 is incapable of doing what the alarmists assign to it. Yes you can do this with real science and yes it has been done many times over on many differing aspects.
In a sane world that would be the end of this obviously failed AGW science.
February 17th, 2010 | 8:14 am | #31
So if SF gets fog, global warming is at fault. If SF gets no fog, global warming is at fault.
And if I go to SF and hurt my toe… global warming is at fault, too.
Or was that Bush’s fault?
February 17th, 2010 | 8:55 am | #32
@Robert:
I just pointed out that the two findings were not incongruous…one stated that a declining difference between sea and land temperatures meant fewer fog events…the scientist went so far as to say he DID NOT KNOW what the explanations was, either natural or human made. Thus, he did not pin more or less fog on human-caused global warming.
The older article stated that in a future where climate change might be possible, the temperature differential could mean more or less fog in areas along the coast of California. He speculated there might be more fog in S.F. if the land continued to warm faster than coastal water.
If you think I am wrong, read the articles and show me…it is not about superior intellect, it is about critical reading of what is being said by the scientists, despite the exciting headlines.
February 17th, 2010 | 8:57 am | #33
Nice work if you can get it.
February 17th, 2010 | 8:58 am | #34
[...] Jim Hoft reported that in 2009, man-made global warming caused the foggiest year in 50 years in San Francisco — while in [...]
February 17th, 2010 | 9:14 am | #35
No Carbon;No Redwood Forests.
February 17th, 2010 | 9:19 am | #36
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!
ROFLMAO!
February 17th, 2010 | 10:02 am | #37
David
February 17th, 2010 | 8:55 am | #32
David – There is no mistaking the headlines/ledes of these articles. The one from 2009 says “The Bay Area just had its foggiest May in 50 years. And thanks to global warming, it’s about to get even foggier.”
The one from 2010 states ” Fog over San Francisco thins by a third due to climate change. The sight of Golden Gate Bridge towering above the fog will become increasing rare as climate change warms San Francisco bay, scientists have found.”
Both clearly cite global warming/climate change as the cause of their respective fog issues. Buried deep in the article may be more reasonable analysis – but that is not reflected in the titles. Robert clearly states the disparity in the headlines yet you only discuss the body of the article. What do you think of the clearly conflicting headlines/ledes? Do they make sense to you?
February 17th, 2010 | 10:05 am | #38
[...] An addition: global warming blamed for more fog in SF, and also for…less fog in SF. Who could possibly take these pathetic idiots seriously? I mean, really, what’s the next [...]
February 17th, 2010 | 10:46 am | #39
It’s quite obvious that in order to save the redwoods, all of California will have to be evacuated.
February 17th, 2010 | 10:47 am | #40
… and Global Warming causes hemorrhoids and autism too.
February 17th, 2010 | 11:08 am | #41
David, you are too smart by half. As Big Al points out, I and this post are talking about the disparity and conflicting headlines. Less spoken was the implication that the liberal media will use any image, even opposite ones, to advance the same agenda-driven point.
Perhaps you should brush up on your own “critical reading skills” especially if you want to use them to disparage others. Or “are you just plain lazy?”
February 17th, 2010 | 11:14 am | #42
@Big Al:
When AGW true-believers like David can’t deal with the obvious, they try to confuse the issue by focusing on the minutiae.
February 17th, 2010 | 11:16 am | #43
Andreas K.:
And if I go to SF and hurt my toe… global warming is at fault, too.
Or was that Bush’s fault?
That’s easy: Global warming causing everything. Everything is Bush’s fault. Therefore, global warming is Bush’s fault.
Or something.
February 17th, 2010 | 11:24 am | #44
[...] In 2009, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that global warming caused more foggy days in the city…. [...]
February 17th, 2010 | 11:31 am | #45
I drove over the Golden Gate yesterday it was pretty damn foggy. Today is the first day in three days there was no fog in the AM. Guess it’s global warming!
February 17th, 2010 | 11:38 am | #46
In 1963, Karl Raimund Popper wrote,
“I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still “un-analyzed” and crying aloud for treatment.”
We can now add to this admirers of Gore.
February 17th, 2010 | 11:42 am | #47
[...] H/T: Richard S. via Gatewaypundit [...]
February 17th, 2010 | 12:36 pm | #48
[...] Absolutely classic! Props to Gateway Pundit for this [...]
February 17th, 2010 | 1:39 pm | #49
PRICELESS!!!
February 17th, 2010 | 3:31 pm | #50
Andreas K., #31: “And if I go to SF and hurt my toe… global warming is at fault, too. Or was that Bush’s fault?”
—————————————————–
Former President George W. Bush is to be honored by the Obama Administration.
In a reconciliatory move by the Obama administration, the president has asked the U.S. Board on Geographical Names to name the fault line beneath Haiti after the 43rd president of the United States, George W. Bush.
This particular fracture in the tectonic plate will henceforth be called “Bush’s Fault.”
February 17th, 2010 | 8:12 pm | #51
[...] Funnies, Laughs and all that, Global Warming, Politics — cliftonchadwick @ 6:12 am 2009- Global Warming Causes Foggy Days in San Francisco… 2010- Global Warming Causes Fog-less Days… Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 11:18 PM Jim [...]
February 17th, 2010 | 8:24 pm | #52
I never realized that Tom Friedman was a disciple of the “Weirding Way“. He still acts a bit clumsy if you ask me.
February 19th, 2010 | 7:35 am | #53
[...] the man-made global warming myth continues to implode here’s some more bad news for the junk scientists. There was snow in ALL [...]
February 19th, 2010 | 10:23 am | #54
[...] Gateway Pundit reminds us of a newspaper headline from 2009 claiming that Global Warming was causing extra foggy days in San Fransisco. And one from 2010, claiming that Global Warming is diminishing fog in San Fransisco! Sheesh! What a difference a year makes (just ask Obama!) 2009- Global Warming Causes Foggy Days in San Francisco… 2010- Global Warming Causes Fog-less Days in San Francisco Images courtesy of Gateway Pundit [...]
February 19th, 2010 | 10:30 am | #55
[...] “magical belief systems”. Because, if the following isn’t magic, then I don’t know what is.Gateway Pundit reminds us of a newspaper headline from 2009 claiming that Global Warming was causing extra foggy [...]
February 19th, 2010 | 7:55 pm | #56
[...] Mike, I was perfectly fine with the consequences of Global Warming, such as the Great San Francisco Fog Feast/Fog Famine–as observed by real [...]
February 20th, 2010 | 7:02 am | #57
[...] Foggy Views of Global Warming in San Francisco Global Warming — By Harrison on February 20, 2010 at 5:00 am Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.Powered by WP Greet Box WordPress PluginFrom Gateway Pundit: [...]
February 20th, 2010 | 4:43 pm | #58
[...] to comments Lori Ziganto at Right Wings News draws attention to a story on Gateway Pundit about global warming in San Francisco. You see, seven months ago, this story appeared, claiming that global warming was causing an [...]
February 26th, 2010 | 3:08 pm | #59
[...] would prove the theory wrong. So if you claim that that anthropogenic global warming will cause BOTH an increase in fog AND a decrease in fog, (h/t Seraphic Secret) you aren’t making a scientific claim. Since both contradictory results [...]
March 7th, 2010 | 12:48 am | #60
[...] This was a response to my many references to colder weather last couple of winters in the context of my anti-Global Warming comments. I have responded to that several times, but in the interest of putting everything in one entry, here it is. Folks, you can’t have it both ways. If colder winters are not evidence against Global Warming, then warmer winters in exact same area are not evidence for it, either. And if winters are supposed to be colder in Global Warming (makes no sense, but I’m willing to humor it), then warmer winters in exact same area are evidence against global warming. Consider my references to colder weather as “payback” for all the references to warmer weather done by pro-Global Warming politicians. Watch this. If you choose to whine that weather is not climate and it’s stupid to use weather as evidence, and if you have an ounce of integrity left, call your elected representatives and tell them how stupid you consider them to be. Better yet, vote them out. 2010 sounds like a good year to do it. And cancel your subscriptions to liberal newspapers too, because obviously they have no idea what th… [...]
March 7th, 2010 | 2:27 am | #61
[...] [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact