Climate Change: Halfway There?

Environment • Views: 5,837

Uh oh. Humans Halfway to Causing Dangerous Climate Change.

When human injection of carbon into the atmosphere reaches 1 trillion tons, dangerous climate change with average global warming of more than 2 Celsius degrees will likely occur, a new analysis finds.

And humans are hurrying toward that 1 trillion mark. So far, we’ve added about 520 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere. With the addition of an estimated 9 billion tons of carbon a year — a number that’s been growing since 1850 — dangerous warming is likely to occur within half a century.

That’s the message from a new paper in the journal Nature, which — along with half a dozen other papers in the issue — provides a simpler way of looking at the climate change problem. What matters is the total amount of carbon that we release into the atmosphere, and focusing on that number as a budget can shape the way policymakers look at the problem, argues Myles Allen, lead author of one of the papers and a climatologist at the University of Oxford.

“The important thing about the cumulative budget is that a ton of carbon is a ton of carbon. If we release it now, it’s a ton we can’t release in 40 years’ time. Every ton we put out is using up a ton of that atmospheric capacity,” Allen told Wired.com. “Reducing emissions steadily over 50 years is much cheaper and easier and less traumatic than allowing them to rise for 15 years and then reducing them violently for 35 years.”

Also see

Jump to bottom

603 comments
1 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:26:13pm

Stunned silence ensues.

2 Pupdawg  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:27:49pm

Hope Al will take a check for some carbon credits...I feel so responsible.

3 solomonpanting  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:28:30pm

re: #1 Charles

Stunned silence ensues.

No one wants to emit carbon.

4 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:28:36pm

Now you're just trolling your own blog.

AGW is one of the big issues that's been keeping me a Dem, that and social issues.

5 Joel  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:28:51pm

Anything algore believes in, I think the opposite. When I was in college in the 1970's they were talking about global cooling.

6 jcm  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:29:23pm

Halfway from where to where?

7 kahall  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:29:27pm

2 Celsius degrees. Is that bad? No one knows.

8 Occasional Reader  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:29:30pm
And humans are hurrying toward that 1 trillion mark. So far, We’ve added about 520 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere. With the addition of an estimated 9 billion tons of carbon a year — a number that’s been growing since 1850 — dangerous warming is likely to occur within half a century.

And average temperatures have flatlined in the last decade, in spite of this ongoing, cumulative problem, because...

9 AuntAcid  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:29:43pm

I (heart) CO2.

10 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:29:45pm

In this model we only add up the carbon that went into the atmosphere and neglect the effect of plants that reduce the CO2. In other words it wouldn't matter if we chopped down every single tree on the planet.

Its a dumb way of looking at the problem. Not even worth partial credit on a differential equations exam.

11 Gearhead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:29:55pm

I'm confused. I thought the environmental apocalypse had already begun.

12 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:30:31pm

re: #10 Mich-again

In this model we only add up the carbon that went into the atmosphere and neglect the effect of plants that reduce the CO2. In other words it wouldn't matter if we chopped down every single tree on the planet.

Its a dumb way of looking at the problem. Not even worth partial credit on a differential equations exam.

Yep, those dumb scientists. With their dumb peer reviewed papers. Idiots!

13 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:31:20pm

Thankfully, 0bama and biden will push clean coal on us, and let the real polluters off the hook.

14 jaunte  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:31:31pm

Maybe now we can begin to build some more nuclear reactors.

15 Occasional Reader  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:31:51pm

re: #12 Charles

Yep, those dumb scientists. With their dumb peer reviewed papers. Idiots!

And, I ask again; average global temperature has remained flat in the last decade, in spite of this ongoing, cumulative problem, because...?

16 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:31:56pm

If this is true, then why haven't they allowed for the very real possibility that there will be a technological fix?

17 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:32:04pm

How many tons per volcano?

18 simonml  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:33:05pm

1 trillion, 2 trillion, 3 trillion tons. Just arbitrary numbers.

We're nowhere near one solar mass of carbon.

19 mattm  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:33:30pm

re: #7 kahall

2 Celsius degrees. Is that bad? No one knows.

Exactly. I have asked many man made GW followers what temp the earth is supposed to be or what is ideal. They do not know. For all we know the optimum temperature for the earth is 6 degrees warmer.

20 kahall  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:33:53pm

Bring back CFCs to let the hot air out!

21 Gearhead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:34:30pm
What matters is the total amount of carbon that we release into the atmosphere, and focusing on that number as a budget can shape the way policymakers look at the problem...

Rewriting the science in pursuit of funding?

22 AuntAcid  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:34:39pm

re: #19 mattm

Exactly. I have asked many man made GW followers what temp the earth is supposed to be or what is ideal. They do not know. For all we know the optimum temperature for the earth is 6 degrees warmer.

Canada would certainly benefit.

23 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:35:10pm

We can cut emissions by 50% by only allowing nocturnal emissions

24 jcm  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:35:17pm

re: #20 kahall

Bring back CFCs to let the hot air out!

Hot air?

Recess congress.

25 simonml  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:35:26pm

re: #7 kahall

2 Celsius degrees. Is that bad? No one knows.

If someone can explain to me the scientific basis of "average global temperature" I'll be very impressed. There aren't enough points of data to ever make that a reliable number

26 Occasional Reader  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:35:34pm

re: #23 Shug

We can cut emissions by 50% by only allowing nocturnal emissions

In your dreams!

27 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:35:54pm

re: #15 Occasional Reader

And, I ask again; average global temperature has remained flat in the last decade, in spite of this ongoing, cumulative problem, because...?

Because your statement is not accurate.

link.

28 jcm  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:35:59pm

re: #23 Shug

We can cut emissions by 50% by only allowing nocturnal emissions

That's a ..... pipe.... yeah, pipe dream.......

29 MrZee  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:36:36pm

It's difficult for the layman to know but I think this is interesting
[Link: blogs.news.com.au...]

30 Palandine  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:36:43pm

And our President is very concerned about global warming.

Which is why he climbed into his 747 this morning, flew halfway across the country, spoke at a Jefferson County high school for an hour, and flew back.

He doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming. It's just another means of controlling behavior. Now, if he were leading by example and speaking via video teleconference or the like, then I'd believe we really had a problem.

31 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:37:41pm

Good info. Deals with the Pacific Decadel Scillation, sunspots (and lack there of).

From real scientists, not just bozos like me that point out stuff like vikings in Greenland in the 11th century, ice on the Hudson, etc.

32 tom from pv  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:37:52pm

As I contemplate the CO2 bubbles rising in my beer, I wonder exactly when and where the education system in this country went to hell. I went thru LA Unified but by the time I was 8 or 9 I knew that CO2 was emitted by living animals and plants needed it to survive.

Sometime around 10, I'm sure I had percentages. And understood that 1% is a tiny number. I forget when they pushed fractions on me, but for sure by Jr High I knew that .04% was a very, very tiny number.

So when the government-sponsored scientists tell us that CO2 makes up .04% of the atmosphere yet its the major cause of warming -- why don't we all laugh them out of their jobs?

Somewhere, somehow in the last 50 years, the majority of Americans lost the ability to think with numbers. Its actually pretty sad, mainly because I have to live in the same world with them.

33 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:37:53pm

re: #16 Spare O'Lake

If this is true, then why haven't they allowed for the very real possibility that there will be a technological fix?

The technological fixes I've seen proposed are a lot more complicated than simply cutting emissions. One serious proposal was to put thousands of mirrors in orbit around the earth.

34 Palandine  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:38:07pm

re: #17 Shug

How many tons per volcano?

Volcanoes cause global cooling, and in a big way. Tambora, IIRC, caused The Year Without a Summer.

35 Opilio  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:38:12pm

re: #17 Shug

How many tons per volcano?

According to the USGS, the world's volcanos emit about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

36 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:38:36pm

And one of my personal favorites - what is the ideal temperature for the Earth?
And when did it last occur?

37 kahall  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:39:38pm

re: #36 Van Helsing

And one of my personal favorites - what is the ideal temperature for the Earth?
And when did it last occur?

May of 81. I remember. It was a perfect day.

38 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:40:22pm

Also, Real Scientists make ALL the workings of their computer model algorithm available to peers for real review. "Trust me" doesn't cut it.

I'm looking at you, Hansen.

39 solomonpanting  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:40:24pm
“From all the incredible arcane arguments that go on, in the end, it’s really a very simple question: what are we going to do with the second trillion tons?” Allen asked.

Put it in a brightly-colored gift-wrapped box, set it in the back seat of a car with the doors unlocked in a parking lot and someone will steal it.

40 shiplord kirel  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:40:46pm

Is this another Onion piece?
I suspect the actual scientists said something a little different and the brain-dead media shills only thought they said that the cumulative amount of carbon through all of history matters.

re: #7 kahall

2 Celsius degrees. Is that bad? No one knows.

I am among that minority of scientists who believe AGW is real enough but that it is probably not a bad thing: Higher evaporation rates and more rainfall, expanded temperate zones, longer growing seasons, etc. Of course if one belongs to the cultural-elite genocide lobby, aka the environmental movement, these things would be bad, very bad, since they would allow the unwashed masses to become, well, even more massive.
Though an obvious moron, even Ted Turner cannot be stupid enough to actually believe that higher temperatures cause desertification. This was only a cue for the media faithful, who have no concept of true and false beyond the requirements of social conformity and personal image.

41 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:41:15pm

re: #17 Shug

How many tons per volcano?

Volcano's contribute about 1/100 of the C02 man does in a year.

42 jcm  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:41:30pm

re: #36 Van Helsing

And one of my personal favorites - what is the ideal temperature for the Earth?
And when did it last occur?

What ever temperature causes sun dresses, halter tops and shorts.....

/// runs like hell........

43 mjwsatx  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:41:48pm

Stop breathing out.

44 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:42:05pm

re: #41 avanti

Volcano's contribute about 1/100 of the C02 man does in a year.

but they've had a loooooong time

45 cliffster  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:42:16pm

re: #27 avanti

Because your statement is not accurate.

link.

From the article:

Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

One-half of a degree? Really? And what is a "warmer year"? The average high temperature across all 365 days? The year's temperature taken as the temperature of the hottest day?

All this shows is that what we've always known about weather is stiil true -- the butterfly effect keeps us from knowing anything other than what is going on right now and perhaps what will be happening in 2 days.

46 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:42:28pm

re: #42 jcm

What ever temperature causes sun dresses, halter tops and shorts.....

/// runs like hell........


Heh.
I like the nudity craze in the "The Puppetmasters".
RAH, damn I miss you.

47 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:42:44pm

Sun spot activity directly relates to the Earth's climate.

48 Bobblehead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:42:47pm

re: #37 kahall

May of 81. I remember. It was a perfect day.

I beg to differ. It was Sept. 26, 1957. Lovely day.

49 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:42:58pm

It used to be much warmer. It used to be much colder. The earth has experienced variations in temp before. The question arises; Are we changing our environment? The next question; is this change detrimental?
Extra credit for; are we changing the gaseous percentiles of our atmosphere, and how is our health affected by addition carbon dioxide, and is this affecting the percentage of oxygen available to us?

I think warmer is better, but less oxygen is not, unless you are a plant.

50 Seagreenroom  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:43:08pm

If TheOne can just manage to put enough people out of work in coal states, we can stave off extinction.

He'll save us. I just know he will.

51 Jewels (AKA Julian)  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:43:13pm

The Enviro Loons will not GO AWAY. These are the same fools speaking of Global Cooling in the 1970's....Climate is always going to change.

but that never occours to these gits.

52 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:43:15pm

I don't have a problem so much with green technology and being good stewards so much as I have a problem with the disproportionate application of the solutions. I don't think it's fair to punish America for this when China and India are pollution factories.

53 AuntAcid  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:43:40pm

re: #41 avanti

Volcano's contribute about 1/100 of the C02 man does in a year.

Here a SWAG, there a SWAG, everywhere a SWAG SWAG...

54 cliffster  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:43:43pm

re: #41 avanti

Volcano's contribute about 1/100 of the C02 man does in a year.

Which year?

55 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:43:57pm

re: #35 Opilio

According to the USGS, the world's volcanos emit about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

We need volcano regulation, world wide!

56 MandyManners  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:44:00pm

I'm busy clubbing baby seals so, I'll check back in later.

57 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:44:00pm

re: #47 OldLineTexan

Sun spot activity directly relates to the Earth's climate.

Unless you're an AGW disciple. Then the effect is minimal, at best.
I gotta find that article...

58 UncleRancher  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:44:14pm

The optimistic side of me wants to believe that every day a few more people "get it", and begin to understand that this snake oil salesman is working a global scam. Then another politician I thought had an ounce of sense gets on board with this cap and trade nonsense. It is frustrating.

59 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:44:31pm

re: #57 Van Helsing

Unless you're an AGW disciple. Then the effect is minimal, at best.
I gotta find that article...

Yes, disciple. Apt word.

60 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:44:49pm

re: #55 swamprat

We need volcano regulation, world wide!

That would require volcano monitoring, so bobby jindal says no.

61 Liberal Classic  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:44:54pm

My sense is that we are already past the point of no return. By this estimation, we've released a half a teraton of CO2 into the atmosphere. If an increase in atmospheric CO2 to one teraton will increase the mean temperature by two degrees celsius in one hundred years, then it is really only a matter of time before the two-degree mark is reached. Even if all human industrial activity stopped completely, it would take maybe two or three hundred years to reach a mean increase of two degrees. A complete halt to human industrial activity is simply not going to happen. Therefore, we have passed the point of no return, and governments are asking the wrong questions. The question is not "how do we stop global warming?" The pertinent question becomes "how does human civilization cope with global warming and climate change?"

62 sngnsgt  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:45:10pm

Does this mean I can exhale now?

63 MandyManners  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:45:57pm

re: #30 Palandine

And our President is very concerned about global warming.

Which is why he climbed into his 747 this morning, flew halfway across the country, spoke at a Jefferson County high school for an hour, and flew back.

He doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming. It's just another means of controlling behavior. Now, if he were leading by example and speaking via video teleconference or the like, then I'd believe we really had a problem.

Don't forget what he did about the first bill he signed.

64 Seagreenroom  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:46:04pm

re: #30 Palandine

And our President is very concerned about global warming.

Which is why he climbed into his 747 this morning, flew halfway across the country, spoke at a Jefferson County high school for an hour, and flew back.

He doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming. It's just another means of controlling behavior. Now, if he were leading by example and speaking via video teleconference or the like, then I'd believe we really had a problem.

But if he did that, he wouldn't be able to experience that tingling rush as he steps onto the stage and absorbs the adoration of his retarded followers.

65 AuntAcid  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:46:19pm

re: #61 Liberal Classic

Like we have being doing since the gitgo- adapt.

66 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:46:30pm

re: #1 Charles

We're not breathing. Whadda want from us.?

/

67 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:46:44pm

re: #36 Van Helsing

And one of my personal favorites - what is the ideal temperature for the Earth?
And when did it last occur?

The ideal temperature for the earth may not be the ideal temperature for mankind as we now know it. Sure, the milder winters will be welcome in the north, but the coastal cities that MAY be underwater and new deserts will be inconvenient elsewhere.
We have little data about tipping points caused by ice melts, or methane ice release, but we need to find out.

68 kahall  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:46:59pm

re: #65 AuntAcid

Like we have being doing since the gitgo- adapt.

Evolve!

69 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:47:07pm

re: #59 OldLineTexan

Yes, disciple. Apt word.

Scroll down

70 Canard51  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:47:14pm

What a crock of crap.

71 MandyManners  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:47:17pm

FCBBHO is a fucking Narcissist folks.

72 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:47:31pm

hmmm
havn't done this in a while
gorebull warming solar update
no sunspots and solar wind output is a slight 293 km/s

73 UncleRancher  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:47:33pm

re: #61 Liberal Classic

My sense is that we are already past the point of no return. By this estimation, we've released a half a teraton of CO2 into the atmosphere. If an increase in atmospheric CO2 to one teraton will increase the mean temperature by two degrees celsius in one hundred years, then it is really only a matter of time before the two-degree mark is reached. Even if all human industrial activity stopped completely, it would take maybe two or three hundred years to reach a mean increase of two degrees. A complete halt to human industrial activity is simply not going to happen. Therefore, we have passed the point of no return, and governments are asking the wrong questions. The question is not "how do we stop global warming?" The pertinent question becomes "how does human civilization cope with global warming and climate change?"

Miller says Greenland will turn into temperate farmland and we're all going to die.

74 formercorpsman  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:47:42pm

I am willing to consider this debate.

However, parsing with it, the hypocrisy of those preaching it as fire and brimstone while they contradict their own carbon footprints, are willing to grant a pass to China for the Kyoto protocol, use manipulative media imagery (Polar Bears) & have set themselves up as the ecological pontificates selling carbon dispensations tend to make me a little suspect on some aspects of this.

As much as one can find fault with those who posses the knee jerk dismissal of the data, I find equally disturbing those who have positioned themselves as the moral authorities of this movement.

Furthermore, there is a definite money trail with this. Don't beg for intellect, and then expect to insult me with the aforementioned.

75 JacksonTn  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:47:49pm

re: #67 avanti

The ideal temperature for the earth may not be the ideal temperature for mankind as we now know it. Sure, the milder winters will be welcome in the north, but the coastal cities that MAY be underwater and new deserts will be inconvenient elsewhere.
We have little data about tipping points caused by ice melts, or methane ice release, but we need to find out.

Avanti ... oh, guess we might as well get out the razor blades now ...

/idiots ...

76 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:47:50pm

somebody help me out :

This 1 trrillion amount: Is that a total cumulative over time
Meaning, even if you reduce emissions to almost zero, eventually given enough time, you will still hit this 1 trillion mark.

or is it 1 trillion in a fixed period, and that if emissions were zero, it dissipates over time and you get to start over?

77 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:48:14pm

re: #26 Occasional Reader

In your dreams!

Oh get a grip.

78 semper gumbi  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:48:20pm

re: #41 avanti

Volcano's contribute about 1/100 of the C02 man does in a year.

link please

79 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:48:22pm

re: #60 Sharmuta

That would require volcano monitoring, so bobby jindal says no.

Umm, he was only against monitoring them 'sploding, right? Maybe he'd be OK for gas-spew measurements.

/

80 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:48:26pm

Obama said he would fix this. Let the man work.

81 Palandine  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:48:57pm

re: #64 Seagreenroom

But if he did that, he wouldn't be able to experience that tingling rush as he steps onto the stage and absorbs the adoration of his retarded followers.

I didn't get to go to the protest (I work for a living) but there were HUNDREDS of protesters. Didn't see that on Fox (and I sure wasn't going to see it on other networks), but Gateway Pundit has a good round up.

82 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:49:06pm

re: #12 Charles

Yep, those dumb scientists. With their dumb peer reviewed papers. Idiots!

Why yes! Science and peer reviewed research should be "confronted."

By the likes of Tony Perkins, Glenn Beck and the Family Research Council.

//

83 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:49:23pm

re: #45 cliffster

From the article:

Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

One-half of a degree? Really? And what is a "warmer year"? The average high temperature across all 365 days? The year's temperature taken as the temperature of the hottest day?

All this shows is that what we've always known about weather is stiil true -- the butterfly effect keeps us from knowing anything other than what is going on right now and perhaps what will be happening in 2 days.

1/2 a degree in average temperature increase if continuing is a issue. Here's another read on the last decade.

link...

84 FrogMarch  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:49:27pm

re: #30 Palandine

And our President is very concerned about global warming.

Which is why he climbed into his 747 this morning, flew halfway across the country, spoke at a Jefferson County high school for an hour, and flew back.

He doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming. It's just another means of controlling behavior. Now, if he were leading by example and speaking via video teleconference or the like, then I'd believe we really had a problem.

Obama doesn't have anything else to do. Actual politicking is all up to Pelosi and Reid. Obama is a rock star!

85 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:49:34pm

re: #74 formercorpsman

Furthermore, there is a definite money trail with this. Don't beg for intellect, and then expect to insult me with the aforementioned.

You bet your sweet bippy there's money in this. HUGE money. That will be lifted from OUR wallets.

86 MacGregor  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:49:45pm

Woaaa!
Halfway There
Woaaaa Ho!
Livin' on a prayer!

87 solomonpanting  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:50:14pm

re: #80 swamprat

Obama said he would fix this. Let the man work.

"I don't want to be running a volcano."

88 victor_yugo  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:50:22pm

For me, this falls under the heading of "we-got-it-right-this-time."

Global cooling. Global warming.

Particulates. CFC's. Carbon dioxide.

Natural cycles. Anthropogenic.

There is no such thing as an "ideal temperature," only an ideal temperature for us to inhabit all current climates. Even if the temps go up ten degrees Celsius, and all humanity dies from swine flu, nature will always find her new balance.

89 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:50:45pm

Global warming is also occurring on mars. Do we know to what degree? Does it mirror our increase?

90 astronmr20  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:51:12pm

The earth spent most of the last half million years in an ice age. By that standard, “normal” would mean ice covering most of Canada and much of the northern US. Under “normal” conditions the place where I’m sitting right now would be under 1/2 mile of ice.

I think I prefer the abnormal conditions of the Holocene Period.

The Green assholes are making their final push. The newer data, as all eyes focus intently on ice averages, suggests we are in for some cold times, especially when the role of the Sun's energy is taken into account with regard to solar wind.

91 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:51:40pm

When will the Swine Flu pandemic be blamed on Global Warming?

I'll bet by this time next week

92 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:51:55pm

Kill all the cattle and sheep to keep'em from farting.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've a pesky stand of old growth lumber I have to fell./

There has to be a way of cutting emissions without trashing the economies of the industrialized world.

93 Opilio  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:51:56pm

re: #34 Palandine

Volcanoes cause global cooling, and in a big way. Tambora, IIRC, caused The Year Without a Summer.

Only the really big ones do. The ones that can spew enough SO2 into the stratosphere. Like Pinatubo in 1991 and El Chichón in 1982.

94 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:52:08pm

re: #91 Shug

When will the Swine Flu pandemic be blamed on Global Warming?

I'll bet by this time next week

Warm a pig, cause a fever.

/

95 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:52:31pm

re: #82 Gus 802

Why yes! Science and peer reviewed research should be "confronted."

By the likes of Tony Perkins//


I thought Norman Bates was dead?

/

96 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:52:34pm

re: #54 cliffster

Which year?

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: One decent-sized volcanic eruption puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than a decade of human emissions. It's ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 emissions will have any effect.

Answer: Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.

97 UncleRancher  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:52:39pm

Exactly what is it about an ice age that turns these people on?

98 victor_yugo  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:52:52pm

For those who demand an end to CO2 emissions:

Explain how you expect to transport Tamiflu to your cities and towns.

I'll wait.

99 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:52:55pm
100 MandyManners  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:53:04pm

re: #86 MacGregor

Woaaa!
Halfway There
Woaaaa Ho!
Livin' on a prayer!

Git the fuck out of mah brain.

101 astronmr20  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:53:05pm

re: #72 rain of lead

hmmm
havn't done this in a while
gorebull warming solar update
no sunspots and solar wind output is a slight 293 km/s

Exactly. Quiet as a mouse.

Expect cold in the next 20 years, folks. We are entering a solar minimum. Google Theodore Landscheidt. He has been right about everything so far, and the science behind it is absolutely fascinating.

102 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:53:08pm
103 shiplord kirel  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:53:18pm

re: #97 UncleRancher

Exactly what is it about an ice age that turns these people on?

An excuse not to bathe?

104 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:53:23pm

re: #95 calcajun

I thought Norman Bates was dead?

/

He's alive and scaring people at the FRC!

//

105 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:53:33pm

re: #97 UncleRancher

Exactly what is it about an ice age that turns these people on?

We start wearing mammoth furs again, after we feed the PETArds to the sabre-tooth tigers.

106 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:53:40pm

Ice ages are cool

107 Noam Sayin'  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:53:52pm
When human injection of carbon into the atmosphere reaches...

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the use of the word carbon more frequently and CO2 used less frequently?

108 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:53:54pm

re: #97 UncleRancher

Exactly what is it about an ice age that turns these people on?

Winter sports.

109 sngnsgt  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:53:55pm

re: #91 Shug

I'm not taking that bet, I can't afford to lose the money.

110 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:54:04pm
111 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:54:23pm

re: #41 avanti

Volcano's contribute about 1/100 of the C02 man does in a year.

Yeah but volcanoes are all about the transients. Its not the gentle smoke billowing from the tops of all the volcanoes on the planet for a hundred years that matters so much. But if one of them has a real bad day, that could make a big difference.

112 Kreuzueber Halbmond  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:54:34pm

Fertilize the planet. End cremation now!

113 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:54:38pm

re: #106 Shug

Ice ages are cool

I want one of those goofy-ass sloths for a friend.

114 sngnsgt  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:54:40pm

re: #97 UncleRancher

Exactly what is it about an ice age that turns these people on?

Year 'round Hockey!

115 cliffster  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:54:49pm

re: #83 avanti

1/2 a degree in average temperature increase if continuing is a issue. Here's another read on the last decade.

link...

But the point is, we can't tie it to human activity, any more than we can predict the weather 2 weeks from any given day. The butterfly effect. So sure, raising the temperature 1/2 a degree a year would be terrible if it continued. What real reason do you have to believe it would?

Also, you didn't answer my question about your previous statement..

Volcano's contribute about 1/100 of the C02 man does in a year.

Which year? It makes a big difference. Some years there are large amounts of volcanic activity, some years there's not.

116 victor_yugo  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:54:58pm

re: #73 UncleRancher

Miller says Greenland will turn into temperate farmland and we're all going to die.

That already happened once, but notice that we didn't all die.

117 SpaceJesus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:55:10pm

go nuclear you imbeciles

118 semper gumbi  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:55:14pm

re: #92 calcajun

There has to be a way of cutting emissions without trashing the economies of the industrialized world.

Yep, it's called investing in nuclear power - yet another no-no according to the greenies.

119 Gella  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:56:03pm

so back to cave age?

speaking of swine flu, good timing
[Link: www.thelifefiles.com...]
///

120 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:56:05pm

re: #114 sngnsgt

Year 'round Hockey!

Sarah Palin will RULE.TEH.WORLD.

She will be known as Her Mom-ness.

/

121 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:56:10pm

re: #107 Noam Sayin'

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the use of the word carbon more frequently and CO2 used less frequently?

As if once this block of coal floats into the air, no plant will want to grab it and eat it, so it can fart the oxygen back at us.

122 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:56:11pm

re: #118 semper gumbi

Yep, it's called investing in nuclear power - yet another no-no according to the greenies.

More Core! More Core!

123 cliffster  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:56:25pm

re: #96 avanti

Ignore my previous statement that you hadn't answered my question :)

124 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:56:27pm

re: #76 Shug

somebody help me out :

This 1 trrillion amount: Is that a total cumulative over time
Meaning, even if you reduce emissions to almost zero, eventually given enough time, you will still hit this 1 trillion mark.

or is it 1 trillion in a fixed period, and that if emissions were zero, it dissipates over time and you get to start over?

It really should be how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and that is much more complicated. If the temperatures increase, will plants and the ocean absorb more CO2 or less?
And that's what bothers me about this whole article. It doesn't seem to cover that. We don't actually know; different plants behave differently.

I think the reviewers of these articles already had their conclusion, because the absorption is very important. The key is the difference between the emissions and absorption, not how much is emitted totally.

125 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:56:35pm
126 jcm  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:56:51pm

Repost from earlier today....

Let's stipulate two things.

1) Cyclical climate change is real phenomena with a large natural component.
2) That anthropogenic component of climate change is debatable, from negligible to a primary climate driver.

Taking those two stipulations what do we do?

1) The political drive is to assume the anthropogenic component is the primary driver and climate change can be altered by altering human behavior on a large scale.

2) The other solution is to adapt to climate change as it occurs, making necessary changes as needed.

The problem is with solution 1). If it turns out that the anthropogenic component is not a driver, and altering human behavior will have little or no effect on climate then all the resource poured into that solution are wasted. And if this solution is wrong then we aren't prepared for natural climate change assuming we could alter the cycle.

If we put the resources into solution 2) it doesn't matter how or why climate change occurs we will be dealing with it. This solution covers both contingencies of climate change, both anthropogenic and natural.

127 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:57:08pm

re: #117 SpaceJesus

go nuclear you imbeciles

thats an upding for you there jeebus enjoy it i guess even a broken clock with no hands is eventually right you may want to take a picture it will last longer

128 victor_yugo  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:57:11pm

re: #103 shiplord kirel

An excuse not to bathe?

They haven't bathed for nigh on fifty years. What makes this day different from any other?

129 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:57:13pm

re: #125 buzzsawmonkey

I do not understand why people who believe in evolution--as I do--do not believe humans will adapt to whatever changing conditions occur on Earth.

Ha! I've often asked myself that question.

130 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:57:39pm

re: #120 OldLineTexan

Especially with those little black skirts and high-heels. I tend to lose track of what she's saying a minute into her speech. yes. I am a pig./

131 PaxAmericana  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:57:54pm

Charles,
What is your position on Global Warming? Personally, I'm on the fence.

132 victor_yugo  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:58:06pm

re: #120 OldLineTexan

Sarah Palin will RULE.TEH.WORLD.

She will be known as Her Mom-ness.

/

I'd make a MILF comment, but it would be in really baaaaad taste...

133 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:58:09pm

re: #125 buzzsawmonkey

I do not understand why people who believe in evolution--as I do--do not believe humans will adapt to whatever changing conditions occur on Earth.

The Earth is entering an ice age. My ears are growing more fur as we speak. I'm adapting, obviously.

134 FrogMarch  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:58:11pm

re: #86 MacGregor

Woaaa!
Halfway There
Woaaaa Ho!
Livin' on a prayer!

same thing happened to me.

135 shiplord kirel  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:58:17pm

This is either the end of the world or the end of the scientific community's collective credibility.
Either way, we are up the proverbial (snow-melt swollen?) creek without a paddle.

136 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:58:28pm

re: #117 SpaceJesus

go nuclear you imbeciles

Think of the jobs even a handful of plants would create!

137 jcm  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:58:37pm

re: #117 SpaceJesus

go nuclear you imbeciles

YEAH!

138 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:58:37pm

re: #78 semper gumbi

link please


link
INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estamated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.
INFLUENCE ON THE HAZE EFFECT:

139 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:58:48pm
140 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:58:49pm

re: #128 victor_yugo

They haven't bathed for nigh on fifty years. What makes this day different from any other?

That explains that giant funk cloud over your state. I thought it was the stockyards.

141 Gella  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:59:01pm

re: #133 OldLineTexan

we all will save too much $$ and environment in raisers

142 Idle Drifter  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:59:16pm

Well if the science is settled I'm grabbing my chainsaw and flame thower. BURN BABY BURN! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

143 Gella  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:59:29pm

re: #117 SpaceJesus

go nuclear you imbeciles

hello Chernobil

144 semper gumbi  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 7:59:35pm

re: #138 avanti


Thanks.

145 JacksonTn  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:00:11pm

I know it is not scientific ... but I know many many farmers ... we live and die by the weather ... the majority of us feel it is cyclical ...

146 SpaceJesus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:00:19pm

re: #136 Sharmuta

Think of the jobs even a handful of plants would create!

totally, not to mention renewed uranium mining. plus, no CO2

147 Palandine  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:00:51pm

What are the thoughts regarding this H1N1 thing? It seems to be fairly communicable, but not that virulent, yet the governments of the world are freaking right out. I'm trying to figure out whether

1. They know it's not a big deal, but they're using it as sort of a tabletop exercise to get their practices right for if there ever was a bad outbreak
(i.e., a real-life version of Dark Winter with relatively low stakes. This would actually not be a bad thing.

2. All the hype is a function of 24-hour news cycles and a growing governmental penchant for micromanagement.

3. It actually is a big deal, if not for the West, then for the developing world, where people may be immunologically less able to handle it.

I'm sure Art Bell or George Noory have a theory too, but it probably involves aliens or Bigfoot...

148 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:00:53pm

re: #111 Mich-again

Yeah but volcanoes are all about the transients. Its not the gentle smoke billowing from the tops of all the volcanoes on the planet for a hundred years that matters so much. But if one of them has a real bad day, that could make a big difference.

True, but big eruptions would show up on the temp graphs and are often cause cooling do to the haze effect.

149 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:01:04pm

re: #141 Gella

we all will save too much $$ and environment in raisers

I will have to use my beard for a combover until mammoths re-evolve, but I am willing to make that sacrifice for Gaia.

/

150 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:01:17pm

re: #146 SpaceJesus

totally, not to mention renewed uranium mining. plus, no CO2

It's win-win-win, Baby.

151 SpaceJesus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:01:25pm

re: #143 Gella

hello Chernobil


what? are you some kind of special internet person?

152 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:01:26pm

re: #138 avanti

so volcanos are good because they cool the planet?

153 Gella  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:01:38pm

re: #151 SpaceJesus

what? are you some kind of special internet person?

no why?

154 jvic  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:01:47pm

re: #16 Spare O'Lake

If this is true, then why haven't they allowed for the very real possibility that there will be a technological fix?

Scroll down in the Wired article and you'll see a link to 'Obama Should Support Climate Hacking Research', which has other links in turn.

1. I kinda doubt that 'climate hacking' is the best way to present the idea to the public, let alone to Congress...

2. The possibility that worries me most is that strong, poorly understood warming and cooling dynamics are precariously offsetting each other for the moment--but that the balance is unstable and it will unambiguously tip. Reversible geoengineering/climate hacking, if you please...

3. Previously predicted environmental calamities have not occurred. That is grounds for optimism, but not grounds for recklessness. I can't imagine the Victorians hesitating to hack the climate. The people who built the Erie and Suez Canals. Teddy Roosevelt. Maybe they were too optimistic, but I want America to put our chips on the side of optimism when reasonable doubt exists. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted.

155 FrogMarch  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:01:50pm

I'm all for alternative energy anyway - because it's cleaner. coal is dirty, and I don't like it.

also, I'm waiting for the catastrophic coastal flooding to occur - just like in the hollywad movies. Then - I will believe!

156 victor_yugo  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:01:53pm

re: #140 calcajun

That explains that giant funk cloud over your state. I thought it was the stockyards.

Just to be sure, which state are you thinking about? I live in Ohio now.

re: #143 Gella

hello Chernobil

Oh, spare us. That's already been debunked a gajillion times over.

157 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:01:54pm

re: #143 Gella

hello Chernobil

Chernobyl. And, that was because it was a bad design coupled with bad maintenance schedules, understaffed facilities and so-so training. Look at the French--they've used nuclear for more the 50 years, get 40% of their electricity from it and have a spotless safety record.

158 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:01:59pm

re: #143 Gella

hello Chernobil

You ever read what happened? American nuke plants have safety features. Is France glowing?

159 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:02:12pm

re: #126 jcm

I pick option 2.
With nuclear plants.

And I want one of these:Ray gun

160 Killgore Trout  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:02:33pm

I like the new LGF. I'm a global warming skeptic but I don't have a strong opinion and I'm not offended by people who have one view or the other. I't nice to see the discussion though.

161 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:02:35pm

re: #138 avanti

link
INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:

notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estamated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times.

Your link says volcanoes make 150 times more CO2 than we do. Those 'canoes have been doing this for quite a few days.

Did you realize this?

162 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:02:37pm
163 Gella  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:02:45pm

re: #157 calcajun

Chernobyl. And, that was because it was a bad design coupled with bad maintenance schedules, understaffed facilities and so-so training. Look at the French--they've used nuclear for more the 50 years, get 40% of their electricity from it and have a spotless safety record.

ya, i know all about it, experiment went bad, lived thru it
i dont mind as long as it safe

164 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:03:19pm
165 Irenike  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:03:27pm

Global warming is a bunch of hot air.

Even if the earth is warming, why is that a bad thing? None of these alarmists ever answers that.

When I was growing up, "acid rain" was the big scare. "Nuclear winter" was another scare.

It's all just hype.

166 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:03:41pm

re: #142 Idle Drifter

Well if the science is settled I'm grabbing my chainsaw and flame thower. BURN BABY BURN! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

There's always the exception that proves the rule.

/

167 Palandine  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:03:50pm

re: #116 victor_yugo

That already happened once, but notice that we didn't all die.

Jared Diamond's "Collapse" noted that when Greenland was settled from Europe, it was unusually warm. As the climate cooled, their lifestyle became untenable. Climate changes, always.

The thesis of "Collapse" is a little facile, in that EVERYTHING is caused by climate change according to him, but the case studies are interesting.

168 cliffster  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:03:58pm

If it's so obvious that temperatures are going up, then why the insistence on calling it "global climate change" instead of "global warming"? Because temperatures go down some years and some places, and they go up in other years and other places.

169 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:04:04pm

re: #158 OldLineTexan

Is France glowing?

Has Bill Clinton paid it a visit?

170 Killgore Trout  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:04:10pm

re: #162 buzzsawmonkey


If you believe in G-d, you believe His promise that the Earth is fixed so that it cannot falter, and that therefore we are in good hands.

If, like me, you believe both these things, there is absolutely no reason to get your panties in a twist about global warming, cooling, climate change, yadda yadda.


Even people with "God is my copilot" bumper stickers don't take it literally.

171 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:04:35pm

Climate change is the third rail of right wing politics.

172 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:04:49pm

re: #160 Killgore Trout

I like the new LGF. I'm a global warming skeptic but I don't have a strong opinion and I'm not offended by people who have one view or the other. I't nice to see the discussion though.

I agree, and the usual bullshit on the extremes is cut away. ( the algore and the inhoffe camps)
I've personally gained a much larger understanding of the whole debate by reading these discussions.

173 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:04:54pm
174 formercorpsman  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:04:54pm

re: #165 Irenike

I do remember the acid rain stuff from the news.

175 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:04:57pm

re: #75 JacksonTn

Avanti ... oh, guess we might as well get out the razor blades now ...

/idiots ...

No one here is saying the sky is falling. If climate change is real, and a lot of the science says it is, it only makes sense to ask what effect it could have and either prepare for it or study how to stop it..

176 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:05:29pm

re: #170 Killgore Trout

Even people with "God is my copilot" bumper stickers don't take it literally.

Those people are harmless. Now, the "God is My Pilot" people ...

177 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:05:36pm

Speaking of a win-win situation, my Native America friend is still moving ahead with getting windmills on his tribe's land. It's green technology that will power nearby communities, and the tribe will be economically independent. I think that's really great.

178 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:05:37pm

re: #163 Gella

experiment went bad?

Huh? They were doing shut down drills when the system failed.

179 victor_yugo  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:05:46pm

Okay all, I just saw that NetBSD 5.0 is out, plus I'm in violation of the Iron Fist Rule, so I'm outta here.

Y'all have fun now!

180 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:05:52pm

re: #171 Charles

Climate change is the third rail of right wing politics.

?

So ... don't piss on it?

181 astronmr20  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:05:59pm

re: #171 Charles

Climate change is the third rail of right wing politics.

How so?

182 jaunte  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:06:11pm

re: #167 Palandine

This book had a similar premise, but jumped off from just one eruption event:

Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of Modern Civilization. In Keys's startling thesis, a global climatic catastrophe in A.D. 535-536--a massive volcanic eruption sundering Java from Sumatra--was the decisive factor that transformed the ancient world into the medieval, or as Keys prefers to call it, the "proto-modern" era.
[Link: www.amazon.com...]
183 The Shadow Do  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:06:13pm
When human injection of carbon into the atmosphere reaches 1 trillion tons, dangerous climate change with average global warming of more than 2 Celsius degrees will likely occur, a new analysis finds.

I tend to think that warming is a true phenomenon. I also think that it is misunderstood as well as ill-measured in terms of it's repercussions. The noise around the suggested facts of the matter has precluded any common sense understanding of just what it all means.

What is the net effect of a 1-2c temp increase? Has anyone realistically projected the net effect? Aside from Al Gore? As far as I know, and it is true that I don't know a lot, that this could well be a net benefit.

A little honest data in the layman's arena would sure help.

184 Gella  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:06:26pm

my 5cents about global warming: climate is cyclical, there are really no recording from about climate change from about 150-200 years ago, so far nothing to worry about as of now IMXO

185 Palandine  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:06:28pm

re: #143 Gella

hello Chernobil

Somehow I think our technology is just a wee bit better than antiquated Soviet technology.

Ask any sailor who's ever cruised on a nuclear-powered ship.

186 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:06:39pm

re: #129 Gus 802

Ha! I've often asked myself that question.

Our civilization has been the thing that evolved, not us.

187 Idle Drifter  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:06:55pm

re: #143 Gella

hello Chernobil

Get out of here S.T.A.L.K.E.R.!

188 Cato the Elder  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:07:11pm

The people who object to "going green" overlook one thing. We'll have to do it whether or not AGW is real and whether or not anything we do can stop it. We're running out of oil.

And saying "but...but...but...China and India need to do it too" is like saying you'll build a house for yourself when those nomads over the horizon stop living in tents.

We can lead, follow or get out of the way. Simple as that.

189 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:07:20pm

re: #169 calcajun

Has Bill Clinton paid it a visit?

All the ammo he's expended, and only hit the target once.

/

190 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:07:22pm

Just dropping by to say hello. Honestly, I've been trying to write a post for about 12 minutes but I can't really figure out how to say what I want to say. So I'm just going to say hello and head off tonight.

191 SteveRogers  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:07:33pm

How long before soda and beer is prohibited?
I'm only partly joking, because you know that leftists love to save us from ourselves.

Let's outlaw cows and pigs, 'cause their farts will kill Gaia.

Let's outlaw beer and soda, 'cause that CO2 will kill Gaia.

They aren't serious about AGW or they would be building nuclear power plants. Cap and trade is another way to tax, and all the alarmists want is more power over our lives and power to take more of our liberty away.
For our own good, of course.

192 Wendya  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:07:40pm

First we were cooling, then were were warming, now we are cooling...

All peer reviewed, no less.

193 Irenike  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:07:45pm

re: #174 formercorpsman

I do remember the acid rain stuff from the news.

Like, recently? I haven't heard about it for about 25 years. Then again, I don't keep up on all the scares-du-jour.

194 Gella  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:07:51pm

re: #178 calcajun

Huh? They were doing shut down drills when the system failed.

correct, after experiment has started, thanks to communism little shtick we have a plan and have to stick to it no matter what

195 MandyManners  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:07:57pm

Good night, Lizards.

196 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:08:06pm

re: #171 Charles

Climate change is the third rail of right wing politics.

There's a lot of metaphors there, Charles? What's the second rail? The third rail of left-wing politics is...

/

Chung Mee: Opium is my business. The bridge mean more traffic. More traffic mean more money. More money mean more power.
Lawrence Bourne III: Yeah, well, before I commit any of that to memory, would there be anything in this for me?
Chung Mee: Speed is important in business. Time is money.
Lawrence Bourne III: You said opium was money.
Chung Mee: Money is Money.
Lawrence Bourne III: Well then, what is time again?

Volunteers-- 1985

197 SpaceJesus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:08:30pm

re: #153 Gella

no why?


there are many modern nations that have relied mainly, if not heavily on nuclear power for their base line for decades. last time I checked, none of them had any problems whatsoever with it. also, modern technology has made it virtually impossible to have a core meltdown.

198 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:09:00pm

re: #179 victor_yugo

Okay all, I just saw that NetBSD 5.0 is out, plus I'm in violation of the Iron Fist Rule, so I'm outta here.

Y'all have fun now!

Whereas NetBDS is on like version 9.4 ...

199 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:09:34pm

re: #148 avanti

True, but big eruptions would show up on the temp graphs and are often cause cooling do to the haze effect.

Thats my point. We fret over a degree or two of temperature change and talk about dismantling our economy to stop the creep but in one bad day a volcano could spew a billion tons of soot into the sky and blot out the sun and you'll be wishing you had some CO2 in the air to hold some heat in.

200 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:09:35pm

re: #197 SpaceJesus

who are you and what have you done with teh REAL jeebus?

201 Cato the Elder  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:09:55pm

re: #197 SpaceJesus

there are many modern nations that have relied mainly, if not heavily on nuclear power for their base line for decades. last time I checked, none of them had any problems whatsoever with it. also, modern technology has made it virtually impossible to have a core meltdown.

France, Germany, for starters.

202 VioletTiger  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:10:49pm

There is an article in National Geographic, April 2009, titled "Outlook: Extreme" by Elizabeth Kolbert. She begins by talking about the world's first empire, Akkad, which gre around the Tigris and Euphrates river. It flouresed and then suddenly disappeared. They think it may have had to do with a shift in climate. Here is a quote from the article:

The rainfall changes that devastated these early civilzations long predate industrialization; they were triggered by naturally occurring climate shifts whose cause remains uncertain. By contrast, climate change brought about by increasing greenhouse gas concentration is our own doing.

Notice what she said. We have no idea what natural process caused these climate changes, but we are sure we are causing this one. This is the BS that I have a problem with. If we can't predict what happened in the past, how can we be sure about our model of the future? Models that can't predict are not worth the paper they are printed on.

I am willing to listen to both sides, but we can't cut off debate and say the issue is decided.

203 Palandine  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:10:59pm

re: #155 FrogMarch

I'm all for alternative energy anyway - because it's cleaner. coal is dirty, and I don't like it.

also, I'm waiting for the catastrophic coastal flooding to occur - just like in the hollywad movies. Then - I will believe!

Missouri gets 60% of its electricity from coal. When cap and trade goes into effect, the costs are going to disproportionately affect people with lower and middle incomes.

/Yet Obama insists it's not a tax

I'm all in favor of efficient green technology. However, when you have Senator Feinstein not wanting solar panels in Death Valley because they might inconvenience some tortoises, and Robert Kennedy Jr doesn't want a wind farm where it might mar the view from his family's compound, the agenda becomes clear. If you can't put solar panels where the sun shines most or wind farms where the wind blows most, then what's the point?

/besides behavior control?

204 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:11:12pm

Meanwhile, I'm pissed off tonight because I finally finished watching every episode of "The Sopranos" for the first time (yes, really!), and there's nothing else even close to it on TV in terms of quality.

But that final episode. Damn. Ambiguity cubed.

205 sngnsgt  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:11:15pm

re: #192 Wendya

First we were cooling, then were were warming, now we are cooling...

All peer reviewed, no less.

Or as my Uncle would say, "Can I keep the beer on the porch or do I need to put it in the fridge? The fridge, the porch, the fridge?

206 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:11:34pm

re: #188 Cato the Elder

The people who object to "going green" overlook one thing. We'll have to do it whether or not AGW is real and whether or not anything we do can stop it. We're running out of oil.

And saying "but...but...but...China and India need to do it too" is like saying you'll build a house for yourself when those nomads over the horizon stop living in tents.

We can lead, follow or get out of the way. Simple as that.

No objection to leading in developing appropriate solutions.
HUGE objection to strangling the economy of the best country to get it done (That would be US). Carbon cap and trade will do that.

207 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:11:44pm

re: #188 Cato the Elder

I like saving a buck and starving an oil tick. Just don't need the religious overtones and the obvious hucksterism.

208 Gella  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:11:45pm

re: #197 SpaceJesus

there are many modern nations that have relied mainly, if not heavily on nuclear power for their base line for decades. last time I checked, none of them had any problems whatsoever with it. also, modern technology has made it virtually impossible to have a core meltdown.

it is pretty safe method with in few exceptions
[Link: www.theepochtimes.com...]

209 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:11:48pm

re: #197 SpaceJesus

there are many modern nations that have relied mainly, if not heavily on nuclear power for their base line for decades. last time I checked, none of them had any problems whatsoever with it. also, modern technology has made it virtually impossible to have a core meltdown.

Okay. Someone's jacked Jesus' account here. Either that or we just slipped into an alternate universe. /

210 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:11:57pm
211 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:12:01pm

re: #171 Charles

Climate change is the third rail of right wing politics.

Maybe so, but it is the mantra of the left.

212 Wendya  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:12:13pm

re: #175 avanti

No one here is saying the sky is falling. If climate change is real, and a lot of the science says it is, it only makes sense to ask what effect it could have and either prepare for it or study how to stop it..

Of course climate change is real. The question is, are humans causing it, can it be proven and do we change our entire way of life based on computer models that have so far been a spectacular failure? How many predictions have come true so far? I believe it's a big fat ZERO. Since we have no way of knowing what the climate SHOULD be 200 years from now, it seems a bit premature to try to change it.

213 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:12:23pm

re: #204 Charles

Meanwhile, I'm pissed off tonight because I finally finished watching every episode of "The Sopranos" for the first time (yes, really!), and there's nothing else even close to it on TV in terms of quality.

But that final episode. Damn. Ambiguity cubed.

OK--your take on it. Tony dead or not?

214 Liberal Classic  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:12:27pm

One of the best illustration I've found online is from the Department of Geology & Geophysics at Rice University.

(Image link follows)
Image: GeoColumn.gif

Global climate variations through geologic time reflect oscillations in mean temperature, in part resulting from changing positions of continents and ocean circulation patterns; these, in turn, caused variations in sea level and in atmospheric CO2 content.
215 The Shadow Do  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:12:32pm

re: #201 Cato the Elder

France, Germany, for starters.

Hey! what about Iran?

216 astronmr20  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:12:35pm

re: #204 Charles

Meanwhile, I'm pissed off tonight because I finally finished watching every episode of "The Sopranos" for the first time (yes, really!), and there's nothing else even close to it on TV in terms of quality.

But that final episode. Damn. Ambiguity cubed.

So you are walking around saying the word "Whoo-a" instead of prostitute?

217 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:13:14pm

re: #161 swamprat

Your link says volcanoes make 150 times more CO2 than we do. Those 'canoes have been doing this for quite a few days.

Did you realize this?

You can read it that way, but that was not there intent, human C02 is 100-150 times greater and you can see the intent in the first sentance:

"However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estamated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced."

218 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:13:24pm

re: #204 Charles

Meanwhile, I'm pissed off tonight because I finally finished watching every episode of "The Sopranos" for the first time (yes, really!), and there's nothing else even close to it on TV in terms of quality.

But that final episode. Damn. Ambiguity cubed.

I'm nearing the end of my Lost marathon. Never saw an episode until recently. Now I'm in Season 4 on DVD. Great stuff.

219 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:13:34pm

re: #215 The Shadow Do

Hey! what about Iran?

OK--there's hope for some sub-standard rods being put into the reactor core.

220 Spartacus50  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:13:38pm

I find it frightening that skeptics such as myself are now referred to as "deniers". There is a squelching of serious debate on the issue that has transcended any scientific validity.

221 cliffster  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:13:43pm

These statements about "peer reviewed science" can only be referring to experiments in which specific chemical reactions are testing in controlled systems. So sure, you can come to conclusions about the physical science of a closed system with few variables. It says nothing about how that one small datapoint matters in the context of the very, very complex context that controls weather patterns. And it's so much more likely that the conclusions are completely negligible, I can't believe that people are so willing to swallow it without demanding that all judgment be withheld until about a thousand times more research is done.

And again, we as a species have not even come close to understanding weather patterns at a macro level. Probably because they can't be understood.

But sure, go ahead and say that global warming is obvious, if you don't buy it you're an idiot, and compile a checklist of ways to argue with someone who actually questions things, the way scientists are supposed to do.

222 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:13:58pm

re: #188 Cato the Elder

I'm all for energy independence and if it's green, even better, but when you have major polluters like China and India not held to any account, then yeah- I'm going to bitch about it. America isn't the only one who needs to work on this. We could comply with Kyoto tomorrow, and this carbon number would still be met because others don't have to live by any standards whatsoever.

223 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:14:21pm

re: #217 avanti

Does the article really say "estamated"?

Did all the editors in the world drown like polar bears, or what?

224 LGoPs  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:14:22pm

re: #52 Sharmuta

I don't have a problem so much with green technology and being good stewards so much as I have a problem with the disproportionate application of the solutions. I don't think it's fair to punish America for this when China and India are pollution factories.

If the threat is as dire as advertised then it is positively suicidal to exclude China and India. And if in fact they are being excluded then there is another agenda at work. And that is to punish America. And I will need to see a whole lot more evidence before agreeing to that.

225 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:14:30pm

re: #186 Mich-again

Our civilization has been the thing that evolved, not us.

We should be able to adapt. Which is not state my case regarding AGW. It may in fact be irreversible or beyond our control in either case. In any event we will have to adapt civilization around this and how we do so is the most important issue. Cap and trade schemes aside the momentum is towards a form of AGW remediation.

226 wiffersnapper  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:14:56pm

Isn't Climate Change also known as weather?

227 VioletTiger  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:15:06pm

re: #149 OldLineTexan

I will have to use my beard for a combover until mammoths re-evolve, but I am willing to make that sacrifice for Gaia.

/

Hey, somebody found a baby mammoth. Maybe we can clone it?

228 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:15:19pm

re: #215 The Shadow Do

Hey! what about Iran?

I'll add Japan.

I just like seeing Iran.

229 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:15:25pm

re: #191 SteveRogers
They aren't serious about AGW or they would be building nuclear power plants. Cap and trade is another way to tax, and all the alarmists want is more power over our lives and power to take more of our liberty away.
For our own good, of course.

Resistance to nuclear power on the left has largely subsided. A lot of environmentalists now agree that coal is worse. More nuclear power is in our future.

To really go full nuclear we may end up having to pay Canada and Japan to build the reactors because our own technology has fallen so far behind. It's kinda pathetic.

230 dkorta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:15:31pm

Breathlessly our intrepid super-genius climatologists enter the data into their latest climate model. When, oh when, will evil mankind emit enough CO2 into the atmosphere so that we shall reach the point of no return and WE WILL ALL DIE?

And the computer model says: Dec 22, 2012

////Let me know when they figure out how the sun affects all this. I'm not holding my breath.

231 meh130  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:15:35pm

Thank goodness for man-made CO2. It will make the looming solar minimum and pending ice age that much more bearable.

232 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:15:40pm

Guess I need to fire up the BBQ grille, plan some driving in my Diesel-powered pickup, turn on all of the lights in the house and crank up the hot tub. We need more carbon footprints to run over the self-righteous Gaia priests, like the Algores of the world.

233 sngnsgt  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:15:40pm

re: #222 Sharmuta

Because it's all The United States fault anyway. /

234 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:16:08pm

re: #168 cliffster

If it's so obvious that temperatures are going up, then why the insistence on calling it "global climate change" instead of "global warming"? Because temperatures go down some years and some places, and they go up in other years and other places.

Climate change is the more accurate term since a world wide increase in temperature can cause cooling in other areas, changes in wind currents, storms and the rest.

235 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:16:25pm

re: #204 Charles

Meanwhile, I'm pissed off tonight because I finally finished watching every episode of "The Sopranos" for the first time (yes, really!), and there's nothing else even close to it on TV in terms of quality.

But that final episode. Damn. Ambiguity cubed.

That sucks.

IN that case I apologize for the remark about trolling your own blog.

236 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:16:49pm

Why has Global Warming become Climate Change?

Seriously

237 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:17:06pm

re: #204 Charles

Are you up for comedy? Hulu has all three seasons of Arrested Development. When it got the axe was when TV died for me.

238 Cato the Elder  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:17:10pm

Good night all. Try not to hurt each other.

239 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:17:15pm
240 Noam Sayin'  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:17:28pm

I'm calling bullshit on the whole AGW argument.

Mark the date.

241 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:17:34pm

re: #237 Sharmuta

Are you up for comedy? Hulu has all three seasons of Arrested Development. When it got the axe was when TV died for me.

one of the best shows of all time

242 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:17:54pm

re: #241 Shug

one of the best shows of all time

I knew there was a reason I liked you so much.

243 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:18:01pm

Let's see, humans and other mammals breathe IN oxygen and breathe OUT carbon dioxide...Plants absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen...Pretty synergistic relationship going there, if ya ask me.

So, what is bad about carbon dioxide, again?

244 LieSeeker  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:18:04pm

If carbon dioxide is going to cause all this, why for several years have temperatures stopped going up while carbon dioxide continues to rise?

Although if you look a little further, you find that for several years CO2 has risen AFTER ocean temperatures rose, and ocean temperatures fell before CO2 levels fell. Whatever effect CO2 has, there are other things going on.

245 Gella  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:18:17pm

i found good link with story about Chernobyl, scary stuff
[Link: www.wonuc.org...]
btw History or Discovery did good job with documentary

246 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:18:32pm

re: #240 Noam Sayin'

I'm calling bullshit on the whole AGW argument.

Mark the date.

4/29/09 8:17:28 pm

247 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:18:33pm

re: #227 VioletTiger

Hey, somebody found a baby mammoth. Maybe we can clone it?

I heard the Japanese are working on it. It will be derided at first, but eventually the quality will surpass American mammoths.

248 SpaceJesus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:19:00pm

re: #232 6pat6

Guess I need to fire up the BBQ grille, plan some driving in my Diesel-powered pickup, turn on all of the lights in the house and crank up the hot tub. We need more carbon footprints to run over the self-righteous Gaia priests, like the Algores of the world.


yeehaw! amen. god bless the confederacy America

249 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:19:00pm

If you like playing Yahtzee you'll love the mathematical models for predicting climate change.

The empirical evidence is pretty cut and dried. But correlating what did happen to what will happen is 100 times more impossible than getting 5 boxcars on your first toss.

250 JacksonTn  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:19:01pm

re: #236 Shug

Why has Global Warming become Climate Change?

Seriously

Shug ... um ... they were not getting enough play out of "Global Warming" ... they did a focus group ... "Climate Change" tested better ...

/they do it with every single word ... Socialist ... bad ... Progressive ... yeah, that sounds good ... let's go with that ...

251 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:19:12pm

re: #236 Shug

Because that way, no matter what happens, the Algores of the world feel justified in whatever they say and do to throw America back to the 1700s.

252 astronmr20  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:19:12pm

re: #237 Sharmuta

Are you up for comedy? Hulu has all three seasons of Arrested Development. When it got the axe was when TV died for me.

One of the best show on TV. Ever.

Think I'll head off to HULU now!

253 LGoPs  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:19:15pm

re: #234 avanti

Climate change is the more accurate term since a world wide increase in temperature can cause cooling in other areas, changes in wind currents, storms and the rest.

Bullshit. It's the ultimate Heads I win Tails you Lose argument. The leftards learned this after the Global Cooling debacle in the 70's, along with the accompanying Population bomb and Famine theories.
It's typical Stalinist tactics - change the words and you've won the argument. Many of us see through it.

254 OldLineTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:19:16pm

re: #237 Sharmuta

GREAT show.

255 solomonpanting  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:19:28pm

re: #157 calcajun

Chernobyl. And, that was because it was a bad design coupled with bad maintenance schedules, understaffed facilities and so-so training. Look at the French--they've used nuclear for more the 50 years, get 40% of their electricity from it and have a spotless safety record.

Actually, France's nuclear power provides almost 80% of its electrical needs.

256 Spartacus50  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:19:41pm

The problem with Climate Change (as it is now called) is that it is no different than any other leftist political movement. Seeking control of your activities and freedoms in the guise of serving a greater good. Control over what you eat, what you drive, how many kids to have, etc.

257 Noam Sayin'  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:19:44pm

re: #246 Gus 802

Good work, Gus. Extra credit for including the time.

258 formercorpsman  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:19:49pm

re: #177 Sharmuta

You know, as a right winger I am fine with all of those things. I like the idea of macro & micro energy independence, and getting if not totally, at least partially off the grid. I also like to fish, so the idea off keeping our waterways clean, and replenishing dead zones from fertilizer run off is a good thing too.

But the bullshit cuts both ways. As much as we can dump on people who just dismiss this as a leftist conspiracy, the arbiters of that point of view have been a rather dishonest bunch themselves.

Having 3 small kids, I have already had to deal with them, & the guilt they have for just riding in their own family car, or dying cuddly polar bears because they have the air conditioner on. Truth be told, my youngest child has a endocrine disorder which makes him ferociously susceptible to the heat. Enough worry we keep an auto-injector around.

The image of Al Gore screaming from his bully pulpit, "he played on our fears" and then see my own kids actually dealing with this fear makes we want to roll out the wrestling mat and settle the differences there.

This crap drives me nuts. Furthermore, I think while the green technologies are good, they just can't offer the wide scale distribution we need right now. I am sure it might be out there though. Some day at least.

259 jaunte  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:19:49pm

re: #247 OldLineTexan

I heard the Japanese are working on it. It will be derided at first, but eventually the quality will surpass American mammoths.

Collect your flimsy stamped-tin mammoths now before the collector market heats up.

260 LGoPs  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:19:57pm

re: #240 Noam Sayin'

I'm calling bullshit on the whole AGW argument.

Mark the date.

See my 253

261 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:20:00pm

Free updings to Bluth lovers.

262 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:20:15pm

re: #257 Noam Sayin'

Good work, Gus. Extra credit for including the time.

That took years of practice!

//

263 VioletTiger  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:20:49pm

re: #247 OldLineTexan

I heard the Japanese are working on it. It will be derided at first, but eventually the quality will surpass American mammoths.

The Japanese version will be pocket size, and well-marketed.

264 FrogMarch  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:21:01pm

re: #203 Palandine

Missouri gets 60% of its electricity from coal. When cap and trade goes into effect, the costs are going to disproportionately affect people with lower and middle incomes.

/Yet Obama insists it's not a tax

I'm all in favor of efficient green technology. However, when you have Senator Feinstein not wanting solar panels in Death Valley because they might inconvenience some tortoises, and Robert Kennedy Jr doesn't want a wind farm where it might mar the view from his family's compound, the agenda becomes clear. If you can't put solar panels where the sun shines most or wind farms where the wind blows most, then what's the point?

/besides behavior control?

Excellent points. Coal is a major part of the way the entire world uses energy. We can't just stop using it over-night. I'm not an expert, but I do think we should work towards eliminating most coal and switch to natural gas and nuclear (solar and wind if possible, but I doubt solar and wind will ever be able to handle anything but local use on a smaller scale).
The democrats live to control behavior and they use putative taxation to do it. I doubt cap and trade will work the way the dems want. It will, however, help worsen our economy in the short run. In the long run? who knows. It's unrealistic.

yes - precious democrat royalty, the technology they promote cannot be in their line of sight.

265 nyc redneck  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:21:28pm

re: #226 wiffersnapper

Isn't Climate Change also known as weather?

it used to be called global warming until it snowed too many time algore
went to give a speech in a southern town.
now it's climate change so he won't look like a fool when he shows up in an
overcoat.

266 jaunte  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:21:28pm

re: #261 Sharmuta

There's a lot of money in a well-run banana stand.

267 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:21:33pm

I like Jobe

268 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:21:36pm

re: #204 Charles

Meanwhile, I'm pissed off tonight because I finally finished watching every episode of "The Sopranos" for the first time (yes, really!), and there's nothing else even close to it on TV in terms of quality.

But that final episode. Damn. Ambiguity cubed.

Funny tie in about the Sopranos and politics. The American Family Association was trying to "clean up network TV" by legislation and suggested regulating pay cable might be needed. Their theory was that the networks were getting dirtier to compete with shows like the Sopronas, so the government should censor pay cable too, scary shit.

269 sngnsgt  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:21:43pm

re: #236 Shug

Why has Global Warming become Climate Change?

Seriously

It's a lame attempt to draw you away from the fact that "Global Warming" doesn't really exist. You know, political correctness and all that. Just call it something that just makes you feel 'tingly' all over.

270 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:21:54pm

re: #267 Shug

I like Jobe Gob

FIFY

271 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:22:14pm

re: #266 jaunte

There's a lot of money in a well-run banana stand.

"There's always money in the banana stand."

272 fizzlogic  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:22:14pm

re: #171 Charles

Climate change is the third rail of right wing politics.

After listening to Rush Limbaugh mock environmental concerns for the last 20 years it's understandable.

273 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:22:41pm
274 Irenike  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:22:51pm

There is a cheap and easy way to cool the earth. Detonate bombs into the upper atmosphere that are filled with reflective particles that will deflect sunlight away from the earth's surface. That will cool the planet, for not very much money.

If I recall correctly, it was Edward Teller who first proposed this idea. At the time, it was estimated to cost $50,000.

The problem is, if the earth cools too much, then people will die in the poor, marginal areas where the growing season is already short.

Another problem is that if you like to control large parts of the economy, global warming and global cooling are such convenient excuses for a power grab, that cheap and easy "solutions" aren't going to be your cup of tea.

275 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:22:52pm

re: #263 VioletTiger

re: #247 OldLineTexan

I heard the Japanese are working on it. It will be derided at first, but eventually the quality will surpass American mammoths.

The Japanese version will be pocket size, and well-marketed.

The Japanese version will have a little Karaoke microphone, hidden in the mammoth's butt.

276 LGoPs  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:22:58pm

re: #236 Shug

Why has Global Warming become Climate Change?

Seriously

Because that way, no matter what the data show, the people with a leftist agenda win.

277 itellu3times  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:23:19pm

re: #35 Opilio

According to the USGS, the world's volcanos emit about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

Maybe somebody can invent a hybrid volcano and cut that in half!
/

278 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:23:20pm
Lucille: Get me a vodka rocks.
Michael: Mom, it’s breakfast.
Lucille: And a piece of toast.
279 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:23:22pm

I think my favorite line from Arrested Development is:

"I blue myself."

280 JustMyView  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:23:33pm

re: #204 Charles

Meanwhile, I'm pissed off tonight because I finally finished watching every episode of "The Sopranos" for the first time (yes, really!), and there's nothing else even close to it on TV in terms of quality.

But that final episode. Damn. Ambiguity cubed.

How about The Wire? I haven't watched it, but many reviewers have given it very high marks.

281 FrogMarch  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:23:51pm

re: #236 Shug

Why has Global Warming become Climate Change?

Seriously


when Al Gore shows up, it snows.

282 formercorpsman  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:23:57pm

re: #188 Cato the Elder

Actually no Cato. Part of your argument is correct. Peak oil will be a problem, I agree.

As it pertains to China & India, if you are selling me a bill of goods such as this, and the premise is negative as a whole, then letting China & India continue to offend refutes any argument for benefit.

If you are trying to convince me not to smoke, and the dangers of second hand smoke are as detrimental, than everyone in the house needs to quit smoking.

283 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:24:11pm
284 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:24:55pm

re: #277 itellu3times

Maybe somebody can invent a hybrid volcano and cut that in half!
/

I've got just the thing. I will however require massive amounts of baking powder and vinegar. /

285 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:24:55pm

re: #272 trendsurfer

After listening to Rush Limbaugh mock environmental concerns for the last 20 years it's understandable.

And he has done a yeoman's job of exposing these snake-oil salesmen and third-rate hucksters for what they are. This is a good thing. Mocking them just pissed them off to no end.

286 Pawn of the Oppressor  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:25:49pm

Climate change doesn't have to be such a charged issue. It boils down to cleaning up our energy sources, increasing efficiency, and consuming less, which a sensible people should be doing anyway. There would also be plenty of added foreign policy benefits that don't involve accolades from unelected suits speaking with accented english.

Unfortunately it's become a club to beat people with. The right uses it to beat the left, and the greenie left uses it to beat everybody and take their money. As usual, the people who get truly screwed are the people who don't count politically.
re: #204 Charles

Meanwhile, I'm pissed off tonight because I finally finished watching every episode of "The Sopranos" for the first time (yes, really!), and there's nothing else even close to it on TV in terms of quality.

But that final episode. Damn. Ambiguity cubed.

Good series come and go. Most of them seem to be on HBO: Rome, The Wire, etc. I wonder what they'll do next?

287 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:26:06pm

re: #236 Shug

Why has Global Warming become Climate Change?

Seriously

From the EPA

The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but according to the National Academy of Sciences, the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures.

288 jvic  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:26:21pm

re: #188 Cato the Elder

The people who object to "going green" overlook one thing. We'll have to do it whether or not AGW is real and whether or not anything we do can stop it. We're running out of oil.

Agreed, but doing it right now might be enormously more expensive and disruptive than doing it in twenty years when technology has advanced.

And saying "but...but...but...China and India need to do it too" is like saying you'll build a house for yourself when those nomads over the horizon stop living in tents.

Agreed again. In fact, the technologies could be a product suite that we can sell to the likes of China and India.

We can lead, follow or get out of the way. Simple as that.

Maybe not quite that simple, but I basically agree.

289 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:26:31pm

re: #225 Gus 802

We should be able to adapt. Which is not state my case regarding AGW. It may in fact be irreversible or beyond our control in either case. In any event we will have to adapt civilization around this and how we do so is the most important issue. Cap and trade schemes aside the momentum is towards a form of AGW remediation.

Adapting civilization is easier said than done.

290 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:27:04pm
291 BillLangston  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:27:32pm

re: #171 Charles

Charles, I would say that it is also the 'third rail' of Left Wing politics as well. I mean, if you doubt AGW then you are equated to a Holocaust denier and definitely taken out of Al-gore's Rolodex.

292 cliffster  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:27:35pm

re: #287 avanti

From the EPA

The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but according to the National Academy of Sciences, the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures.

Yes, in addition to temperatures rising, temperatures also fall. Sometimes it rains, sometimes it's dry. Climate change.

293 Occasional Reader  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:27:48pm

re: #204 Charles

But that final episode. Damn. Ambiguity cubed.

Don't stop believin'.

(I also recommend "The Wire" if you haven't seen it. Great show to watch on the iPhone while traveling or whatever, since it depends more on dialogue and character development that big scenery.)

294 Pawn of the Oppressor  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:27:54pm

re: #236 Shug

Why has Global Warming become Climate Change?

Seriously

Who knows. I remember reading a paper from a greenie bemoaning The Evil Bush Administration's use of "climate change" instead of global warming. Now it's OK for some reason (although reason has nothing to do with the change, I'm sure).

295 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:28:12pm

re: #278 Shug

Lindsay: I care deeply for nature.
Michael: You're wearing ostrich-skin boots.
Lindsay: Well, I don't care about ostriches.

296 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:28:54pm

re: #286 Pawn of the Oppressor

It boils down to cleaning up our energy sources, increasing efficiency, and consuming less, which a sensible people should be doing anyway.

Exactly. The Lefties love to say that Conservatives "don't care about the environment", that we are all about dirty air and water. Let's see, it's pretty damn hard to make a buck when you kill everybody with dirty air and water! Plus, is there a little pocket of clean air and water that Conservatives are somehow hoarding for themselves, somewhere? Don't think so. But people think this way. It's phenomenal.

297 Palandine  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:29:05pm

Thunderstorm coming through, with an absolute downpour. Signing off for now so my elderly computer doesn't fry...

298 pingjockey  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:29:22pm

Who says we're running out of oil? There's lots of oil. And until or unless the greenies let us use alternate energy sources without nimby shit we have to use oil and coal. BTW, you can't haul food with solar/wind power.

299 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:29:27pm

re: #253 LGoPs

Bullshit. It's the ultimate Heads I win Tails you Lose argument. The leftards learned this after the Global Cooling debacle in the 70's, along with the accompanying Population bomb and Famine theories.
It's typical Stalinist tactics - change the words and you've won the argument. Many of us see through it.

I see you've read the George Will global cooling myth.

Will.

300 yesandno  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:29:41pm

re: #76 Shug

somebody help me out :

This 1 trrillion amount: Is that a total cumulative over time
Meaning, even if you reduce emissions to almost zero, eventually given enough time, you will still hit this 1 trillion mark.

or is it 1 trillion in a fixed period, and that if emissions were zero, it dissipates over time and you get to start over?

If you buy enough carbon credits it all goes away. If you emit 20,000 tons you can make it zero by paying high taxes and planting the window box with hemp. See how easy that is!

301 JacksonTn  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:29:52pm

re: #4 Conservative Moonbat

Now you're just trolling your own blog.

AGW is one of the big issues that's been keeping me a Dem, that and social issues.

CM ... what exactly does "trolling your own blog" mean? ... It's his blog ... don't you think he can do whatever the hell he wants to do on his own blog ... just wondering ...

302 shiplord kirel  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:29:54pm

More people died at Chappaquiddick than at Three Mile Island.

And, yes, I know about all those breathlessly cooked studies that attributed virtually every cancer death within 500 miles for the next 30 years to the tiny amount of radioactive material released during the accident.

Here's something you won't see in the nuke-hating media: Coal-fired powerplants dump enough radioactive material into the environment every day to produce many times the total radioactivity caused by the release at 3 Mile Island.
How?
Coal contains 1-3 ppm uranium, and about twice that much thorium, on average. This material stays behind when the coal is burned and is concentrated in coal-ash heaps. For the US, this comes to about 800 tons of uranium and 1500-2000 tons of thorium every year added to ash heaps every year. The uranium and thorium contained in coal as a trace impurity could potentially produce more energy than burning the coal itself. One study from Oak Ridge National Laboratory actually suggests mining these ash heaps as a future source of these metals.

303 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:29:58pm
304 Occasional Reader  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:30:02pm

re: #188 Cato the Elder

The people who object to "going green" overlook one thing. We'll have to do it whether or not AGW is real and whether or not anything we do can stop it. We're running out of oil.

And saying "but...but...but...China and India need to do it too" is like saying you'll build a house for yourself when those nomads over the horizon stop living in tents.

We can lead, follow or get out of the way. Simple as that.

The problem is, many of the "going green" crowd have the explicit goal not simply of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but of having us use "less energy", full stop. That is, they want us to be... poorer. As an affirmative goal.

305 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:30:28pm

If somebody can figure out how to run a car on snake oil, I think we're all set.

Kevin Trudeau will save the Earth

306 pat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:30:55pm

This article is so stupid it is beyond contempt. I am surprised that anyone pays the least attention to it. Artificial, scientifically meaningless. Frankly written by a fool.

307 Pawn of the Oppressor  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:31:06pm

re: #264 FrogMarch

Excellent points. Coal is a major part of the way the entire world uses energy.

Indeed.

You know that "China" that props up our economy? The one that makes all our cheap stuff? It runs on coal...

The stickers on all those cheap semi-throwaway goods at Target and Wal-Mart might as well say "Made with Coal." Ignoring clean coal is CLIMATE SUICIDE!11

308 greengolem64  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:31:11pm

Boy...that sounds 'suspiciously' like weather.

The only 'constant' with the climate is that it is "constantly" in a state of flux...(change).

re: #234 avanti

Climate change is the more accurate term since a world wide increase in temperature can cause cooling in other areas, changes in wind currents, storms and the rest.

309 Opilio  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:31:15pm

re: #249 Mich-again

If you like playing Yahtzee you'll love the mathematical models for predicting climate change.

The empirical evidence is pretty cut and dried. But correlating what did happen to what will happen is 100 times more impossible than getting 5 boxcars on your first toss.

That would be 777,600 to 1 against.

310 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:31:16pm

re: #302 shiplord kirel

There were more health effects from the coal burned to replace power from TMI than from the TMI accident itself.

311 LGoPs  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:31:49pm

re: #171 Charles

Climate change is the third rail of right wing politics.

So we don't touch it? Or we let the left wing totally dominate it? Why is it the third rail for the right but not for the left?

312 Dar ul Harbarian  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:31:57pm

I look forward to reading the articles directly in Nature rather than letting the filter of Wired magazine pump up hysteria.

313 Wendya  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:32:00pm

re: #236 Shug

Why has Global Warming become Climate Change?

Seriously

When the warming changed to cooling.

314 shiplord kirel  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:32:13pm

re: #310 Kosh's Shadow

There were more health effects from the coal burned to replace power from TMI than from the TMI accident itself.

Easily.

315 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:32:31pm

ok I'm back
somehow got logged out
wonder how that happned ;)

316 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:32:43pm

re: #302 shiplord kirel

take home message: Don't let Ted Kennedy run your nuclear plant

318 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:33:04pm

re: #292 cliffster


re: #287 avanti

From the EPA

The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but according to the National Academy of Sciences, the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures.

Yes, in addition to temperatures rising, temperatures also fall. Sometimes it rains, sometimes it's dry. Climate change.

No, that is weather! Climate is the weather, long-term, over a geographic area or region. The Arctic has its own climate, as does the Plains, the tropics, the steppes, the savannah, and so on. Weather is what is happening seasonally and short-term. Weather changes very quickly, sometimes by the minute. True climate "change" occurs over much longer periods of time, affecting the types of crops that can be grown, and so forth.

319 pingjockey  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:33:17pm

re: #316 Shug
Or drive a car!

320 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:33:34pm

re: #217 avanti

much clearer

321 Wendya  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:33:45pm

re: #305 Shug

If somebody can figure out how to run a car on snake oil, I think we're all set.

I can .... and I'll let you in on the secret for $100,000.

322 pat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:33:49pm

Buy your tulips now if you believe this crap. AGW is a hypothesis that is failing. This is late game desperation.

323 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:34:15pm
324 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:34:28pm

re: #308 greengolem64

Boy...that sounds 'suspiciously' like weather.

The only 'constant' with the climate is that it is "constantly" in a state of flux...(change).

Weather does change from place to place, and year to year. This climate change is a 100 year warming trend not seen in several 1000 years and in lockstep with increased C02 emissions.

325 horse  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:34:31pm

I actually like that point of view. It then makes obvious the easiest/fastest/surest solution is to start removing carbon from the air in large amounts. We have the technology to do this now and offset the carbon going into the air via our current energy solutions. That provides us the time needed to transition to a much lower carbon based energy solution like nuclear-electrical. No need to ration energy and choke an already dieing economy to death with silly caps. Just manage the carbon in our atmosphere by having scrubbers remove it.

326 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:35:02pm

re: #317 MandyManners

jeez Mandy make me feel old why doncha :)

327 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:35:08pm

And of course, god 'ol Mister Sun has everything to do with our climate on Earth, as well as Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune (atmospheric planets), plus many of their moons.

328 Occasional Reader  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:35:42pm

Good night.

329 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:36:07pm

re: #317 MandyManners

Whatcha smoking tonight Mandy?

330 formercorpsman  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:36:10pm

Have a good night folks.

331 MandyManners  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:36:35pm

re: #326 rain of lead

jeez Mandy make me feel old why doncha :)

You choose.

332 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:36:53pm

re: #323 momcat

gee I havent a clue .

hey everybody say hi to my wife
momcat is just a hatchling so be nice

333 Mad Mullah  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:37:01pm

I was just reading the other day that the Antarctic icecap is growing larger. I honestly don't care too much about any so called global warming. I believe that there are far greater dangers which threaten us and any so called global warming is extremely low on my list of things that should I worry about. I also find it ironic and not at all surprising that some of the voices that are shouting the loudest and getting all hysterical about global warming do not practice what they preach.

334 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:37:02pm

re: #327 6pat6

All places where Mankind has never driven an SUV, or burned a single lump of coal.

335 pingjockey  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:37:19pm

re: #324 avanti
Guess what, if we shut the USA down tomorrow, it won't frackin matter. Because China and India and a host of 3rd world shit holes burn coal and don't have the tech to clean up their environmental messes.

336 MandyManners  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:37:23pm

re: #329 Walter L. Newton

Whatcha smoking tonight Mandy?

Marlboto Lights.

337 shiplord kirel  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:38:03pm

re: #316 Shug

take home message: Don't let Ted Kennedy run your nuclear plant

I don't think we need to worry about that much longer. It is a never-ending source of embarrassment to left-leaning (and therefore anti-nuclear) scientists that rank and file anti-nukers typically also espouse anti-vax, crystal healing, naturopathy, techno conspiracy theories, and many other forms of luddite quackery. Just check out the crowd at an anti-nuke demonstration, or the kiosks that adorn anti-nuke gatherings.

338 VioletTiger  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:38:16pm

re: #236 Shug

Why has Global Warming become Climate Change?

Seriously

I think they wanted to tie in things like hurricanes, floods and forest fires--easier if they say climate change

339 pat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:38:22pm

re: #336 MandyManners

lol

340 formercorpsman  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:38:30pm

re: #323 momcat

Welcome.

Now I have to get to bed.

Again, have a good night folks.

341 MandyManners  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:38:39pm

Oopsie.

342 JacksonTn  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:39:13pm

re: #323 momcat

gee I havent a clue .

momcat ... hey ... someone said to say hello ... oh, and to be nice ... (we won't tell you what RoL says when you are not here tho) ...

343 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:39:15pm
344 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:39:18pm
345 rawmuse  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:39:29pm

re: #204 Charles

Meanwhile, I'm pissed off tonight because I finally finished watching every episode of "The Sopranos" for the first time (yes, really!), and there's nothing else even close to it on TV in terms of quality.

But that final episode. Damn. Ambiguity cubed.

We have been enjoying the following series "the Wire"(although I confess I have the subtitles on) "Rescue Me"(you would not dig the ghost stuff...) and "The Tudors" (talk about your political machinations).

346 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:39:34pm

Volcanoes do far more to put "global warming" components into Earth's atmosphere than Man can ever hope to, for all time. People are so full of themselves to suggest that Man will "kill" the planet...no matter what we do, the planet will live on without us and never miss a beat. We are a pimple on a gnat's ass in Earth's geological time line.

347 horse  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:39:34pm

re: #213 calcajun

OK--your take on it. Tony dead or not?

I like the explanation I read that the good Tony died that night. The bad Tony killed him, no more moral ambiguity for him, he's 100% on the side of evil now (and so is his family).

348 BillLangston  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:39:44pm

re: #221 cliffster

Oh man, what a great post! I'm so glad to hear that some folks have thought this thru. You may already have seen this site cliffster but just in case: [Link: www.junkscience.com...]

Nobody to my knowledge has put more effort toward bringing some sanity to this issue.

Semper Fi,
Bill

349 Noam Sayin'  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:40:19pm

Good night, all.

350 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:40:34pm

re: #331 MandyManners

You choose.

well since I have a birthday in a couple of weeks
"trip around the sun"


351 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:40:36pm

Michael: Come on, face it. You just do all this charity crap just to stroke your ego. You don't even know what the auction's for tonight.
Lindsay: The wetlands.
Michael: To do what with them?
Lindsay: Dry them.
Michael: Save them.
Lindsay: From drying.

352 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:40:39pm

Ciao. I'm gone. Night.

353 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:40:54pm

Dear Sir
As a DOCTORATE OF DEGREE, I have come into a substantutal number of Carbon Credits worth SIX MILLION U.S.DOLLARS from a account that closed recently due to the arrest of a politician here in Senegal. I have no way to


etc

354 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:41:08pm

re: #324 avanti

Weather does change from place to place, and year to year. This climate change is a 100 year warming trend not seen in several 1000 years and in lockstep with increased C02 emissions.

It's also in lockstep with me growing older.
Coincidence is not causality.

355 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:41:21pm

Ants have been around a lot longer than humans and they are much more highly evolved. Maybe their civilization offers some clues to our future. Hopefully not.

356 Dar ul Harbarian  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:42:15pm

Just glancing at the most recent issue of Nature. The articles mentioned in Wired are not peer reviewed scientific papers. They are "News Features".

Won't get time to digest them tonight.

Call me if the world ends.

357 JacksonTn  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:42:15pm

re: #344 taxfreekiller

20% of the population of the U.S.A. can be led around like little lost sheep.

There are some sheep thieves about.

The work of the sheep dog will never be done.

Never fear little good sheep, some bad sheep get taken in and end up in bad places.

Stay near your sheep dog, you will remain safe and by the way, warm is not a bad thing on cold lonely nights.

TFK ... I hate thieves ... someone stole my mail out of my car today ... a whole weeks worth of mail ... second time my mail has been taken ... first time out of my locked box ... stole checks cleaned out my account ... now this time I had to change all credit cards, blah, blah, blah, .... I wish some people would just get a friggin job ... Oh, stealing is their job ... silly me ...

358 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:42:32pm
359 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:43:01pm

re: #355 Mich-again

Ants have been around a lot longer than humans and they are much more highly evolved. Maybe their civilization offers some clues to our future. Hopefully not.


Comrade ant is knowing much you could learn from, Tovarovich!

360 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:43:24pm

My problem is the same as it has always been: The environmentalists chosen course of action is identical to what the environmentalists had been wanting us to do before anyone was talking about global warming. (My relatives were living under sod roofs--"green roofs"-- back in '81, so I've heard all of this for a very long time.)

361 Wendya  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:43:26pm

re: #325 horse

Just manage the carbon in our atmosphere by having scrubbers remove it.

What would the ramifications be on our "climate" if we spent the money to do that?

That's the question that's never answered. They can tell us we're all going to die, blah..blah...blah.. but they can't tell us what will happen if we suddenly decrease the 2% if the .03% of CO2 in the atmosphere humans are credited with producing.

362 Greengolem64  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:44:01pm

re: #324 avanti

Weather does change from place to place, and year to year. This climate change is a 100 year warming trend not seen in several 1000 years and in lockstep with increased C02 emissions.

Lock step eh? Show me a link that does not use data generated by computer models that have yet to 'get it right'. I work with computer models for predicting Radio Propagation...a relatively easy thing to 'predict' as compared to modeling the global climate...and they can only provide a "predicted" analysis. The 'proof' is in testing the results and verifying or not that the coverage is as predicted...and guess what...it is NEVER 100% correct. Now look at AGW modeling... These models take a 'best guess' based on wholly incomplete data sets. Please...show me that these models can account for EVERY possible variable that acts as a forcing element in the climate...you can't...we simply do not KNOW what all is influencing the climate.

Is Global climate change occuring...yes...has it been occurring since the Earth was...the Earth? yes. Do we really think that we as the primary inhabitant of the planet should try to dabble in controlling something like the climate? Wow...

363 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:44:10pm

re: #336 MandyManners

$6.50 a pack here for the Cowboy Killers.

364 boogereatinmoron  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:44:49pm

For those concerned about religion masquerading as science being force fed to our children - here you go. Just ask anyone with kids in school, and I mean any school from kindergarten to grad school.

365 FrogMarch  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:45:17pm

re: #307 Pawn of the Oppressor

Indeed.

You know that "China" that props up our economy? The one that makes all our cheap stuff? It runs on coal...

The stickers on all those cheap semi-throwaway goods at Target and Wal-Mart might as well say "Made with Coal." Ignoring clean coal is CLIMATE SUICIDE!11

I'm not so sure about "clean coal" either. I think the emissions just get pumped into storage tanks in the ground (?)

366 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:46:44pm

re: #357 JacksonTn

I am not excusing thievery, but perhaps it might be a good idea not to leave something like that in plain view* sitting in your car unattended. Just sayin'.

*If it wasn't sitting in plain view, then just ignore what I said.

367 LGoPs  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:47:25pm

re: #354 Van Helsing

It's also in lockstep with me growing older.
Coincidence is not causality.

It also correlates with people eating meat. Maybe eating meat causes global warming........
/

368 jvic  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:47:55pm

But...but...why do people claim to predict climate when they can't even predict the weather a week in advance?

#318 6pat6
No, that is weather! Climate is the weather, long-term, over a geographic area or region...True climate "change" occurs over much longer periods of time, affecting the types of crops that can be grown, and so forth.

Yup. That's why. Over the long term, weather averages out, leaving you with climate.

IMO there are valid reasons to question the state of the art in climatology, but unreliable weather forecasting is not among them.

369 JacksonTn  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:48:56pm

re: #366 Slumbering Behemoth

I am not excusing thievery, but perhaps it might be a good idea not to leave something like that in plain view* sitting in your car unattended. Just sayin'.

*If it wasn't sitting in plain view, then just ignore what I said.

SB ... no problem ... but it was in my car in the middle console locked ... it was opened by a real handy crowbar or something like that ... which I am sure is always in that little bag of tricks thieves carry around ... not my first rodeo with these types ...

370 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:48:57pm

re: #358 momcat

Thanks. He often forgets to log out, so I have been known to comment under his name.

yeah just because she can't remember her password :0

371 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:49:29pm

re: #367 LGoPs

It also correlates with people eating meat. Maybe eating meat causes global warming........
/

Also coincides with cleaner burning power plants and automobiles.
Shall we go there?

372 horse  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:49:59pm

re: #204 Charles

If you liked that, some recommendations are below. I haven't read you commenting on them, so I hope they aren't repeats for you.

The Shield (last episode was last fall), great dirty cop does some good but is still dirty story line across ~ 5 seasons.

Dexter (still on Showtime, 4th season starts in fall), a forensic tech who is also a serial killer of criminal killers. Dark humor in Miami.

Sons of Anarchy (first season was last fall), motorcycle club with younger heir apparent torn between the criminal side of the club versus living a legit life, aka Sopranos on Harleys.

373 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:51:05pm
374 Spartacus50  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:51:07pm

Just looking forward to the day when we all live in domed cities like in Logans Run

375 Mad Mullah  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:51:11pm

re: #204 Charles

Meanwhile, I'm pissed off tonight because I finally finished watching every episode of "The Sopranos" for the first time (yes, really!), and there's nothing else even close to it on TV in terms of quality.

But that final episode. Damn. Ambiguity cubed.

I found Deadwood to be another pretty good HBO series, though I don't believe that it's being produced anymore.

376 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:51:15pm

re: #369 JacksonTn

some people will steal anything not nailed down and if they can pry it up...then it wasn't nailed down :(

377 JacksonTn  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:52:04pm

re: #373 momcat

Be Nice.!

MC & RoL ... geez ... get a room ...

///

378 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:52:39pm

re: #373 momcat

Be Nice.!

oops, did I type that out loud?

379 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:52:42pm

re: #333 Mad Mullah

I was just reading the other day that the [Link: icecap.us...] is growing larger.


Climate change is having a effect on polar ice, melting in some area's, increased snow fall and buildup in others. Big chunks are breaking off one coast of the Antarctic and arctic ice is melting but Antarctic WEATHER on the Antarctic interior has been cooler for a few years.
Antarctic .

380 Randall Gross  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:53:02pm

re: #346 6pat6

Volcanoes do far more to put "global warming" components into Earth's atmosphere than Man can ever hope to, for all time. People are so full of themselves to suggest that Man will "kill" the planet...no matter what we do, the planet will live on without us and never miss a beat. We are a pimple on a gnat's ass in Earth's geological time line.

Sorry, but volcanoes also put particulates in the air that reflect solar radiation back into space before it can warm us. The effect of volcanoes is actually cooling.

381 horse  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:53:38pm

re: #361 Wendya

What would the ramifications be on our "climate" if we spent the money to do that?

That's the question that's never answered. They can tell us we're all going to die, blah..blah...blah.. but they can't tell us what will happen if we suddenly decrease the 2% if the .03% of CO2 in the atmosphere humans are credited with producing.

All they need to do is remove whatever we put in. We put in 9 billion tons, last year, we take out 9 billion tons this year. This would make us neutral without rationing energy and even greater economic suffering.

382 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:53:50pm

re: #379 avanti

Climate change is having a effect on polar ice, melting in some area's, increased snow fall and buildup in others. Big chunks are breaking off one coast of the Antarctic and arctic ice is melting but Antarctic WEATHER on the Antarctic interior has been cooler for a few years.
Antarctic .

But it's Change! How can it be bad?

383 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:53:56pm

re: #377 JacksonTn

we do
she has hers and I have mine :)
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

384 lightspeed  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:54:47pm

Let's see...what is wrong with this article?

* Myles Allen is identified as a climatologist. He is not. He is a physicist and professor at Oxford.

* The article speaks of the 50% possibility (a coin flip) of 2 degrees of warming. And? Is that bad? How bad? It doesn't say. The Medieval Warm Period saw the Vikings colonize a green Greenland and the birth of the Renaissance and a population explosion in Europe. Temperatures then were 1-2 degress higher than they are now.

* All of these predictions are based on computer models using incomplete data. We only have actual readings of climate data from a relatively short time frame, say 60-100 years. Even that data is of limited value, as measurments from early weather ballons can hardly be compared to today's satellite imagery. Before we actually started collecting the data, the best we can do is look at things like tree rings, core samples, etc. While this is valuable information, how can you throw all of this disparate data of varying accuracy into a computer and expect it to predict the future? Factors such as volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, sunspots, solar flares, the gravitational force of the moon, to name a few, all can potentially throw these computer models out of whack.

Climate change is real. It is happening. I just don't believe there is any way we can affect it. And, quite honestly, is it really a good idea to try? What about the potential unintended consequences? If climate change is natural and goes through various cycles, should we really mess around with that?

Besides, if we really want to get serious about reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, there is only one way to do it...population control. Six billions humans (and all the livestock to feed them) emit more CO2 that any burning of fossil fuels. Reduce that number by half and then you are making real progress. Reduce it even further...well, you get the picture. Yes, there are people out there who actually advocate this. One of them is Nobel Laureate Al Gore. He wrote the forward to the book The Population Explosion: From Global Warming to Rain Forest Destruction, Famine and Air and Water Pollution—Why Overpopulation Is Our #1 Environmental Problem by Paul Ehrlich and his wife. Paul Ehrlich is a population control advocate. You want to call Glenn Beck nuts? His doom-saying is nothing compared to Ehrlich, "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."

Links:

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

George Carlin on saving the planet

385 KingKenrod  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:55:06pm

Here's an interesting graph:

Image: historical-temperature.jpg

It shows that CO2 concentration increases after warming, not before. Most people are aware of this.

But it also shows something else. We are currently at the top of a spike in temperature that happens about every 100,000 years. I'm not sure what causes this - maybe some astronomical cycle. We've been at the top of this spike for about 10,000 years...temperatures have been relatively stable. We know this because cavemen didn't drive hummers to run from the dinosaurs.

But the point is that soon, by entirely natural forces, whatever causes this spike is going to end. And it's going to get colder again for a very long time. Cold as in being able to walk from Sarah Palin's house to Russia. Cold as in glaciers in Missouri.

If humans are still around, they'll have to adapt, unless some of those crackpot geo-engineering ideas pay off.

386 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:55:30pm
387 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:56:39pm

re: #369 JacksonTn

Obviously not in plain view then, and that just sucks. Sorry, sometimes I forget that Lizards are, on average, smarter than average folk.

I've known some really stupid people who leave valuable (or seemingly valuable) things sitting in plain view in their unattended cars.

I had a friend that would want to leave their wad of keys on the dashboard of my car whenever we went somewhere.

Me: "Don't leave those sitting there like that, someone might think those are the keys to my car and break in".

Them: "You're being silly, they can't steal your car. Those aren't your car keys".

Me: "The asshole that's gonna bust my $300 window doesn't know that, dumb ass".

388 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:57:52pm

re: #380 Thanos

Sorry, but volcanoes also put particulates in the air that reflect solar radiation back into space before it can warm us. The effect of volcanoes is actually cooling.

It can be either, but volcanoes don't put enough C02 in the atmosphere to make much of a difference compared to man.

"Volcanic eruptions can enhance all three of these climate effects to variable degrees. They contribute to ozone depletion, as well as to both cooling and warming of the earth's atmosphere."

389 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:57:56pm

re: #386 momcat

my dear, care to join me on the new thread ?

390 BGOH  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:58:54pm

Alright, so I don't really understand the intended message of this thread. Is all science now sacrosanct, no matter how politically charged, because a group of lunatics wants to teach creationism in science classes?

I'm just having a hard time understanding the motivation for this topic. If this is the 'new conservatism,' embracing the anthropogenic crowd, I think I may want out. But I hope I'm just missing some subtle sarcasm in all of this...

391 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:59:28pm
392 Idle Drifter  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:59:34pm

While job hunting I came across this company using algae to produce diesel. Yes, I did apply for a position.

For the record, I think human activity plays a minor role in the climate; minor in the sense that we can influence the outcome as to firing shots in the dark. It's a stroking the ego to think humans can control the weather in this age. We are not to that level of technology and understanding of our natural world and the cosmic forces that act on it to control the weather. We'll have to do things the hard way as our ancestors did by adapting to the new climate.

393 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:00:07pm

re: #391 momcat

going up then

394 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:02:27pm

re: #393 rain of lead

going up then

Yep, time to get out of Dodge. It's the first time I defended the possibility of AGW and got away with it.

395 JohnAdams  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:07:14pm

re: #394 avanti

Yep, time to get out of Dodge. It's the first time I defended the possibility of AGW and got away with it.

Not with me you didn't.

Nor did you convince me that when my heat bills triple under cap and trade the economy will boom and we will be paying off our $10 Trillion debt with Monopoly money.

Deceptions. Lies. Hype. Hysteria. "Science" has officially been obfuscated.

396 Laroon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:09:10pm

Iran is 95% of the way to changing the global climate to "cloudy and poisonous for hundreds of years"... that just doesn't seem to be getting the traction that big bad carbon is though. Maybe I'm crazy, but psychotic antisemite muslims with nukes is just a teeny bit scarier to me than a couple of melting icebergs. Is it me?

397 GeicoGecko  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:09:12pm

I might be less skeptical about global warming/climate change if Al Gore would man up and stop running away from Lord Christopher Monckton, Maggie Thatcher's science advisor, who has challenged him to debate the subject on numerous occasions.

398 lightspeed  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:09:12pm

re: #385 KingKenrod

Here's an interesting graph:

[Link: noconsensus.files.wordpress.com...]
If humans are still around, they'll have to adapt, unless some of those crackpot geo-engineering ideas pay off.

Exactly right.

As for engineering the climate? Yeah, that's a great idea! Let's start mucking about with the very thing that supports life here on Earth. No, we don't really, completely understand it, but what harm could come from trying to manipulate the makeup of the Earth's atmosphere? Brother.

We can't even accurately predict what the temperature will be next week, much less 20 years from now. So far the climate models have not even predicted the climate trends of the past ten years. Call me sceptical.

CO2 Absobption in the Atmosphere

399 Greengolem64  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:10:09pm

re: #394 avanti

Yep, time to get out of Dodge. It's the first time I defended the possibility of AGW and got away with it.

Whoa...you may be moving on...but I saw no credible response that can prove any of the so-called AGW models that spell doom for the planet...Not sure how that qualifies with 'getting away' with it...but if that is how you see it...enjoy the rose colored glasses... What's the most prevalent GHG in the atmosphere btw?

400 GeicoGecko  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:16:03pm

re: #399 Greengolem64

Water vapor?

401 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:17:00pm

re: #301 JacksonTn

CM ... what exactly does "trolling your own blog" mean? ... It's his blog ... don't you think he can do whatever the hell he wants to do on his own blog ... just wondering ...

It was a joke poking fun at his willingness to go against the countervailing opinion at the place, his willingness to still shit up. It obviously didn't go over very well.

402 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:17:03pm

re: #380 Thanos

OK, so humans put out particulates in what they do, yet we are warming?

403 JacksonTn  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:18:23pm

re: #401 Conservative Moonbat

It was a joke poking fun at his willingness to go against the countervailing opinion at the place, his willingness to still shit up. It obviously didn't go over very well.

CM ... you might want to put a sarc tag on your comments next time ... just sayin ...

404 JohnAdams  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:19:45pm

re: #397 GeicoGecko

I might be less skeptical about global warming/climate change if Al Gore would man up and stop running away from Lord Christopher Monckton, Maggie Thatcher's science advisor, who has challenged him to debate the subject on numerous occasions.

Science is about Truth. Gore is about Politics. On this issue, Politics has hijacked Science and turned it into something sinister. I am incredulous at the damage being done, and the robbery taking place, due to this crime of misinformation.

405 green_earth  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:20:14pm

Pick your power source, pick your problems.

The green energy movement, as it is continually called, is turning into a movement controlled by a government sanctioned mob. As with most government sponsored programs, very few will get very rich off very little benefit for very many. In real practice, all it will be is a transfer of money and power from oil and coal producers to another yet to be determined small nucleus of companies. And the kicker is that those companies will be heavily subsidized with our tax dollars because in the real world marketplace, green energy is simply not cost effective for the masses (I'm sure there are a few niche cases where windmills or solar power can work effectively for small groups with DEEP pockets).

Couple that with the cult religion of man-made global warming and we have a real treat on our hands.

406 MPH  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:20:24pm

re: #188 Cato the Elder

The people who object to "going green" overlook one thing. We'll have to do it whether or not AGW is real and whether or not anything we do can stop it. We're running out of oil.

And saying "but...but...but...China and India need to do it too" is like saying you'll build a house for yourself when those nomads over the horizon stop living in tents.

We can lead, follow or get out of the way. Simple as that.

I obviously prefer safe clean nuclear energy to fossil fuels -- but 2008 was a banner year for fossil fuel discovery (not just oil, but natural gas in particular).
[Link: rigzone.com...]

...and when I see companies obsessed with "going green" -- it often means there is some sort of State subsidy (or customer) attached.

407 Greengolem64  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:22:07pm

re: #400 GeicoGecko

! Bell rings ! :)

Usually in the form of clouds and what not...no clouds, and no way to keep the heat 'in'. Guess we need to figure out a way to blow those pesky clouds away...

408 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:23:05pm

re: #397 GeicoGecko

I might be less skeptical about global warming/climate change if Al Gore would man up and stop running away from Lord Christopher Monckton, Maggie Thatcher's science advisor, who has challenged him to debate the subject on numerous occasions.

Al Gore is no scientist and he knows it.
He's the name on a product that is being sold.

Reminds me of someone else...

409 Randall Gross  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:23:07pm

re: #402 6pat6

OK, so humans put out particulates in what they do, yet we are warming?

Yes because we don't put out as much particulates as some volcanoes especially in North America. Stack scrubbers and all that stuff put in place by the Clean Air Act.

410 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:24:55pm

re: #399 Greengolem64

Whoa...you may be moving on...but I saw no credible response that can prove any of the so-called AGW models that spell doom for the planet...Not sure how that qualifies with 'getting away' with it...but if that is how you see it...enjoy the rose colored glasses... What's the most prevalent GHG in the atmosphere btw?

Water vapor. BTW, never saw doom either.

411 JohnAdams  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:24:58pm

re: #406 MPH

I obviously prefer safe clean nuclear energy to fossil fuels -- but 2008 was a banner year for fossil fuel discovery (not just oil, but natural gas in particular).
[Link: rigzone.com...]

...and when I see companies obsessed with "going green" -- it often means there is some sort of State subsidy (or customer) attached.

The wall where I crush my head is evidence of my complicity. This kind of advertising is pure grandstanding aimed at the imbeciles propagandized by our schools and MSM. Those companies are trying to sell whatever they peddle. It is purely emotional. They may as well be trying to sell us feminine napkins, or deodorant.

412 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:27:38pm

The Supreme Court set in motion the regulation of CO2 with its decision on April 2, 2007 in:

MASSACHUSETTS, et al., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al.

Voting in favor of this decision were the following justices:

Anthony M. Kennedy - Nominated by Ronald Reagan
John Paul Stevens - Nominated by Gerald Ford
Stephen G. Breyer - Nominated by Bill Clinton
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Nominated by Bill Clinton
David H. Souter - Nominated by George H.W. Bush

Dissenting justices were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Given that this was decided on April 2, 2007 the ground work could have been laid at the EPA after that date by the previous administration.

In December 2007, the EPA sent a draft finding to the Bush White House, presenting evidence that CO2 did endanger public welfare.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its 2007 measurements of atmospheric greenhouse gases yesterday, and the results were not encouraging.

THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)

Public comments to the EPA regarding CO2 regulation ended on November 28, 2008 and lasted 120 days. This means the work began for CO2 regulation within the EPA under the previous administration.

On April 17, 2009 the EPA sent a statement that agreed with an EPA draft finding delivered by the EPA in December 2007 the latter of which presented evidence that CO2 did endanger public welfare.

At this point, short of taking this matter to court, the final alternative to voice your concerns is to contact your Representative or Senator.

413 HarryTheHawk  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:28:07pm

Those who fall for this AGW hoax remind me of...creationists

414 pat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:28:41pm

re: #402 6pat6

Actually you are correct. Continuously erupting volcanoes emit huge amounts of green house gases. Huge. (Kilauea) But huge explosive eruptions send particulates high into the atmosphere (Pinatubo), and when they reach 50,000 feet or so, the silica 'floats' and its reflective nature causes cooling. There are also cloud effects that are not understood. But the net is cold for explosive eruptions, hot for persistent low level 'lava flows'.

415 Randall Gross  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:31:03pm

re: #414 pat

Actually you are correct. Continuously erupting volcanoes emit huge amounts of green house gases. Huge. (Kilauea) But huge explosive eruptions send particulates high into the atmosphere (Pinatubo), and when they reach 50,000 feet or so, the silica 'floats' and its reflective nature causes cooling. There are also cloud effects that are not understood. But the net is cold for explosive eruptions, hot for persistent low level 'lava flows'.

And our particulate pollution falls into the low category as well.

416 Randall Gross  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:33:32pm

re: #414 pat

Actually you are correct. Continuously erupting volcanoes emit huge amounts of green house gases. Huge. (Kilauea) But huge explosive eruptions send particulates high into the atmosphere (Pinatubo), and when they reach 50,000 feet or so, the silica 'floats' and its reflective nature causes cooling. There are also cloud effects that are not understood. But the net is cold for explosive eruptions, hot for persistent low level 'lava flows'.

Also note that Mt Redoubt in Alaska isn't erupting explosively, but they still divert planes away from the ash plume.

417 jvic  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:37:39pm

re: #362 Greengolem64

Show me a link that does not use data generated by computer models that have yet to 'get it right'.

In this extended comment, AGW evangelist James Hansen claims:

The reporter left the impression that my conclusions are based mainly on climate models. I always try to make clear that our conclusions are based on #1 Earth’s history, how it responded to forcings in the past, #2 observations of what is happening now, #3 models.
418 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:39:47pm

re: #12 Charles

Yep, those dumb scientists. With their dumb peer reviewed papers. Idiots!

Charles, you're beginning to sound very much like the people you critique. Nobody, ever, should be free from critique because of their occupation.

You also place too much faith in peer review. Peer review does not check the facts, it's not a recalculation of the science - it is simply a case of looking for glaring fundamental mistakes. Peer review didn't pick up Hansen's 1934 "Warmest year in the US" omission because the reviewers (as per normal) are not provided with raw data. Neither will peer review pick up cases of deliberate fraud like Mann's Hockey Stick Graph.

In fact, in a poll of 3247 scientists funded by the US National Institute of Health, 5% admitted to throwing out data that was relevant but contradictory to their previous research on the topic, 10% admitted to inappropriate citings of work done by others, 15% admitted they had changed a study's design or results to satisfy a sponsor, or ignored observations because they had a "gut feeling" they were inaccurate.

Furthermore, the same poll revealed that 0.3 percent admitted to faking research data, and 1.4 percent admitted to plagiarism. But lesser violations were far more common, including 4.7 percent who admitted to publishing the same data in two or more publications to beef up their résumés and 13.5 percent who used research designs they knew would not give accurate results.

You can read the full article here and read the results of the poll here

Scientists are not infallible.

Especially relevant is the fact that the models used by the IPCC are not actually scientific models - they are economic GCMs. Basically, the IPCC assumes economic growth rate vs CO2 output and graphs based on historic trends. There's a vast problem with this and you should know it - have you ever seen anything bigger than a 2-year economic model have any degree of accuracy? And then drop CO2 output on top of that with a relationship to temperature that is not mathematically defined and you have an almighty shemozzle.

This is exactly why the IPCC has proven wrong in the last 10 years with regards to global yearly temperatures - it assumes too much about what it doesn't know. You can't graph what you do not understand yet this is exactly what the IPCC is doing.

For example:

The dimensions of the problem can be illustrated by the case of South Africa. In 2000, this country's GDP per head, converted from nominal values using exchange rates, was only 12% of the U.S. level. By 2050, the A1 marker scenario projects that the per capita income of South Africans on this basis will have reached more than four times the U.S. level in 2000, and about twice the level that the U.S. will have reached in 2050. And by 2100, this scenario projects that the per capita income of South Africans will be approaching twenty times the U.S. level in 2000, and more than four times the U.S. level at the end of the 21st century. . . . The total output of goods and services in South Africa in 2100, according to these downscaled A1 scenario projections, will be comparable to that of the entire world in 1990.

Because it's such an indefensible position (with study after study critiquing the IPCC's modelling) there has been a need to create an illusory consensus and correlation - none of which are justifiable scientific methods. For example, the chapter concluding that humans are the cause of GW was written by less than 55 scientists, most of whom peer review each other's work and who have worked on joint studies - creating a level of familiarity and bias.

419 Synesius  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:43:08pm

“Climate Science” has become to the Left what “Creation Science” is to the Right: nonsense used to support an agenda. The fixation on carbon dioxide is ludicrous. CO2 abundance was twice the current value during the Miocene epoch (7-23 million years ago) and the climate was temperate but cooling. It was ten times the current value at the beginning of the Eocene (56-37 million years ago)and the climate was tropical and cooling. About the only time CO2 is a significant driver of Earth's greenhouse is at the end of ice ages, when it is liberated from cold sinks and briefly accelerates warming. Once H2O reaches saturation you can add CO2 molecules until the cows come home and they are simply not going to find enough extra photons to resonate with.

420 Dirk Diggler  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:43:53pm

An educational and appropriate musical interlude.

One does not need to look very far back into the past to find examples of other "scientific" hysteria that turned out to be pure crap: Eugenics, The Population Bomb hypothesis, Global Cooling, and Nuclear Winter.

The late Michael Crichton eloquently summed up the need for skepticism in an essay on the subject.

421 pat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:47:23pm

Silica is abrasive as a sand blaster. Take a turbine apart after the cleaning. Harder than many metals, much less plastic or many glasses. Think corundum.

422 Spartacus50  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:50:26pm

re: #413 HarryTheHawk

Those who fall for this AGW hoax remind me of...creationists

Well said

423 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:52:31pm

re: #413 HarryTheHawk

Those who fall for this AGW hoax remind me of...creationists

Ooh. I think I'm supposed to be amazed and dumbstruck now.

It might be more interesting if you explained how you equate people who reject all of modern science (creationists), with people who have mountains of scientific evidence on their side (climate change scientists). But that might require actual thought instead of knee-jerk reactionism.

424 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:01:00pm

re: #418 the_thermonuclear_pickle

Charles, you're beginning to sound very much like the people you critique. Nobody, ever, should be free from critique because of their occupation.

And no one should build such easily destroyed straw men, because I never said anything like that.

You also place too much faith in peer review. Peer review does not check the facts, it's not a recalculation of the science - it is simply a case of looking for glaring fundamental mistakes.

And I don't place too much faith in peer review either; I know exactly the role it plays in the scientific method, and posted a comment in an earlier thread that you might want to see before tossing that straw man at me.

Scientists are not infallible.

Didn't say that either. Straw men seem to be your specialty.

425 Noah's Arrrgh  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:01:07pm
Yep, those dumb scientists. With their dumb peer reviewed papers. Idiots!

I was participating in a news group focusing on nuclear issues, when someone posted a paper by Hansen, showing some empirical evidence that shows a positive correlation to global temperature and CO2 concentration, from which Hansen concludes that the asymptotic temperature of the earth would rise due to the rise in the global CO2 level.

The conclusion, however, does not hold from the premise. Many dynamic systems (e.g., non-minimum phase systems) can show asymptotic behavior that local sensitivities don't capture. This is a known mathematical fact to dynamicists, like myself, but probably not to Hansen, nor (and this is important) to the reviewers of his papers.

A similar thing happened with Mann. Being insufficiently grounded in stochastics and sampling theory, he made a huge mistake which lead to his infamous Hockey Stick Graph. Here again, his reviewers probably didn't understand the subtleties of the statistical field, and published his paper.

Add to this the fact that most reviewers are simply overworked and don't have time to go through the papers with a fine-toothed comb.

My point (as was excellently made by the thermonuclear pickle above): Peer review doesn't confer an infallible status on any paper.

I could also go further and talk about how the TTAPS climate model utterly failed when it predicted a nuclear autumn scenario from oil well burns in Iraq in the first Iraq war. Or, I could relate in my own experience how a team of very talented Ph.D.s missed an important factor in a dynamic model of a particular structure after repeated testing and trying to validate their model for over a year.

So, while I won't dismiss AGW, nor do I think it's prudent to do so, I still believe that many of the claims are inflated or just plain wrong.

426 wiffersnapper  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:06:40pm

re: #4 Conservative Moonbat

def need a /sarc tag, for a second I thought you were a troll

427 LGoPs  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:06:49pm

re: #299 avanti

I see you've read the George Will global cooling myth.

Will.

No. I'm basing it on my personal observations of how the left operates.

428 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:10:48pm

re: #413 HarryTheHawk

Those who fall for this AGW hoax remind me of...creationists

No need to reply, by the way. I reviewed your past comments and I see that you're a creationist, which explains the belligerence.

429 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:16:28pm

re: #424 Charles

It's a funny thing Charles that a completely reasonable post evokes such a strong reaction from you.

Science requires an open mind, strict orthodoxy and an ability to reason. This means you take every single piece of evidence available including the fact that CO2 has never been in lock-step with temperatures and you look at it objectively.

At the moment, I see evidence in front of me that clearly shows a global warming of less than one standard deviation from the time the IPCC says it climate was impacted by humans. This invalidates any calls to the Precautionary Principle, even thought he Precautionary principle should not apply to politicised science.

I also see evidence in front of me of extensive CO2 increases causing acidification of the oceans.

There are some things in the theory that are factual and most that aren't - that's because some things like oceanic acidification are cause-and-effect whereas CO2->temperature does not, and has never had that sort of relationship.

We can even see it in the last 60 years of global warming (IPCC contends that AGW started around 1950) - there was a dip in 1940-1970 commonly attributed to CFCs. However, and this is something that is not commonly known, CFC production peaked in 1990 meaning that we either outstripped our CFC production with our production of CO2 - negating the cooling effects (all signs point to this being untrue) or our theory of Global Dimming is as equally flawed as the AGW theories.

If we assume the former, then we've got to work out where the extra CO2 is coming from because it's not on any data sets that are available, nor are substantiated by Mauna Loa CO2 measurements. If it's the second, we have a case of a 30-year cooling gap (enough to base climate metrics on) at a time of increasing CO2.

There are more questions than answers in climate science and I am bitterly disappointed that someone I like as an equally anti-conspiracy, liberal conservative/conservative liberal, pro-evolutionist sort of guy (like yourself), would bend to the opinion of a politically-established body, rather than accept that there is a mountain of scientific, eyeball and logical evidence each side of this particular debate.

430 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:22:15pm

re: #429 the_thermonuclear_pickle

It's a funny thing Charles that a completely reasonable post evokes such a strong reaction from you.

Another straw man. I guess it makes you feel powerful to misrepresent your opponents. If I react strongly to something you post, believe me, you'll know it.

The rest of your post is nothing but arguments from authority, with no citations or links to check what you're saying.

I am bitterly disappointed...

Somehow, I'll find the strength to carry on despite your bitter disappointment.

431 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:24:37pm

re: #418 the_thermonuclear_pickle

There is a difference between baiting and debating.

432 sleepyone  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:24:47pm

I just knew this topic was going to pop up as a thread sooner or later.

433 Optimizer  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:26:54pm

re: #425 Noah's Arrrgh

First of all, this "positive correlation" only exists in this case if you limit the time period to the time where both temperature and CO2 were both going up. Second, correlation can suggest causality, but doesn't prove it.

You're being WAY too kind to Hansen and Mann. Hansen's tinkering with temperature data alone (as documented liberally on [Link: www.climateaudit.org),...] and his unwillingness to show how he gets his results from data speak volumes. Mann couldn't possibly have ended up with his infamous "hockey stick" if he had not intentionally tuned his algorithms to specifically filter out anything BUT a hockey stick. He's the author of the biggest scientific fraud in history.

Steve McIntyre (who DOES "understand the subtleties of the statistical field") and his team of volunteers have gone through their stuff with the "fine tooth comb" you speak of, and Hansen and Mann are well aware of it (having denied innumerable requests for information). They are disinterested in addressing the criticisms, and have not apologized for, and don't always correct, the mistakes found in their work. Not only are these guys not interested in the truth, but Hansen has gone so far as to testify on the behalf of people who literally vandalized a power plant in England (one might ask who, exactly, paid for him to go to England for this purpose). They're ideologues, not scientists.

Further, these guys have made outrageous claims and should be held accountable for not checking their work. Anybody being "overworked" is no excuse for publishing bad results.

434 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:27:24pm

the_thermonuclear_pickle


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karma: 6
Registered since: Dec 2, 2008 at 7:26 pm
(Logged in)

No. of comments posted: 2
No. of links posted: 0
Recent comments

Up till now, everthing has been ok?
Do you really have an opinion on this?

435 charlesincharge  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:34:16pm

Some opinion with charts and facts . For the truly open minded.

436 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:34:22pm

re: #434 swamprat

the_thermonuclear_pickle

Karma: 6
Registered since: Dec 2, 2008 at 7:26 pm
(Logged in)

No. of comments posted: 2
No. of links posted: 0


Up till now, everthing has been ok?
Do you really have an opinion on this?

Sleeper.

437 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:35:30pm

re: #435 charlesincharge

Some opinion with charts and facts . For the truly open minded.

And for those whose minds aren't so open their brains have fallen out:

CO2 Fairy Tales in Global Warming, by Gregory Young.

438 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:37:19pm

re: #436 Charles
Bet he could argue the other way and make a pretty good case.

And I am not a AGW believer.
I have seen this more-in-sorrow-than-anger schick before.

439 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:38:11pm

re: #438 swamprat

Bet he could argue the other way and make a pretty good case.

And I am not a AGW believer.
I have seen this more-in-sorrow-than-anger schick before.

I've seen it over and over and over. Gets pretty tiresome.

440 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:38:12pm

re: #438 swamprat

schtick

441 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:41:00pm

re: #435 charlesincharge
They spin also, and I am too tired to be lucid.

442 Reluctant Democrat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:42:38pm

If global warming or climate change or whatever they are calling it this week is really dangerous and really solvable by man, then we have two choices: either destroy industrialization and go live in caves in order to save the planet, or wait and see and take the chance that warming will destroy the planet.

I vote we wait it out and see.

443 Max Darkside  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:43:45pm

re: #433 Optimizer
You are right. I've been following this fairly closely (more than daily).

The Wired article is full of scare-words, like “Unless emissions begin to decline very soon, severe disruption to the climate system will entail expensive adaptation measures and may eventually require cleaning up the mess by actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere.” Sad thing is that most climate models, including the IPCC, are so flawed that they are, in a matter of a few years, substantially off in their predictions of temperature anomalies. Looking very long term, actually the Earth is presently at low CO2 and temperatures.

The ocean is a huge CO2 sink, absorbing and emitting based principally on temperature. That is why when temperature goes up, over the next hundreds of years CO2 goes up, as the oceans purge out CO2 like warm soda pop. As temperature goes down, over the next hundreds of years CO2 is reabsorbed. In the big picture, CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, not the other way around. In reality, WATER is primary greenhouse gas anyway, but it's hard to put politics and guilt and reap $ on water production.

The key driver of global temperatures is the sun. Even the heat trapped by greenhouse gases comes from... ya, the sun.

444 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:45:17pm

re: #430 Charles

Fair enough. You're the owner of this blog so if you feel it's necessary to imply something then back away from it in order to achieve a shadowy goal, please be my guest. It's not something I can nail down anyway because implication is subjective in the ye of the beholder.

However your request for sources is very reasonable, so I'll repost:

Science requires an open mind, strict orthodoxy and an ability to reason. This means you take every single piece of evidence available including the fact that CO2 has never been in lock-step with temperatures and you look at it objectively.

At the moment, I see evidence in front of me that clearly shows a global warming of less than one standard deviation from the time the IPCC says it climate was impacted by humans. This invalidates any calls to the Precautionary Principle, even thought he Precautionary principle should not apply to politicised science.

I also see evidence in front of me of extensive CO2 increases causing acidification of the oceans.

There are some things in the theory that are factual and most that aren't - that's because some things like oceanic acidification are cause-and-effect whereas CO2->temperature does not, and has never had that sort of relationship.

We can even see it in the last 60 years of global warming (IPCC contends that AGW started around 1950) - there was a dip in 1940-1970 commonly attributed to CFCs. However, and this is something that is not commonly known, CFC production peaked in 1990 (ed - sorry 1988 - my mistake) meaning that we either outstripped our CFC production with our production of CO2 - negating the cooling effects (all signs point to this being untrue) or our theory of Global Dimming is as equally flawed as the AGW theories.

If we assume the former, then we've got to work out where the extra CO2 is coming from because it's not on any data sets that are available, nor are substantiated by Mauna Loa CO2 measurements. If it's the second, we have a case of a 30-year cooling gap (enough to base climate metrics on) at a time of increasing CO2.

There are more questions than answers in climate science and I am bitterly disappointed that someone I like as an equally anti-conspiracy, liberal conservative/conservative liberal, pro-evolutionist sort of guy (like yourself), would bend to the opinion of a politically-established body, rather than accept that there is a mountain of scientific, eyeball and logical evidence each side of this particular debate.

445 Achilles Tang  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:47:30pm

re: #5 Joel

Anything algore believes in, I think the opposite. When I was in college in the 1970's they were talking about global cooling.

Anyone who quotes Al Gore when attempting to make an intelligent statement about something scientific is like one who makes attempts to make a political statement and references the "H" word, and thinks they made a point.

I'll explain the H part to those who are interested, tomorrow, but now it's almost 2am where I'm at and the wine says it's bed time; so goodnight, and I claim the last word, for now.

446 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:52:01pm

re: #444 the_thermonuclear_pickle


Your not really crapping on the carpet, that smell is just being "fair".

Couching insults as you post, while using a unactivated account, makes me think you don't give a rats' rear about AGW, you just want to win some creds with your homelys.

;^)

447 green_earth  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:52:38pm

Man-made global warming believers:

Help me out a little. I hear everywhere, even here in this forum, that I should accept man made global warming as fact. What I hear is no more maybe, IT'S FACT you smallish brained idiot, just believe the real intellectuals. There is also equally definitive statements against it as a political hoax with science to back it up (which I admit I'm more inclined to believe, as you can see in my above post).

Nevertheless, I need more than blog posts, AlGore, McCain, or Hopenchange to guide me aright. I'm not a scientist nor do I care to be in earnest. But I need some balanced guidance here. Where can I go to study this issue seriously? What books, articles, or websites take a truly non-politicized look at this issue and consider the obviously VAST number of variables that MUST be considered when looking at this phenominon.

Again, I'm not a scientist and am already doubt that humans can change the climate, even with our burning of fossil fuels. I guess I just don't see how we can understand the whole system that makes our climate warm and cool all over the globe.

My present feelings aside I am serious about looking at both sides more seriously. Advice?

448 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:54:34pm

re: #446 swamprat

What's an unactivated account? I registered about 6 months ago I think, about half way through the election campaign.

Charles can confirm for you that I am posting from Sydney, Australia and that I am a unique user.

Is there something that I need to do further to my account? And how do I do it?

449 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:55:12pm

re: #439 Charles

I've seen it over and over and over. Gets pretty tiresome.

It's odd to read comments in which people compare AGW science as a religion and by default the scientists as adherents to a cause. At the same time it is implied that the AGW science is based on biased funding while failing to acknowledge that the anti-AGW science also receives what one would call biased funding.

Ironically some of the more infamous anti-AGW proponents are people like Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. As we have seen in the past they even toss around theological ideas in an attempt to downplay the possible effects of AGW. Overall there seems to be a great deal of "faith" being applied to the anti-AGW movement itself.

At this point it's too late for the anti-AGW movement to take any hold as I point out in #412. The research began under the Bush administration EPA and led to the final statement from the EPA earlier this month. This will result in a great deal of regulation which many will not be happy with including myself but reality tells me that I have no choice but to adapt to those changes and regulations. Regulations do create jobs or as I always like to think if there was no such thing as planning and zoning regulations I wouldn't have any work to do because people would build whatever they want.

Investment wise this will provide new opportunities for those that keep up with the changing regulatory climate. In architectures and building engineering it may include LEEDs certified building and other so called Green Building techniques. It will also provide new and profitable venues for entrepreneurs that can provide innovative products and services that will mitigate the problems as will be delineated by the EPA and congress as was forced by the 3 Republican and 2 Democratic judges as indicated in #412.

Thus it's best to remain positive and see the potential for opportunity rather than another negative talking point that will serve no purpose other than looking like you are trying to "fight city hall." It can't be done.

450 Max Darkside  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:55:13pm

re: #437 Charles

And for those whose minds aren't so open their brains have fallen out:

CO2 Fairy Tales in Global Warming, by Gregory Young.

In a quick read through, quite a lot of the information at that link is not accurate or is false by omission. One example,

About 18,000 years ago (the height of the Wurm glaciation), atmospheric CO2 level was about 190 ppm. 17,800 years later, it was 280 ppm (0.5 ppm rise per century). 150 years after that, it was 320 ppm (26.7 ppm rise per century). 50 years after that (present day), it is 384 ppm (1.3 ppm per year)


The author conveniently leaves out that at times the Earth's CO2 was well over 1000 ppm (I think it was 1,450 ppm at one point, and at a lower temp than today, off the top of my head).

451 Max Darkside  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:00:05pm

re: #447 green_earth

But I need some balanced guidance here. Where can I go to study this issue seriously? What books, articles, or websites take a truly non-politicized look at this issue and consider the obviously VAST number of variables that MUST be considered when looking at this phenominon.

In Language for Mere Mortals:
WattsUpWithThat.com (Winner of 2008 Best Science Blog)
For techno-data-analytical types
ClimateAudit.org

452 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:00:35pm

re: #448 the_thermonuclear_pickle We've had alot of folks not use an account an save up to insult the host. Many have an agenda that has nothing to do with what the topic is.
I don't buy into global warming, but some how, I can keep implied aspersions out of my posts.

453 hous bin pharteen  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:03:31pm

When we take control of the Mid-east and Pakistan, and we put an end to the Great Satan, there is not going to be anymore global warming. You Americans are going to be riding camels and horses. Women will not be going to the mall "shopping" and waste fuel, the world will be done with gays, and every male will get a 10 year old girl.

Allah! Allah! Allah! Mohammad rules! Algore has spoken.

454 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:07:17pm

re: #452 swamprat

Well, I'm not that guy.

:)

I was lurking for many months simply because there's very very little I wanted to comment on as Charles had already lucidly expressed my opinion on the matter.

455 banner  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:07:33pm

Of course none of these scientists have ever heard of carbon sinks have they? The thought that all of this carbon stays in the atmosphere and never ever leaves is just laughable at best.

456 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:09:04pm

re: #454 the_thermonuclear_pickle

Good night, T-P.

Work will be waiting for me in the morning.

457 Max Darkside  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:16:04pm

re: #455 banner

Of course none of these scientists have ever heard of carbon sinks have they? The thought that all of this carbon stays in the atmosphere and never ever leaves is just laughable at best.

Ya. I thought it pretty funny. That is why I mentioned a big sink, the oceans. I'm a Chemical Engineer, which in many ways makes me a highly trained (and luckily paid) professional chemical accountant (counting and balancing mass and energy as a professional).

458 lostlakehiker  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:16:51pm

re: #8 Occasional Reader

And average temperatures have flatlined in the last decade, in spite of this ongoing, cumulative problem, because...

Because we've had a bit of luck with the forces of nature that play their own part in the climate.

Those forces are not on our side though. They're indifferent. Our luck can turn. It turns, from time to time.

Two degrees Celsius is not trivial. A growing season can be made or broken by those two (more than 4, Fahrenheit) degrees. Every day, that much warmer than it would have been---if you're in for a hot dry summer anyhow, those two degrees are the last nails in your coffin.

For Saskatchewan farmers, and North Dakotans, and Alaskans, and Russians, this warming, should it occur, would probably be a good thing. For Vietnamese, it's surely a bad thing. Rice is a warm-weather crop, but there's still such a thing as too hot for rice, and warm years mean poor harvests. Two degrees more means that on top of the usual zigs and zags, there are more bad harvests in store and fewer good ones.

Already there have been panics in the price of rice. Financial Times on "The global food crisis"

Two degrees more is bad for New Orleans. It's muggy enough there already. The ocean has already taken one damaging whack at the town, and sea level will rise, at least a bit, with rising global temperatures. Suppose it's two centimeters. Trivial, right? But the flat lands of Louisiana, and Bangladesh, and many other places, grade only very gradually upward. The last mile of marshes becomes just too saline for the trees. They die, and storms can lash inland that much further without hindrance.

Ice shelves in the Antarctic are breaking up. Google Wilkins. The Notices of the American Mathematical Society, April issue, has an article on Arctic sea ice. Figuring out all the ins and outs of how sea ice forms and whether it will mostly disappear in the summer if we get those two degrees of warming is a desperately difficult problem, and today's models are not good enough. But in that uncertainty, one thing is clear: for all we know, it could mostly disappear. Another thing is clear: straight, simple minded extrapolation of current trends, (which is not very sound prediction, but again, it just might happen that the trend is robust), says it will mostly disappear. The current trends are stark and dramatic.

In the event things do go this way, and the Northwest Passage opens for summer seafaring in most years, that will have an upside for navigation. But ice reflects sunlight, while open water mostly absorbs it. The summers in the arctic would be that much warmer, as the north pole became less of a source of intensely cold winds even in summer.

My Dad quit smoking before all the evidence was in. As a surgeon, he'd seen enough lung cancer patients to connect the dots for himself. Science has to be sure, but prudence can take a hint and act before the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle has clicked into place.

We would be prudent to figure that two degrees warmer is in the cards, that it won't be good for us, and that we need to get to work now on mitigation and on preventing the next two after those two, and the next two after those.

Wind, solar, nuclear, efficiency, carbon sequestration, ... we cannot put all our eggs in one basket. We need to place modest bets at each table, and see how the technology comes along. As and when good choices come along, then we need to implement them large scale and quickly. Compact fluorescent bulbs are a decent example, though there are promising developments in LED's that may make CF's obsolete. "Smart buildings" might be another.

459 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:21:37pm

re: #455 banner

Carbon sinks are finite though we only have a very bad understanding of total planetary capacity. Neither do we have a good grasp of CO2 absorptivity (you can only fill a beaker to a certain level). So there is a possibility that the planet is exceeding sink capacity and forcing more CO2 atmospheric content.

The problem is that all of this is held together with nothing but string, glue and prayer to Allah - almost no conclusive scientific evidence one way or another besides some correlations.

460 Robert Schwartz  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:25:44pm

I think there a couple of issues here. One is in the article. The way it is written, a reader could believe that the effect of an additional ton of CO2 is linear, i.e. add 500 MT and you get 2 C of warming, add 500 more and you get 2 C more warming.

In fact the system is subject to the law of diminishing returns. The nth ton adds a percentage to the total. If we are at 500, one additional ton raises the total to 501 and the additional effect is 1/501th or 0.2%, and so on. Systems like that behave logarithmically, and what is important is doubling. If we get a 2 C change by doubling the CO2 content of the atmosphere, the next 2 C requires another doubling or the addition of 2,000 MT to the air. I should note that James Hansen, Mr. AGW himself, said quite recently that he thinks doubling the CO2 increases temperature 3 C +/- 0.5. But what is a half degree among friends.

Second, I think ad hominems are misplaced. Mr. X may be a young earth creationist, but that neither validates, nor invalidates what he says about AGW. It is important to realize that science itself is not a political process. In 1633 maybe half a dozen people in the world believed in the heliocentric theory. One of them was Galileo, who used the newly invented telescope to prove it. The proof did not save him from the consensus. There many scientists who have relevant credentials and who do not accept AGW. Larry Solomon profiled about 30 of them in his book the Deniers.

Third, it is important to realize that AGW is not just a theory about the Earth's climate. It is a layer cake that begins with the observations that the climate is now warmer than it was in the 19th Century, that amounts of CO2 in the air have increased over the past century, and that we have burned a lot of fossil fuels in that time. The next layer is that the first observation is being driven by the second which is in turn caused by the third. The third layer is to conclude that the Earth will continue to get warmer. The fourth posits that a warmer world will plagued by a host of insuperable problems, that will make our descendants lives worse than ours. The fifth layer is that we can affect the rate and amount of warming by discontinuing the use of fossil fuels. The sixth layer is that doing so, is more worthy than just deciding to adapt to a warmer world.

Each layer can be questioned. I do not think, given the stakes that anyone should be disqualified from questioning or from having different policy preferences.

461 jvic  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:25:48pm

re: #447 green_earth

My present feelings aside I am serious about looking at both sides more seriously. Advice?

Climate Debate Daily might interest you.

462 lostlakehiker  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:26:38pm

re: #447 green_earth

Man-made global warming believers:

Help me out a little. I hear everywhere, even here in this forum, that I should accept man made global warming as fact. What I hear is no more maybe, IT'S FACT you smallish brained idiot, just believe the real intellectuals. There is also equally definitive statements against it as a political hoax with science to back it up (which I admit I'm more inclined to believe, as you can see in my above post).

Nevertheless, I need more than blog posts, AlGore, McCain, or Hopenchange to guide me aright. I'm not a scientist nor do I care to be in earnest. But I need some balanced guidance here. Where can I go to study this issue seriously? What books, articles, or websites take a truly non-politicized look at this issue and consider the obviously VAST number of variables that MUST be considered when looking at this phenominon.

Again, I'm not a scientist and am already doubt that humans can change the climate, even with our burning of fossil fuels. I guess I just don't see how we can understand the whole system that makes our climate warm and cool all over the globe.

My present feelings aside I am serious about looking at both sides more seriously. Advice?

You're exactly right that we do not understand the system. We understand a little about it. There is much that we do not yet know, and considering how complex the system is, there is much that we will not know for longer than we have to make up our minds what to do.

We do know is that CO2 has an absorption spectrum in the IR that makes it a greenhouse gas, that atmospheric CO2 is smoothly trending upward year over year, and that it's warmer now, worldwide, than it was a century ago. That's what lawyers call a prima facie case. Enough to ask a prosecutor to call a grand jury. Not enough for an indictment, perhaps. Surely not enough to convict.

The people who call the other side idiots are just hooting and pounding their chest. Skeptics aren't idiots. They're smarter than the True Believers in either camp, on the whole. That said, experts, the honest ones (and the liars aren't really experts) know more than the general public, and it's possible to take skepticism too far. We see this in a stubborn, entrenched skepticism about the necessity and desirability of mass vaccination of children against polio, measles, etc.

Scientific American tries hard to be readable, and while it leans left, it hasn't gone moonbat crazy. After that, well, Charles, you readin' this? You've been reading up on the topic. You maybe have some good stuff to recommend?

463 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:31:44pm

re: #458 lostlakehiker

That's a brilliant argument. Let me do one of my own based on anecdotals:

150 years ago sea levels were 20 to 30 cm lower than today. In 100 years time they will be 30 cm higher than today. Imaging Al Gore having a whine-fest like he is now, 150 years ago. Knowing what you know now (in hindsight) with higher sea levels, would you panic?

Are you all aware where the name Greenland came from, given that it's covered with ice almost completely? In the middle ages, there was a brief global warming that raised temperatures to above present levels. Greenland's ice melted and Europe warmed. Civilization expanded like never before. Vikings grew and farmed crops in Greenland, something we can still barely do.

Now for some real statistics. More people are currently hospitalized and more deaths occur in winter or extreme cold snaps than do during summer or heat waves.

Lastly, there's the famous 'food crops will die' theory. It's true, some crops will die and some areas will become desert. But the flip-side is that some deserts will become arable, and ice will melt to create new farmland. If you want the real truth, ask any farmer who owns greenhouses. The purpose of greenhouses is to maximise heat and Carbon Dioxide to grow crops. In fact, many farmers buy special CO2 generators to raise carbon dioxide levels to up to 100 times present levels because a large number of plants actually prefer higher levels than present.

We are also told that Carbon Dioxide will lift temperatures. Yes that's true, it does do that, but the relationship is not linear and many scientists believe a maximum absorption point exists. Furthermore, more proof exists that Carbon Dioxide does not always indicate higher temperatures. 650 million years ago, during an ice age Carbon Dioxide levels were 18 to 23 times their present level - during an Ice Age. Yes it was a different planetary climate, but if we are to believe it, Carbon Dioxide is evil and increases temperatures... So why was it getting colder as Carbon Dioxide levels increased? Only three answers exist.

1. Prehistoric humans were cooling the atmosphere to 'Carbon-Offset' 650-million-year-old coal power plants via release of chlorofluorocarbons in an act of global dimming
2. There is more to the climate than just a single warming agent
3. We don't know fully the relationship of Carbon Dioxide to climate

The last doomsday prediction we have is deaths due to natural disasters - well only problem is, deaths due to natural disasters have been decreasing over the last century, even as CO2 levels, sea levels and temperatures all rose. We're living longer and safer, because we've finally adapted and understood the natural dangers of the planet and made systems to prevent carnage where possible or economically viable. There have been people who have quit the IPCC in disgust for pushing the "natural disaster deaths" theories based on no evidence whatsoever. In fact the only indisputable effect of rising levels of Carbon Dioxide is acidification of the oceans.

Climate change could be like the Y2K bug - based on a kernel of truth that was blown way out of proportion and became a global money scam. The same with global warming - yes the planet is warming (that's your kernel of truth). No you will not die, you won't starve and you won't drown.

Follow the money. Yes, there are deniers who are funded by oil companies, but more than equally there are research grants and entire public service departments that now rely on the sustaining of global warming panic in order to exist. Millions of jobs have been created in these departments, there are green-living consultants for private companies. None of this can ever be matched by oil industry pay-outs.

Stop worrying about global warming and enjoy your life, living it reasonably environmentally responsibly. You'll be fine, and just like the majority of other doomsday predictions, this one will pass.

464 2SoonOld2LateSmart  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:39:20pm

re: #236 Shug

Why has Global Warming become Climate Change?

Seriously

If you have watch any of Big Al's latest pronouncements, it is not "global warming, nor is it "climate change", it is "CLIMATE CRISIS".

465 charlesincharge  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:11:21am

re: #437 Charles

Stipulating that the Sun was "dimmer". How is it that in the first chart (#1Co2earth history) Co2 dropped from approx. 7,000 ppm to approx. 4100 ppm in about 90 million years with the Average Global Temp. remaining a rock solid 22deg C? (actually climbed a bit while Co2 dropped Big Time)

Then while CO2 ppm climbed about 10% for the next approx 10 million years, avg. global temp. dropped from about 22 Deg. C to about 12 Deg C. So, at least at that time CO2 ppm concentration is totally divorced from "global warming". In fact higher CO2 is "responsible" for global cooling. For a 10 million year period.

Then again from approx. 150 million years ago to approx. to about 50 million years ago CO2 ppm concentrations fell from approx. 2,000 to 1,000 ppm. while Avg. Global temp. rose a bit then stayed rock solid at about 21 degrees C.
The record shows tens of millions of years of proof that CO2 levels,even drastic changes, are not coupled to Avg Global Temp in any direct way

466 TheConservator  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:14:11am

Best analysis of the global warming issue I have seen:

[Link: home.comcast.net...]

467 freetoken  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:21:18am

re: #466 TheConservator

Sorry, but that is just another guy spouting off his beliefs. If he really has something to contribute he would write it up and let the geophysical community read it (and frankly, tear it up.)

468 TheConservator  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:26:48am

re: #467 freetoken

Sorry, but you are just another guy spouting off your beliefs. If you really have something to contribute you would write it up and let the lizardoid community read it.

Either respond to the merits or don't waste my time.

469 Optimizer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:27:48am

re: #437 Charles

And for those whose minds aren't so open their brains have fallen out:

CO2 Fairy Tales in Global Warming, by Gregory Young.

OK, well let me look at this with an open mind. I see:

1) The American Thinker article isn't the greatest, often focusing on fairly superfluous things. This actually seems kind of forgivable to me, considering the amount of that that goes on with the other side. At least there doesn't seem to be the flagrant lying with this guy.

2) The "Fact Check" article confesses no author, and doesn't strike me as being unbiased at all. It correctly counters that it really doesn't matter how low a concentration something is within the atmosphere - a small amount can conceivably mean a lot, but it doesn't have much more to offer. But on addressing the claim that CO2 is an essential compound for life on Earth, it says, essentially, that "we need water, too, but if there's too much water you drown". Ironically, this actually makes the point about CO2 being a trace gas relevant - there's no way that CO2 would ever reach a level where anyone might suffocate. The comment shows bias - not dispassionate "checking".

3) Both articles carry on at length about the pre-historical levels of CO2. I'm impressed by neither, for two reasons. First, I've seen enough about "proxy" measurement to not have a lot faith in their accuracy. Nobody was standing at various points of the Earth with an actual instrument millions of years ago, and nobody can go back in time to see how accurate the deductions about back then are. Second, I expect a lot has changed in that last 100 million years or so, so I'm not sure how relevant it is. However, what they actually agree on (which is the more important point) is that there has been a natural variation of CO2 over time (which disputes the notion that there is one ideal "natural" level that absolutely MUST be maintained for life on Earth).

4) The A.T. article says, "...revised Russian Ice Core Data from the Antarctica show that CO2 has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years. Yet again, AGW proponents claim that CO2 levels now are unnaturally high and are only the result of the last 200 years or so of human pollution." This is not the same thing as saying that humans haven't added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere, but the "Check" article carries on as if it is, saying: "And we know for a fact that the rise [in CO2] of the last two hundred years is primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels." The point was that CO2 levels have been that high before, without destroying life on Earth.

5) I may have to look into this "Check" claim that water vapor is not 95% of the GHG. My own experience is with the infrared, and I can tell you that IR is greatly attenuated by water vapor (and cannot see through clouds at all), but that there are some narrow CO2 "notches" that are easier to design around. So the claim always seemed reasonable to me, but I'm sure there's a lot of ways to work the numbers in partisan ways. Still, "Check" guy's shorthand explanation didn't make any sense.

6) "Check" guy's "Carbon Cycle" talk is unconvincing. He admits that 97% of CO2 comes from natural sources, but claims that Earth just can't handle that extra 3%. This is the "don't mess with the natural level" theme (which is partisan). The CO2 budget breakdown estimate can't be this accurate anyway, but - again - it's a superfluous point.

In summary, the American Thinker article make a few decent basic points, but without really making the case. It has extraneous stuff, and intentionally implies more than it says. The "Fact Check" article is partisan, and unconvincingly nitpicks on meaningless details. Neither contributes much to the debate.

470 freetoken  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:31:01am

re: #466 TheConservator

Grallos' claims are discussed here:
[Link: www.gl1800riders.com...]

Grallos is also part of Morano's list of deniers... not good company to be in.

From a quick look at that page, the first thing that comes to mind is Grallos' misuse of data (in the graph of temperatures) analysis... to pick any single month as meaningful is either a sign that he doesn't know what he is talking about (no matter where he works), or that he is being intentionally deceiving.

Just because a web-page has pretty looking graphs, lots of numbers, and high sounding words does not make it good analysis.

471 freetoken  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:33:17am

re: #468 TheConservator

Sorry, but that lame debating tactics. You are the one making the claim that Grallos write-up is worth looking at, so the onus is on you to show why it is so good.

Furthermore, as Grallos is the one making the claim that the climatologists are wrong, it is up to him to submit that for discussion through the appropriate channels and debate it, not me.

472 G.Karp  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:40:44am

The article is what old time journos would call a thumbsucker. The authors came up with numbers, plugged them into a model and made a guess. It's not science; science requires repeatable observations that can be duplicated by any rational observer. How does anyone know if the model they rely on is accurate or complete? Real science never asks for a leap of faith. A computer program is evidence of nothing, except perhaps the existence of a computer.

And the claim that the problem is how much carbon humans admit is ludicrous. How much carbon humans emit cannot be as important as how much carbon is in the atmosphere from whatever source, and it is undisputed that most carbon dioxide is naturally occurring, and how much is absorbed by carbon absorbing things like plants and sea water. The obsession with human production is epistomological narcissism, not a serious effort to understand climate dynamics.

There is also the goal post moving aspect of this. We were told by the former VP that polar bears were already dying and the oceans were already rising years ago. Now that empirical observation has failed utterly to support those alarmist tropes, the game changes to the horror that awaits decades out. The sky was falling, now it only promises to be falling. Call me when there's real data.

I wish there was real, convincing evicence of AGW. I would feel better about the vast expense that will reduce living standards in the industrialized world and keep most of humanity in poverty. People will starve because of this theory. I'd like to think there was a good reason for that. So far, for all the yelling boo, no one can actually point to a boogeyman.

473 TheConservator  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:54:52am

Freetoken--

So far, all your comments indicate is that the author's reasonably informed skeptical critique is inconsistent with your preconceived view, and therefore must be dismissed. But why should I, or anyone else, accept your preconceived view?

You then resort to an invalid ad hominem attack--"Grallos is also part of Marano's list of deniers...not good company to be in." Two plus two equals four, even if it is Hitler saying so, while Mother Teresa is claiming the answer is five. Do not engage in ad hominem attacks. Respond to the analysis.

You then assert that the author picks arbitrary data points, thereby abusing the data. You have his point exactly backwards. The author does not claim any single month, or set of months, data is meaningful. He offers examples of temperature data to illustrate that any arbitrary selection of data points, which forms the basis of many AGW proponent arguments, should be viewed skeptically:

"So, is global warming taking place? Over the last ten years, there has been global cooling. The last hundred years has seen warming. The last 2000 years has been cooling, The last 10,000 years has been cooling. The last 200,000 years has been warming. It's a matter of choosing a time-scale."

Finally, you state: "Just because a web-page has pretty looking graphs, lots of numbers, and high sounding words does not make it good analysis." True. But it doesn't make it a bad analysis either.

All that I can confidently state is that none of your comments have really done anything to impact the apparent validity of his analysis. But I remain open to the consideration of valid criticisms.

Try again.

474 Optimizer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:59:05am

re: #466 TheConservator

Best analysis of the global warming issue I have seen:

[Link: home.comcast.net...]

Actually, this hits all the real points extremely well.

I particularly like where he gets into what I feel is the crux of the matter:

Computer climate models do not provide evidence of human-caused global warming. There are many reasons to discount the predictions of the computer climate models. Most importantly, is the fact that the computer models are not real and they have not been validated against real observations. The validations have consisted of comparing one computer model to another. Meanwhile, there are significant uncertainties at all levels of the models.

(emphasis mine) It never ceases to amaze me how anybody in the scientific community could support a theory based on models that haven't even been validated, much less advocate spending $trillions based on the results of such models.

He adds a compelling argument I haven't heard before:

Furthermore, if CO2 were the primary driver of temperature, then temperature would increase with increasing CO2. But we also know that increasing temperatures would release even more CO2 from the oceans. That, in turn, would drive the temperatures higher still. By the nature of this logic, temperatures would never come down. This situation is contrary to the historical record which features many cycles in which temperatures and CO2 levels have risen, and then then fallen.
475 Optimizer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:26:50am

re: #472 G.Karp

You ain't kiddin'! The article says very little about the new research (just two sentences, which don't even make any sense), except for it's conclusion that a certain quantity of CO2 will be bad. The threshold given is a nice even "trillion tons", a number so round that it's cause to question the results in it's own right. It translates to the same old CO2 concentrations and timelines we've heard a thousand times (since the goal post keeps moving), accompanied by all the obligatory quasi-religious end-of-the-world stuff. It doesn't even bother to try to justify how a world just two degrees warmer would be catastrophic (when the historical record shows otherwise) - the reader is presumed to accept this as an article of faith.

This article will be "conveniently" forgotten long before we hit that trillion mark, and life on Earth continues on just fine anyway.

476 freedomplow  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:38:45am

Where I live...

Just a little history.

Early 70's a lot of snow. Big time winters and 6 foot drifts and everything else that comes with it... Ice and power outages.

Mid 80's it got hot, not much rain or snow. The swamps started to dry up considerably. 88 was the worst year. Drought.

Late 80's early 90's frogs would cover the road every time it rained... Ran over thousands and so did everyone else. May they forgive us.

Mid 90's a little more rain, snow and less frogs on the road.

Mid 90's- Now. The snow is back, frogs stay somewhat off the road during the rain and the swamps are replenished. If you go outside you will be deafened by the peepers.

Is Global warming killing my chances of visiting friends in Daytona at my condo because everyone is afraid the ocean is taking over my beach front property?

No.

Lets not get caught up in the hysteria. OK?

477 ayrdale  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:09:04am

Well we won't get caught up in any hysteria, just state the obvious.

CO2 puts out fires doesn't it ? Tick for yes.

And earth's getting colder over the last 10 years isn't it ? Tick for yes.

And we are emitting more and more CO2 aren't we ? Tick for yes.

Then our increasing Co2 emissions are likely to be gradually putting out the sun.

More common sense at [Link: mickysmuses.blogspot.com...]

478 meh130  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:12:39am

Michael Crichton on the subject:

Testimony to the Wegman Commission

The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming

Environmentalism as Religion

And my personal favorite:

Aliens Cause Global Warming

But what does a Harvard educated MD know about scientific rigor?

479 tryagain  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:16:31am

What is the R-squared of human-generated CO2 as it affects the average temperature of the earth? uh oh - there isn't one because the climate models aren't statistically relevant.

Simulation models have become the alchemy of the modern age.

They are being used by scientists and engineers to claim correlation and causation in situations where there is simply not enough of the right data to make a relevant conclusion.

480 thatemailname  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:36:58am

Two interesting points from the wired.com article:

"The numbers presented in their research are probabilistic. They look at different levels of carbon and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and try to assign the likelihood that a certain emissions level would equate to a temperature change across the Earth. "

Try to assign the likelihood? And if at first you don't succeed (in your predetermined conclusion), try, try again!

"Forcing emissions to decline will require changing the way the world uses fossil fuels."

Yep, that's the right verb. It will have to be done by government force, because people in general are too smart to cut their economic throats on their own.

481 Cato  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:54:50am

re: #12 Charles

Peer reviewed by Dr. Robert Stadler of Atlas Shrugged (the novel)!

An industry has arisen based on man-made global warming whose sustenance is solely tied to government and not to commerce. These are dangerous peers to have review anything.

482 jcbunga  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:57:42am

I'm relieved our Earth Mother has set a nice round trigger of 1 trillion before wigging out. It makes all these mysterious natural processes seem less random and...hey...WAIT a minute!

They're making this sh*t up!

Get Ted Danson on the horn so he can remind us why the oceans didn't rise in 1998.

483 quickjustice  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:03:39am

As I've noted before, I heard a debate between two climate change scientists a year ago. The MIT scientist didn't buy into human-caused global warming. The SUNY scientist did.

The two men were very respectful of one another, as scientific colleagues should be. They agreed on most of the underlying data, but completely disagreed on its significance.

In short, the MIT scientist said that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not correlating to temperature increases. That is, the temperature increases are far smaller than a direct correlation with CO2 increases would predict. He also said that 80% of the planet's surface is fluid, and that modeling is a very poor predictor of how fluid-covered spheres will behave. The fluid creates too many variables, in essence.

His conclusion: given all the variables, no one can predict with any certainty how the planet will react to these inputs. He doesn't think we are aware of, or can handle, the complexity of the reality.

484 Gumby  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:05:40am

CO2 Reduction Advocacy Program

In view of the fact that CO2 has been determined to be a pollutant by the Supreme Court and more recently the Environmental Protection Agency, steps should be taken to reduce the atmospheric levels of CO2 as quickly as possible.
Cap and Trade has been put forth as a remedy for this problem but I have a different proposal that will be less detrimental to the economy and will put thousands of people to work relieving the unemployment problem.
My proposal is to create a branch to the Environmental Protection Agency which will come under the authority of the EPA and will answer only to the EPA. This branch will be known as the CO2 Reduction Advocacy Program (CRAP). The main objective of CRAP is to enforce legislation, passed by Congress with the advice and consent of the Supreme Court, that mandates a minimum requirement for each and every citizen of the United States to hold their breath for ten minutes twice daily. Such legislation will significantly reduce the number of CO2 exhalations released into the atmosphere.
Addressing the unemployment situation, people that are reaching the end of their business funded unemployment insurance payments can opt to join their local Civilian National Security Force chapter to enforce the above mentioned CRAP legislation. Obviously, the CNSF will pay more than unemployment insurance as it will be funded by the taxpayer equal to the amount of the military services as an incentive to join (not to mention the comparable retirement benefits).
On a quarterly basis, CNSF officials will stop by each residence in their area of operation to pick up reports from each individual man, woman and child that will include the dates and times of mandated breath holding. These reports will be delivered to the local CRAP office for recording and subsequently passed on to the State CRAP office for recording.
Every six months, the State CRAP office is required to send the results garnered from ACORN brownshirts CNSF officials to the Federal CRAP branch of the EPA where all the information will be compiled into a yearly report which will ultimately be given to the EPA Czar for his/her approval. If the CO2 level isn’t to his/her standards, the mandate can be increased in increments of ten minutes per day until the ultimate CO2 target level is achieved.

485 Mr Spiffy  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:30:18am

re: #42 jcm

What ever temperature causes sun dresses, halter tops and shorts.....

/// runs like hell........

you forgot bikinis

486 Gretchen  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:14:48am

The earth's climate varies over time, we all agree about that. However, I don't believe the Global Climate Change people for a second. Meteorologists cannot accurately predict weather a week or much less a month out; and sometimes have difficulty a few hours out -- those of you in Denver can attest to this especially this month. Why would I think they had any idea what the climate of the earth would look like in 10 years?

487 jmmejzz  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:24:31am

To accept the authors premise one would have to conclude the mere act of breathing is tantamount to a mass act of suicide. Oxygen in CO2 out, Oxygen in CO2 out. Some how I don't believe evolution would allow that to happen, unless of course you're a creationists and God really screwed up.

488 docremulac  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:26:11am

Fine, Republican made climate change is real? (Let's face it, that's what the implication is.)

Good. Then all those sounding the alarm will have no problem signing off on this promise:

"I believe man-made global warming is the biggest crisis mankind has ever faced. Therefore, to make sure the image of us climateers is not sullied by innuendo and suspicion, I promise to never accept a single dime off of this crises through schemes like carbon credits. Further, I will put all my credibility on line for all to see. If it can be proved I have been more profiteer than prophet, I will step down and shut the hell up along with all the other end of the worlders that have come along.

Signed: ____________________
Al Gore" (or any other person who thinks the poor are using up all the resources that need to be reserved for the upper classes which is the other thing that's really behind this. Witness messages from the rich like: "I'll fly a private jet, you use one piece of toilet paper")


Want to separate the scammers from those who are truly concerned? (whether it's warranted or not) It's easy.

The scammers talk about shifting money to stop the problem and leave China, the biggest polluter on the planet, out of the program simply because they know China's not stupid enough to pay them. Then they glaringly leave nuclear power out of their Utopian energy plan because lunkhead liberals are still scared it might cause giant mutated ants to destroy society.

489 Teh Flowah  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:27:33am

re: #88 victor_yugo

For me, this falls under the heading of "we-got-it-right-this-time."

Global cooling. Global warming.

Particulates. CFC's. Carbon dioxide.

Natural cycles. Anthropogenic.

There is no such thing as an "ideal temperature," only an ideal temperature for us to inhabit all current climates. Even if the temps go up ten degrees Celsius, and all humanity dies from swine flu, nature will always find her new balance.

No offense, but fucking DUH. This is about what's doing what is best for HUMANITY. So clearly, if half the coastlines go underwater, or ice takes away more of our northern areas, that would be a BAD thing.

Do you people even think about what you're saying? We could nuke the shit out of this planet and I promise life would find a way, but it would make things shit hard for HUMAN life, which is what is important to me. Why, are you one of those hippie idiots that thinks all life is equally precious and as long as life in some form continues you're ok with that? No thanks from me, humanity is supposed to dominate this planet and beyond. So let's get in control of our planet first.

490 lostlakehiker  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:28:03am

re: #365 FrogMarch

I'm not so sure about "clean coal" either. I think the emissions just get pumped into storage tanks in the ground (?)

The CO2 is pumped deep enough into the earth that it's effectively sequestered there. That's the hope, at any rate.

Most coal-fired plants don't sit on top of suitable strata. Those that do, don't own "inverse" mineral rights, and even if sequestration is perfect, there will always be lawsuits claiming that the earthquake 100 miles over was caused by their injections, or that the CO2 emitted mind rays and made the plaintiff sick in the head.

Then there's the physical expense. Sending exhaust gases up a smokestack is a lot cheaper than pumping them into deep if porous rock. My guess is that "clean coal" is mostly just a smokescreen, a debating point that will ease peoples' concern about coal and allow for the continued operation of coal-fired electricity. We need the energy, we cannot just cut out use of coal, and we cannot pretend, even to ourselves, that burning coal does not produce CO2. How to escape this cognitive dissonance clash if you're "green"? Pretend to yourself that the problem is going to go away "later". "Clean coal". It has a pretty ring to it, the phrase does.

I think AGW is real. But this economy runs on electricity and we don't have the nuclear, wind, solar, etc. capacity in place to do without coal. For now, the mining, RR transportation, and burning of coal to generate electricity is inescapable. If [when, despite the unsatisfactory design of this generation of plug in electric cars] we get good electric commuter cars, we'll need more electricity. We'd be better off burning more coal and generating more electricity so we can drive electric cars, than saving X on coal-sourced CO2, only to emit 3X driving internal combustion vehicles.

491 lostlakehiker  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:35:21am

re: #486 Gretchen

The earth's climate varies over time, we all agree about that. However, I don't believe the Global Climate Change people for a second. Meteorologists cannot accurately predict weather a week or much less a month out; and sometimes have difficulty a few hours out -- those of you in Denver can attest to this especially this month. Why would I think they had any idea what the climate of the earth would look like in 10 years?

Anybody in Denver will understand the difference between Climate and Weather. No one has any prayer of being able to predict the weather a year in advance. Two days in advance is real sketchy. But I can confidently predict that the low for the whole MONTH of July will be warmer than the high for the month of January, ten years from now.

Climate is so predictable that we forget how predictable it is. The technical point about models and so on is that it is much easier to predict what % heads you'll get in 1000 tosses of a coin, than in 4 tosses. The unpredictabilities tend to average out, leaving a residue of predictable trends.

More CO2 in the atmosphere figures to make the average temperature go up. Clouds here, winds there, all this makes it impossible to say whether it will be over 100 on July 27, or instead, on August 12. So what? Our inability to predict the weather does not carry over into inability to predict the climate.

492 HarryTheHawk  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:35:33am

re: #428 Charles

I've only posted a few times. I'm not sure of the exact comment you are referring to, but as I recall it was a weak attempt at defending intelligent design based on my ignorance at that time of what the intelligent design movement really was/is.

So just to correct the record, I'm not a creationist.

493 docremulac  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:39:00am

... and another good way to "calibrate" by checking the scientific prowess of those beating the "un-disputed science" drum about global warming.

Ask those same people if it's an un-disputed social science "fact" that socialism is the most effective system for a society to operate under. You can probably guess what the answer will be.

The climateers "just happen" to be socialists and the solution to climate change they propose "just happens" to be socialism.

Proof that man made climate change isn't real? No, but data to be taken into consideration non-the-less.

494 bosforus  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:23:09am
Climate Change: Halfway There?

Look, guys. Do you only play one half of a game and then not finish the rest? Did Einstein only develop half of The Theory of Relativity? Does the Sun rise only half way then go back down again? Well, yes, it does, but that's not the point. The point is, let's give a big push for the second half of global warming and finish this thing off once and for all!

495 MacGregor  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:32:59am
If the global climate displayed positive feedbacks, which all climate models that predict disaster depend on, the planet would have burned up eons ago.

Article by Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

OT - Joe Satriani explores feedback and sustainability.

496 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:07:26am

GLOBAL COOLING EXPECTED SOON, RUSSIAN CLIMATE SCIENTIST PREDICTS
(google translation)

“Predictions of global warming in the foreseeable future may not be justified." This opinion was expressed today in an interview with Professor Lev Karlin – the director of the St. Petersburg Hydro-Meteorological University, a regional hub of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The most widely held view among scientists is that the climate during the past 150 years had a tendency to gradually warm. Mathematical modelling suggests, some advocates claim, that inevitably there will be further warming of the planet. Even apocalyptic scenarios of planetary temperature rises by two to three degrees Celsius over the next few decades, with all the ensuing consequences for the environment, are not excluded.

However, an analysis of geophysical evidence leads some scientists to believe that all these factors have subsided during the last three or four years and that the global warming trend is on its way to reverse into gradual cooling. "There is every reason to assume that the projections of future warming may not be justified: in the next decade we are likely to return to the climatic norm of the 1970s", the director of the University of Hydrometeorology claims.

497 jvic  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:19:07am

re: #462 lostlakehiker

Scientific American tries hard to be readable, and while it leans left, it hasn't gone moonbat crazy.

It's possible to be mistaken or biased without being moonbat crazy.

I don't find Scientific American credible for public policy matters after how they treated Bjorn Lomborg earlier this decade.

The magazine interviewed Lomborg recently. He believes AGW is real, serious, but not drop-everything urgent.

498 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:19:39am

Jobs bloodbath at Brit, Danish wind turbine factories

International wind-turbine maker Vestas has announced that it will lay off 1900 employees including 600 in the UK. The news was well received by markets, with Vestas raising £700m in a Danish share issue the next day and announcing investments in Chinese plants.

The job cuts will be a blow to the British government, which has recently announced plans to boost investment in UK offshore wind by tinkering with the Renewables Obligation Scheme. This would have the effect of raising electricity prices, and directing the extra revenue to offshore British windfarm projects.

Treasury estimates suggest that as much as £525m of new private investment might result: and the government is known to hope for many new British "green-collar" jobs to appear on the back of this. It's felt by the government that Blighty might surge to prosperity manufacturing green tech such as wind turbines, and selling them around the world for big payola.

Unfortunately Mr Engel makes it very clear that it's only worth making wind turbines using well-paid, highly regulated British workers for sale in the British market. (The same seems to be true of Danes.)

In other words it's a hell of a lot cheaper to make wind turbines in India or China, just like most manufactured goods (no surprise, wind turbines are quite simple equipment). So forget about a glorious future of British windmill makers winning orders from around the globe. The only place British factories can sell turbines is in Britain, it seems, and even this will require massive further subsidy.


---

U.S. Gas Fields Go From Bust to Boom

----

NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap

New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.

Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol" particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level - of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.

499 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:19:55am

NORTH POLE SEA ICE TWICE AS THICK AS EXPECTED

The research aircraft "Polar 5" today concluded its Arctic expedition in Canada. During the flight, researchers measured the current ice thickness at the North Pole and in areas that have never before been surveyed. The result: The sea-ice in the surveyed areas is apparently thicker than scientists had suspected.

Normally, newly formed ice measures some two meters in thickness after two years. "Here, we measured ice thickness up to four meters," said a spokesperson for Bremerhaven's Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. At present, this result contradicts the warming of the sea water, according to the scientists.

Apart from measuring ice thickness, the composition of arctic air was also investigated. With the help of a laser, the researchers studied the level of pollution of the atmosphere by emissions from industrialized countries. In the next few weeks the results will be evaluated. Some 20 scientists from the U.S., Canada, Italy and Germany took part in the expedition.

500 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:24:01am

WE CAN'T SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING SAYS BRITAIN'S LEADING CLIMATE SCIENTIST

Mike Hulme professor of Climate Change at East Anglia University reckons we are heading up a "dead end" by putting climate change science at the top of the political agenda.

In fact he thinks we are pretty arrogant to think we can control the climate.

Mike, who has spent the last 25 years researching climate change, has just written a book Why we disagree about climate change where he questions why climate change has become "the mother of all issues."

"Why is it that climate change has taken this premier position as the issue that humanity's future is at stake if we don't attend to climate change?"

Mike reckons "climate change" is unsolvable. People round the world are too different, with different needs, to come together. Since the "landmark" Kyoto agreement ten years ago emissions have accelerated.

Instead we should treat climate change as an idea like democracy or justice motivating us to live better so that we can act locally and regionally to get cleaner air, or power or eradicate poverty.

"We shouldn't be framing climate change as the problem that we have to solve above all others. If we do that we have constructed an unsolvable dilemma because of the multiple reasons why we disagree about climate change. We will never converge on a set of solutions.

"Rather than putting climate change at the pinnacle and if we fail on climate change everything else fails. Humanity is doomed, we've only got seven more years, the clock is ticking... what I'm suggesting is that we turn this whole thing around and think of climate change as an imaginitive idea like democracy or nationality or justice. It's an idea that can be used but you cannot solve an idea. You can use an idea you can manipulate it, you can exploit it but you can't solve it.

501 Noah's Arrrgh  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:34:49am

re: #474 Optimizer

It never ceases to amaze me how anybody in the scientific community could support a theory based on models that haven't even been validated, much less advocate spending $trillions based on the results of such models.

This is for me the crux of the matter. Model validation is the most onerous part of dynamic modeling. It takes repeated experiments, model refinements, and a deep understanding of the computation mathematics and statistics that underpin the model. There is just so much that can go wrong, particularly as the models become more and more complex. Validated models, that is models that have good predictive ability, are worth their weight in gold.

l remember when the nuclear legacy codes were stolen from Los Alamos, and it seemed to me that the tone from the press was "Well, no big deal. It just some computer program." Well, it was a big deal precisely because the dynamic models were validated, and the cost of that validation was many, many years of hard work and billions of dollars.

I haven't ever had the impression that the climate modelers have done nearly enough model validation to be able to make the claims they do. What often happens in such a case is the models give the researchers what the want or expect, not an accurate prediction of what will happen.

502 friarstale  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:37:51am

well, 50 years is better than 20, because I'll probably be dead by then anyhow

coincidentally, I just saw WALL-E the other day
so when does Spaceship Earth leave? Can I still get on a ride my fat-cart, drinking my cupcake in a cup, or whatever it was?

also, does the 50 years include the effects of the current economic downturn?

503 Noah's Arrrgh  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:46:33am

Here's an example of a poorly validated model. It is supposed to predict solar sunspot activity well into the future. It seems to work well at first, but then at about 2006, the model loses its ability to match the observations. After that the model keeps continually changing, and yet, it still purports to predict the solar activity 5 years into the future.

505 voluble  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:56:17am

You can tell Charles is not a scientist if he thinks Nature is taken very seriously as a scientific publication. I have been around physicists and engineers all my life (since it is my profession) and they will tell you almost to a man that the whole AGW thing is blown way out of proportion and in most cases they will say it is an outright hoax. Climatology is viewed as being a "science" roughly the same as sociology or psychiatry are. They are the studies of systems that are complex enough that no predictions can really be made or relied upon given our state of knowledge. That there are climatologists who pretend otherwise is a discredit to their profession and one of the reasons they are held in such low regard by actual scientists. Climatologists calling for cap and trade is roughly the same as a psychiatrist calling for antidepressants to be released in the local water supply. They don't have the slightest idea what the result of such a thing would be... or even what they are trying to accomplish by doing so.

Belief amongst anyone with scientific training is much lower than the lay population who are easily scared and cowed by things they don't understand. They think because a "scientist" says something it is gospel even if they have no means of backing up what they say. When you have James Hansen at NASA running around equating coal fired plants to Aushwitz you have left the realm of science far behind. I cannot begin to tell you the embarrassment expressed to me by actual scientists that this guy is allowed to get away with what he does.

There is no way the climatologists can know what they purport to know. They have not done experiments that can be replicated. They generate models that are based on insufficient data with insufficient understanding of all of the processes at work. Since these models don't correctly predict anything in nature and there isn't a laboratory readily available they throw in catch-all variables to try to make things work out. Science doesn't work that way.

To their credit most climatologists will tell you this when you ask them. They will tell you that they have no idea as to the accuracy of their models but if they can just get some more funding... And we all know what the trick to getting more funding is now don't we? If you fund two studies and one comes back predicting catastrophe while the other does not then which will you fund? You have a self-selecting process where the scientists who are willing to make the most outrageous claims get funded. Unfortunately, they are also the worst scientists. You also have a system where politicians who are self-selected by their thirst for power and willingness to exercise it are the ones doing the funding. So instead of a positive feedback loop for temperature (which is clearly not the case whether you believe in AGW or not) you get one for hysteria and oppression.

But hey, who has ever been hurt by politicians having too much power? We have a whole 2 degrees Celsius to worry about.

506 doubter4444  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:58:54am
The important thing about the cumulative budget is that a ton of carbon is a ton of carbon. If we release it now, it’s a ton we can’t release in 40 years’ time. Every ton we put out is using up a ton of that atmospheric capacity,” Allen told Wired.com. “Reducing emissions steadily over 50 years is much cheaper and easier and less traumatic than allowing them to rise for 15 years and then reducing them violently for 35 years.”

I don't know about the rest of you all, this seems, well, like a kinda reasonable approch to dealing with the issue. Unless you just believe it's total bunk... which seems a bit like sicking your head in the sand.

507 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:10:16am

re: #505 voluble

You can tell Charles is not a scientist if he thinks Nature is taken very seriously as a scientific publication.

And you can tell that 'voluble' is determinedly clueless if he thinks Nature is NOT taken seriously as a scientific publication. What an incredibly ludicrous assertion.

508 Spiritualized  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:10:58am

re: #204 Charles

Meanwhile, I'm pissed off tonight because I finally finished watching every episode of "The Sopranos" for the first time (yes, really!), and there's nothing else even close to it on TV in terms of quality.

But that final episode. Damn. Ambiguity cubed.

'The Shield'

Better than The Sopranos for at least one reason, literally no bad episodes, i.e. no 'Johnny Cakes' tedium.

509 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:20:29am

re: #505 voluble

I have been around physicists and engineers all my life (since it is my profession) and they will tell you almost to a man that the whole AGW thing is blown way out of proportion and in most cases they will say it is an outright hoax.

Well, I've been involved in high energy particle research and nuclear physics, in addition to evolutionary molecular biology, since I was three years old. I do that in between my other interests, such as restoring old hand-illuminated manuscripts from the 12th century, and building hospitals in developing nations in which I carry out brain surgery and triple bypass operations. If I still have some energy at the end of the day, I work on my Ph.D. dissertation on the life cycle of Amazonian predatory fish.

It's a full schedule, I know. And then there's LGF to manage too.

510 Spiritualized  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:21:41am

re: #506 doubter4444

I don't know about the rest of you all, this seems, well, like a kinda reasonable approch to dealing with the issue. Unless you just believe it's total bunk... which seems a bit like sicking your head in the sand.

Yeah there's definitely nothing fishy going on: It Pays to Go Green! Al Gore's Net Worth Jumps From $2 Million in 2000 to $100 Million in 2008

1) No nuclear power plants will be built on Barry's watch
2) No offshore-drilling will occur on Barry's watch
3) Solar and wind do not generate enough power
4) The Saudis will continue to get richer

The only difference from the previous 8 years is that energy costs will rise exponentially due to new carbon taxes.

511 Capt. Queeg  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:24:46am

Sigh. I miss the early '00s, it was a great era...

512 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:25:41am

Physicists are to AGW as biochemists are to evolution.

513 charles_martel  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:05:06am
With the addition of an estimated 9 billion tons of carbon a year — a number that’s been growing since 1850 — dangerous warming is likely to occur within half a century.

It's an odd coincidence that the carbon levels appeared to be increasing right around the time the Little Ice Age ended. We were in the Little Ice Age from around the Twelfth century to around 1850. What nobody is discussing is that as the climate warmed naturally, emerging from an ice age, more carbon is naturally released as more ground thaws and more plants decay. The increase in carbon could easily be a result of the natural climate change and not its cause. Climate has so many factors -- millions -- and for politicized scientists to glom onto just one factor (anthropogenic carbon emissions) is stupid and unscientific.

514 Alberta Oil Peon  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:21:28am

re: #171 Charles

Climate change is the third rail of right wing politics.

No, it's the third rail of Left Wing politics. Haven't you noticed that practically every notable proponent of AGW theory is a leftist?

Are Al Gore and Maurice Strong right-wingers? Is James Hansen? The first two are the 2 individuals most strongly positioned to profit from carbon-trading schemes. The science, unfortunately has become politicized.

The Wired.com article is notably wrong in its insistence that total "carbon" input to the atmosphere is the crucial metric, instead of the much more sensible proposition that it is the current partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. The "total input" metric completely ignores the fact that plant life and the oceans continually capture CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Insisting that "total input" trumps current concentration as the metric for the health of the atmosphere is exactly analogous to claiming that one's lifetime total of bank deposits is the only valid metric of financial health, and that one's current bank balance is completely irrelevant.

I'm quite prepared to believe that an increase in the partial pressure of CO2 may lead to radiative forcing, and consequently a slight increase in planetary temperatures. Where I part company with the alarmists is the question of whether a small degree of warming is or is not potentially harmful, and whether we should be expending our limited resources in a possibly vain effort to stop climate change, or instead simply use those resources to adapt to it, if it comes.

515 charlesincharge  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:33:58am

re: #204 Charles

Meanwhile, I'm pissed off tonight because I finally finished watching every episode of "The Sopranos" for the first time (yes, really!), and there's nothing else even close to it on TV in terms of quality.

But that final episode. Damn. Ambiguity cubed.

Agreed on the ambiguity of the last episode. Great series! Do yourself a favor and check out "The Wire". I think you will enjoy it. High quality writing and very well performed.

516 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:35:43am

Job Losses From Obama Green Stimulus Foreseen in Spanish Study

Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.

For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels.

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.

Spain’s Acerinox SA, the nation’s largest stainless-steel producer, blamed domestic energy costs for deciding to expand in South Africa and the U.S., according to the study.

“Microsoft and Google moved their servers up to the Canadian border because they benefited from cheaper energy there,” said the professor of applied environmental economics.

517 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:48:45am

Every totalitarian regime needs its defining myth. With the Nazis, it
was the "Aryan" fantasy of racial purity. With the USSR, it was the
dictatorship of the proletariat. With secularised, semi-pagan Western
societies in historic decline, it is global warming. Sometimes
comparisons among these are alarming. For example, Ed Miliband, the
climate change minister, has said that opposing wind farms is "socially
unacceptable". How long before global warming denial becomes an offence, like holocaust denial?

We mustn’t warm to this myth

Scientists have not played an especially creditable part in the
environmental movement. They have too often made more of the facts than the conventions of their craft permit. Too often, they have expressed moderate or unsure conclusions in language designed to scare, sometimes with the open declaration that exaggeration is necessary to "get things done," but with the result that other people have been alarmed and mystified, not enlightened.

John Maddox, Preface, The Doomsday Syndrom, March 1972

518 jvic  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:57:51am

re: #486 Gretchen

The earth's climate varies over time, we all agree about that. However, I don't believe the Global Climate Change people for a second. Meteorologists cannot accurately predict weather a week or much less a month out; and sometimes have difficulty a few hours out -- those of you in Denver can attest to this especially this month. Why would I think they had any idea what the climate of the earth would look like in 10 years?

Gretchen, this has been discussed earlier in the thread, for example by 6pat6 and me (and afterwards by lostlakehiker).

You might find it helpful to think of it this way. Suppose I go in for a dangerous operation tomorrow. Nobody can be very confident if I'll be around next week. That's sort of like forecasting unsettled local weather.

On the other hand, a life insurance company will be much more confident about how many people in my age group will be around in twenty years. That's sort of like predicting global climate.

The point is that the things you don't understand very well over the short term tend to average out over the long term. By 'average out', I mean that they tend to cancel each other out over the long term.

That doesn't necessarily mean you can make a reliable climate prediction. You might still be overlooking factors that don't average out.

519 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:58:35am

re: #8 Occasional Reader

And average temperatures have flatlined in the last decade, in spite of this ongoing, cumulative problem, because...

...CO2 isn't the only variable driver of climate. Duuuu-uuuuuh.

520 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:01:28pm

Nature and peer review....

The Jan Hendrik Schoen scandal

521 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:05:28pm

Hard to believe there are still people pushing the "volcanoes release more CO2 than man" meme.

[Link: www.grist.org...]

Objection: One decent-sized volcanic eruption puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than a decade of human emissions. It's ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 emissions will have any effect.

Answer: Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.

522 MacGregor  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:13:48pm

re: #509 Charles

Anecdotal story here. Believe me or not I guess. A friend of mine works with re-insurance companies and is currently involved in our *aherm* financial restructuring effort. He's been to meetings with the big guys who ultimately pay for catastrophic damages. They do the science because they know they're the ones who ultimately bear responsibility for catastrophic mistakes. He told me if there was a real threat, the insurance companies would be all over it and they are not. Maybe it might be worth investigating from that angle.

Sopranos was a great ride. Never disrespect da Bing.

Best series finale imo - Six feet Under. Jaw dropping.

523 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:15:26pm

It's such an echo chamber in here. Everyone just agrees with Charles and there's no real debate///

524 MacGregor  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:19:44pm

re: #523 Jimmah

It's such an echo chamber in here. Everyone just agrees with Charles and there's no real debate///

lol! Good morning Jimmah.

525 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:20:54pm

re: #522 MacGregor

The Sopranos was the best tv drama series I've seen. Best whacking in my book:

Just hilarious.

526 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:21:45pm

re: #524 MacGregor

Hi there McG. Just popped in for a quick comment or two before dinner.

527 MacGregor  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:24:31pm

re: #525 Jimmah

That was classic. Made my morning - Thanks!

528 MacGregor  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:29:27pm

re: #526 Jimmah

Hi there McG. Just popped in for a quick comment or two before dinner.

omg - I've been doing press releases this morning and I realize it's not morning any more by a long shot. I need a break too. ttyl Jimmah.

529 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:37:37pm

re: #523 Jimmah

It's such an echo chamber in here. Everyone just agrees with Charles and there's no real debate///

And don't forget -- if you disagree with me, I'LL BAN YA!

Yaaarrrgh!

530 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:40:26pm
531 oh_dude  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:51:19pm

This is so lame. Somone explain to me how early man survived "climate change" back when they were roaming the Earth? You know when The ice caps started melting and the oceans rose 100+ feet.

What caused the ice age to end back then? What caused the climate to warm so rapidly? I don't recall any SUVs driving around. What were the CO2 levels back then?

How did they survive? All they had were wooden spears and a little bit of wooly mammoth skin.

Here we sit with at the apex of technology and were all freaked out by what?

We're willing to to destroy our free-market economy (which has brought more prosperity and well-being to this planet than anything else) that is based on petroleum (much more than just gasoline).

Let's say we do all that. What happens when a few more volcanoes become active?

It's like holding back the sea with a broom.

532 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:01:05pm

re: #530 zuckerlilly

CO2 Science

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is a front group for Exxon-Mobil.

[Link: www.sourcewatch.org...]

533 Capt. Queeg  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:13:22pm

Charles:

Any chance you'll dig up the funding sources for those six papers referenced in the issue ofNature? Or is Bullshit Ave. just a one-way street?

534 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:13:38pm

Is environmentalism the new religion?

In his new book Apollo's Arrow, ambitiously subtitled The Science of Prediction and the Future of Everything, Vancouver-based author and mathematician David Orrell set out to explain why the mathematical models scientists use to predict the weather, the climate and the economy are not getting any better, just more refined in their uncertainty.


What he discovered, in trying to sketch the first principles of prophecy, was the religious nature of modern e nviron-mentalism.


(...)

"The track record of any kind of long-distance prediction is really bad, but everyone's still really interested in it. It's sort of a way of picturing the future. But we can't make long-term predictions of the economy, and we can't make long-term predictions of the climate," Dr. Orrell said in an interview. After all, he said, scientists cannot even write the equation of a cloud, let alone make a workable model of the climate.

(...)

"Models will cheerfully boil away all the water in the oceans or cover the world in ice, even with pre-industrial levels of Co2," he writes in Apollo's Arrow . And so scientists use theoretical concepts like "flux adjustments" to make the models agree with reality. When models about the future climate are in agreement, "it says more about the self-regulating group psychology of the modelling community than it does about global warming and the economy."


In explaining such an arcane topic for a general audience, he found himself returning again and again to religious metaphors to explain our faith in predictions, referring to the "weather gods" and the "images of almost biblical wrath" in the literature. He sketched the rise of "the gospel of deterministic science," a faith system that was born with Isaac Newton and died with Albert Einstein. He said his own physics education felt like an "indoctrination" into the use of models, and that scientists in his field, "like priests... feel they are answering a higher calling."

535 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:16:39pm

re: #532 Charles

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is a front group for Exxon-Mobil.

[Link: www.sourcewatch.org...]

Myles Allen is on the payroll of the UN

536 mrkwong  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:18:57pm

As far as I'm concerned ExxonMobil is a more honest source than most of those on the climate-fraud side.

537 Tatterdemalian  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:23:05pm

Well, I've disagreed with Charles, and somehow never been banned.

In any case, I'm skeptical of anthropogenic "climate change," at least in it being the world-ending disaster everyone seems determined to claim it will be. The computer models keep requiring tweaking, much like the ancient scientists kept having to develop new and increasingly complicated "epicycles" to explain how Venus revolves around the Earth. Eventually they managed to develop a fairly accurate model, but despite its accuracy, it would have been useless for actually sending a probe there, for the simple fact that Venus revolves around the SUN, not the Earth.

The climate model still seems shaky to me, the shrillness of the accusations from the AGW camp make me want to oppose them just because (no, I don't consider that scientific, I just happen to be only human), and the most glaring factor in the whole business is the fact that every single solution proposed by these brave scientists require a "reduction" of the human population... and of course it will be the scientists, their yes-men, and the hot blones who love smart guys and have no gag reflex, that will naturally be spared the population control lottery.

Find a way to reduce the CO2 level of the atmosphere, without killing people, and I'll be willing to support it just on the chance that these suspiciously media-savvy scientists might be right. Say, begin a farm subsidy that pays farmers to plant switchgrass on the land they're currently getting paid to keep devoid of crops, and instead of burning it in our cars, sink it to the bottom of the Marianas trench (or, if the logistics and international regulations are too burdensome, find a way to subduct it into the San Andreas fault). Return the evil greenhouse gases to the ground on an industrial scale, instead of butchering people on an industrial scale, and I'll be happy to help.

538 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:24:52pm

re: #533 Capt. Queeg

Charles:

Any chance you'll dig up the funding sources for those six papers referenced in the issue ofNature? Or is Bullshit Ave. just a one-way street?

Is there something stopping you from doing it?

539 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:25:30pm

re: #536 mrkwong

As far as I'm concerned ExxonMobil is a more honest source than most of those on the climate-fraud side.

Snort. Right. Because energy industries are completely honest.

540 Capt. Queeg  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:27:31pm

re: #535 zuckerlilly

Myles Allen is on the payroll of the UN

Zuckerlilly beat me to it, it seems.

541 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:30:04pm

re: #532 Charles

US$ 90,000/8 years = US$ 937.50/month for CO2 Science

And you call this a "frontgroup"?

542 Alberta Oil Peon  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:34:06pm

re: #532 Charles

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is a front group for Exxon-Mobil.

[Link: www.sourcewatch.org...]

Hmmm...

The "CO2 Science" link lists the names of 8 individuals as advisers. Sourcewatch.org indicates that this "front group for Exxon-Mobil" has received a total of $90,000 from that corporation between 1998 and 2005. Assuming the '98 - '05 time period is inclusive of those two years, that's $10,000 per year. If those 8 "advisers" were the only paid staff in the Center, that means they each got paid the princely sum of $1250 per year to shill for Exxon-Mobil.

Do you really believe that any scientist, or any well-paid professional, even a venal and crooked one, would be venal and crooked for a paltry $1250 per year? How about granting the possibility that these people legitimately hold a dissenting view to the prevailing scientific consensus (whether they are right or wrong in their dissent is immaterial), and that Exxon-Mobil, surprised and delighted to discover the existence a few scientists that don't necessarily equate Exxon-Mobil with Satan, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney all rolled into one being, responded by throwing them a little chicken feed?

Sheesh already! I mean if you can get yourself a good front group for only $10,000 a year, then even I could afford one. It'd look good in the driveway next to the Studebaker.
/

543 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:39:35pm

re: #535 zuckerlilly

Myles Allen is on the payroll of the UN

Uh, that might be somewhat oversimplifying things:

Myles R. Allen is head of the Climate Dynamics group at University of Oxford's Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department. He is the Principal Investigator of Climateprediction.net and is principally responsible for starting this project.[1]

He has worked at the Energy Unit of the United Nations Environment Programme, the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

544 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:41:57pm

re: #542 Alberta Oil Peon

And if you actually read the link, you'll discover that those are only the donations that have been actually discovered. That group is secretive about their funding.

And of course, there's also this:

In October 1999 Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso mentioned that they had "recently completed a project commissioned by the Greening Earth Society entitled "Forecasting World Food Supplies: The Impact of the Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentration," which we presented at the Second Annual Dixy Lee Ray Memorial Symposium held in Washington, DC on 31 August - 2 September 1999." [1] The Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association.

Donald Paul Hodel, chairman of Summit Power Group is listed among the "scientific advisors" to the Center.

545 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:47:04pm

Simulation models should be cast as agents of hypothesis; not reality. This places modeling in a proper epistemological setting. In other words, the computer model should be posed as a hypothesis to be validated or refuted. In this way modeling and simulation bring nothing qualitatively new to the scientific method but they can be a powerful tool. Historically there have been differences of opinion concerning scientific induction that are at the heart of the discussion about computer models. Bacon believed that hypotheses must not only be tested but that also they must originate from observations of the real world. Popper's view of induction, which emphasized falsification instead of validation, put no limits on the source of hypothesis. For both, the final arbiter is real observation, and experienced modelers understand this.

(Joe Whitesell)

546 Alberta Oil Peon  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:47:55pm

re: #544 Charles

And if you actually read the link, you'll discover that those are only the donations that have been actually discovered. That group is secretive about their funding.

And of course, there's also this:

Yes, I actually did read the link. And what I also read on that link is that Sourcewatch.org is built on the Wiki model, in that entries are created and edited by those people who choose to do so. So Sourcewatch.org is likely to be no more reliable than is Wikipedia itself, a source which you yourself have wisely counseled us to take with a grain of salt, especially on controversial subjects.

547 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:52:01pm

re: #543 Charles

He contributed to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a Lead Author of the Chapter on detection of change and attribution of causes,[2] and is a Review Editor for the chapter on predictions of global climate change for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

548 Capt. Queeg  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:52:12pm

I noticed that, too. Sufffice it to say, that all I need to know about Myles Allen is that he's a contributor to IPCC reports.

549 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:55:49pm

re: #548 Capt. Queeg

I noticed that, too. Sufffice it to say, that all I need to know about Myles Allen is that he's a contributor to IPCC reports.

Sure, go ahead and reject the IPCC. After all, it's only composed of some of the world's top scientists, reviewing peer reviewed research on climate change by other top scientists.

Obviously, they're a bunch of idiots.

550 MacGregor  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:56:35pm

Long-term Variations in Solar Activity
and their Apparent Effect on the Earth's Climate

Danish Meteorological Institute, Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division,
Lyngbyvej,100, DK-2100 Copenhagen (2), Denmark

Long range effect of sun and volcanos

Very interesting and informative.

551 Capt. Queeg  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:58:41pm

The IPCC: Now with less hockey sticks!

552 Galroc  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:59:16pm

I usually don't post on this blog. Way too many articles about Nazis and creationists running schools. Are they really a problem? I came here because of the memos. Fantastic time on this blog and the reason I still come occasionally. I like the articles about politics but lately they have been more about how far the right has gone. I don't care about any of it, but it isn't my blog either.

AGW is media driven science and you need to be weary of that. I believe GW is real. Is AGW real? I don't think so based upon poor science using really poor data. I understand the peer review process better than most. Just because it gets published doesn't mean it is good science. I can list many examples of when "scientific consensus" was wrong.

Anyway, we are near the end of the question of is AGW is real or not. If the planet continues to cool for the next 5-10 years, like it has for the last 5-7, then people will began to abandon AGW and then we will be on to some other crises. 5-10 years isn't a long time to wait in the scheme of things, and AGW "crisis" has been going on for 30 years now.

note 1, I am not a Nazi, or a creationist but a scientist.

note 2, Charles, I really like your comment section, the ability to ding up or down, and the ability to get new comments.

553 Galroc  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:06:52pm

re: #549 Charles

Sure, go ahead and reject the IPCC. After all, it's only composed of some of the world's top scientists, reviewing peer reviewed research on climate change by other top scientists.

Obviously, they're a bunch of idiots.

Really, it is themselves reviewing their own peer reviewed research which was also reviewed by themselves when they published. Of course, not to that extent, but it isn't as pure as you make it out. The community isn't that large, and like myself, dependant upon being publish to bring in grants. It is a known criticism as shown in the Wegman report in regards to Mann.

Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus 'independent studies' may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
554 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:12:57pm

Sigh.

The "hockey stick" controversy has been greatly distorted by the anti-AGW side. It's far from a simple discussion, but this article at Wikipedia is pretty good, if you really care to understand what it's about.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

The view that the "hockey stick" warming graph is a total fraud is simply wrong.

555 charles_martel  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:14:18pm

For everyone who hasn't read this, this is a MUST READ:

[Link: www.aps.org...]

556 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:18:59pm

Wikipedia is supposed to be the on-line encyclopedia for everyone, but what it has become is something entirely different: an early and illustrative warning of the collapse from informed social networking to propaganda. If you just enter "global warming" in google the first result you get points to the Wikipedia entry Connolley controls - and if you just wanted a two minute briefing on the subject you'd never know that the article is utterly and relentlessly dishonest.

Paul Murphy, ZDNet, 15 July 2008

557 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:28:06pm

Which fate awaits this spinning Ark:
death by drowning or dehydration?
There can only be one apocalypse.
For those who live by final warnings,
beware of hot air -
the true cause of global warming.
Only fools and fanatics claim
to know the Creator's mind;
without the cloudiest doubt
occluding theirs, they proclaim
the end of the world is nigh. Doom
even makes athiests believers of a kind.

Jim Greenhalf, Apocalypse Soon

558 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:36:01pm

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'

(...)

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

(...)

559 MacGregor  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:21:26pm

re: #554 Charles

Interesting the hockey stick chart matches the chart as shown in my #550.

560 Optimizer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:25:32pm

re: #549 Charles

Sure, go ahead and reject the IPCC. After all, it's only composed of some of the world's top scientists, reviewing peer reviewed research on climate change by other top scientists.

Obviously, they're a bunch of idiots.

OMG, Charles! Don't you know that the IPCC is a political organization? That the politicians have veto power over what goes in the reports? That the dissenting scientific opinions are discarded, while the reports are presented as though some sort of concensus has been reached, representing hundreds of scientists (when the opinion of only a few dozen are actually represented)? That scientists have quit the group over what's been going on there?

It's part of the UN, for crying out loud!

561 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:26:08pm

Since the inception of the IPCC in 1988 it has spent about US$ 100 millions.

(pdf)

562 MacGregor  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:31:14pm

re: #560 Optimizer

Do you have a link detailing how peer review, without double blind studies, creates a group-think attitude? That's an important detail.

563 Galroc  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:33:54pm

re: #554 Charles

Sigh.

The "hockey stick" controversy has been greatly distorted by the anti-AGW side. It's far from a simple discussion, but this article at Wikipedia is pretty good, if you really care to understand what it's about.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

The view that the "hockey stick" warming graph is a total fraud is simply wrong.

Quoting hockey stick wikipedia? You need to do much more reading on the subject on why that is bad. The hockey stick graph is as bad as it gets and the papers published after that by his colleagues to support the hockey stick paper are almost as bad.

All the tree proxy data papers are rubbish because of CO2 fertilization, in addition to trees are also sensitive to rain fall/droughts and not just temperature. There is a reason why the IPCC said not to use tree proxies initially. Mann et al used poor statistics that heavily weighted one particular type of tree in one particular region. The supporting papers did the same thing.

The Hockey Stick paper was peer-reviewed and it was someone outside the field, a statistician, who exposed it.

564 Optimizer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:47:27pm

re: #554 Charles

Sigh.

The "hockey stick" controversy has been greatly distorted by the anti-AGW side. It's far from a simple discussion, but this article at Wikipedia is pretty good, if you really care to understand what it's about.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

The view that the "hockey stick" warming graph is a total fraud is simply wrong.

As you know, no politically-charged non-left-wing commentary survives long on Wikipedia. Better to get the info from the source: [Link: www.climateaudit.org...] The "hockey stick" has been thoroughly de-bunked. If you want to be kind, you can claim Mann was simply mistaken, but all the signs point to a guy willing to do anything to push an agenda.

[Link: sciencepolicy.colorado.edu...] gives a decent idea about how "virtuous" both the IPCC and Mann were on the subject.

BTW, McIntyre does his work on his own nickel (sorry, no $0.50 from Exxon-Mobile to expose there!), and is anything but some die-hard conservative partisan. He doesn't actually take an AGW stand, but debunks a lot of their more high profile claims with his Climate Auditing. And as a Canadian, he ought to know a thing or two about Hockey sticks!

565 Optimizer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:01:47pm

re: #562 MacGregor

Do you have a link detailing how peer review, without double blind studies, creates a group-think attitude? That's an important detail.

I read about the whole process of how these IPCC reports are put together some time back, but I forget when & where. It wasn't pretty, from a scientific viewpoint. But even the IPCC page on Wikipedia identifies it as a part of the UN - that, by itself, ought to make any open-minded person think twice about considering them as any kind of scientific authority.

From what I remember, the group-think only applied to the core few dozen scientists whose views were allowed to be expressed, and they were all "peer-reviewing" papers that came to the same conclusions as their own.

I also have read McIntyre's account of his involvement with that group (IIRC, they allowed him to do some reviewing once), and that was pretty shocking, also. He would demand that scientific standards be met, but it was uphill all the way. Things that were openly meaningless (in terms of statistical measures that the authors themselves had calculated) were allowed to be published.

It would probably take me a long time to re-find that stuff. Maybe next time.

566 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:02:07pm

Yes just throw in some rambling paranoia about everything on Wiki being part of a giant left wing conspiracy when you come up against material there that you'd rather not talk about. Great stuff!

The hockey stick fraud is no fraud at all. It's the sceptics analysis that is shaky.

[Link: www.realclimate.org...]

(OMG did you just link to RealClimate? More lefties! You can't use them either!/"

567 Optimizer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:12:15pm

re: #563 Galroc

Quoting hockey stick wikipedia? You need to do much more reading on the subject on why that is bad. The hockey stick graph is as bad as it gets and the papers published after that by his colleagues to support the hockey stick paper are almost as bad.

All the tree proxy data papers are rubbish because of CO2 fertilization, in addition to trees are also sensitive to rain fall/droughts and not just temperature. There is a reason why the IPCC said not to use tree proxies initially. Mann et al used poor statistics that heavily weighted one particular type of tree in one particular region. The supporting papers did the same thing.

The Hockey Stick paper was peer-reviewed and it was someone outside the field, a statistician, who exposed it.

It's worse than that, even! At one point, McIntrye actually had the opportunity to check out some of the actual trees that had been sampled, and - OMG! They weren't even close to being round! That means the width of the tree rings would vary, depending upon which direction you took the sample from!

Oh, and that heavily-weighted tree type was of a variety that experts in the field do not consider to be valid to used! Wasn't there also something about using multiple data sources who themselves had used overlapping data? So that the data was counted as independent, when it was highly correlated?

It goes on and on, with this "mountain of scientific evidence on their side" that these guys supposedly have.

568 MacGregor  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:12:46pm

re: #566 Jimmah

The reconstructed graph on wiki matches the charts in my #550. It seems to reinforce the theory that the sun drives the climate and our CO2 goes along for the ride.

569 Optimizer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:23:19pm

re: #566 Jimmah

Yes just throw in some rambling paranoia about everything on Wiki being part of a giant left wing conspiracy when you come up against material there that you'd rather not talk about. Great stuff!

The hockey stick fraud is no fraud at all. It's the sceptics analysis that is shaky.

[Link: www.realclimate.org...]

(OMG did you just link to RealClimate? More lefties! You can't use them either!/"

Gavin Schmidt!?! C'mon! Why don't you just quote Al Gore, or James Hansen!?! I've read McIntyre's work at length, and it is certainly not the case that he found some mudane details that don't effect the answer significantly. When the effect of the errors he finds are small (for example, one time with Hansen's US temperature data) he is very up-front about that. This article is BS.

570 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:26:21pm

Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt
admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve
McIntyre and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit
for it. Gavin's outing is remarkable because it shows him not only
stealing an idea, but stealing from someone who he and his colleagues
routinely criticize as being wrong, corrupt, and a fraud. Does anyone
wonder why skepticism flourishes?

Roger Pielke Jr, 4 February 2009

571 Galroc  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:27:03pm

re: #566 Jimmah


The hockey stick fraud is no fraud at all. It's the sceptics analysis that is shaky.

[Link: www.realclimate.org...]

(OMG did you just link to RealClimate? More lefties! You can't use them either!/"

That is the same group of scientist trying to prop up their bad science.

That is also from 2005 and before Wegman's report and NRC released their reports in 2006.

572 Optimizer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:32:03pm

re: #556 zuckerlilly

Wikipedia is supposed to be the on-line encyclopedia for everyone, but what it has become is something entirely different: an early and illustrative warning of the collapse from informed social networking to propaganda. If you just enter "global warming" in google the first result you get points to the Wikipedia entry Connolley controls - and if you just wanted a two minute briefing on the subject you'd never know that the article is utterly and relentlessly dishonest.

Paul Murphy, ZDNet, 15 July 2008

This should surprise no regular followers of this blog, including its master. Just try putting something on Obama's page referring to his running on the New Party (which was a socialist party) ticket - it's a documented fact, but it'd be gone in 5 seconds, if it showed at all. I thought we'd been through this, about Wikipedia.

573 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:34:01pm

re: #568 MacGregor

The reconstructed graph on wiki matches the charts in my #550. It seems to reinforce the theory that the sun drives the climate and our CO2 goes along for the ride.

You might want to ask yourself why use a graph whose data stops at 1990 when up to date data is so readily available?

Over long time scales, variations in solar output have matched temperatures fairly well. But recently there has been an increasing disparity. Solar output has been levelling off/ going down while temperatures have continued to rise. That is why sceptics have been coming up with exotic theories about cloud formation and cosmic rays, in an attempt to account for what seems to be contradictory data for the 'sun as driver of recent warming' enthusiasts.

574 MacGregor  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:36:04pm

re: #572 Optimizer

Wiki tries to be the ministry of information. I don't know any reputable academic institutions that allow wikipedia in research.

575 Galroc  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:36:30pm

re: #571 Galroc

That is also from 2005 and before Wegman's report and NRC released their reports in 2006.

sorry, quoting myself but I thought I should explain why the dates are significant. It is sort of reading a trial transcript and pointing out what the defendant says as your evidence, but the case has already been closed and a verdict rendered by people not associated with the defendant or the prosecution (Wegman, and NRC).

576 MacGregor  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:42:30pm

re: #573 Jimmah

I understand the temperatures have not increased in 10 years while CO2 has kept increasing. I'll bet we'll see a decrease in CO2 within a few decades it this keeps up. See the chart above to see CO2 follows temperature, which follows solar variances.

577 Optimizer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:42:30pm

re: #568 MacGregor

The reconstructed graph on wiki matches the charts in my #550. It seems to reinforce the theory that the sun drives the climate and our CO2 goes along for the ride.

You should be quick to admit that "correlation does not imply causality", but I find it compelling, too. If the Sun really is on an extended vacation, and this theory is true, that global cooling trend that looks like it might be starting could really take off in the next few years. If that happens, expect Al Gore (and Jimmah) to keep up the Chicken Little routine anyway - it's their religion. Obama will stick with it as a moral imperative for socialism.

578 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:43:55pm

re: #571 Galroc


That is the same group of scientist trying to prop up their bad science.

re: #569 Optimizer

Gavin Schmidt!?! C'mon! Why don't you just quote Al Gore, or James Hansen!?!

There's an awful lot of "I don't need to even consider this because..." going on here. If a scientists is on record for ever having made a pro AGW statement, his work can be dismissed without consideration it seems. Is there anyone outside the AGW sceptic fringes that you lot would regard as a reasonable source? Somehow, I doubt that there is.

579 Optimizer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:45:13pm

re: #574 MacGregor

Wiki tries to be the ministry of information. I don't know any reputable academic institutions that allow wikipedia in research.

I use Wiki all the time, myself, but it's like anything else - you have to consider the source, and thereby realize it's limitations.

580 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:46:00pm

re: #576 MacGregor

I understand the temperatures have not increased in 10 years while CO2 has kept increasing. I'll bet we'll see a decrease in CO2 within a few decades it this keeps up. See the chart above to see CO2 follows temperature, which follows solar variances.

Point-dodging bastard. ;-)

581 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:47:54pm

Moving upthread.

582 MacGregor  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:50:32pm

re: #577 Optimizer

I try to keep the religious aspect out of this. Otherwise I concur.

583 Optimizer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:54:56pm

re: #573 Jimmah

You might want to ask yourself why use a graph whose data stops at 1990 when up to date data is so readily available?

Over long time scales, variations in solar output have matched temperatures fairly well. But recently there has been an increasing disparity. Solar output has been levelling off/ going down while temperatures have continued to rise. That is why sceptics have been coming up with exotic theories about cloud formation and cosmic rays, in an attempt to account for what seems to be contradictory data for the 'sun as driver of recent warming' enthusiasts.

The last paper referenced is from 1997, so I expect the paper is simply that old. Twenty years shouldn't make much difference on plots covering centuries.

It's interesting how investigating possible magnifying effects for solar activity are automatically pooh-poohed by you guys, when the climate models you stake your arguments on are rife with "exotic" magnifying effects for CO2 that are obviously wrong. Do you even pretend to TRY to be objective on this stuff?

584 MacGregor  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:59:02pm

re: #577 Optimizer

You should be quick to admit that "correlation does not imply causality", but I find it compelling, too. If the Sun really is on an extended vacation, and this theory is true, that global cooling trend that looks like it might be starting could really take off in the next few years.

Isn't this what everyone thought before the concept of agw?

585 Maui Girl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:03:45pm

My solution:

Plant trees, bushes, grasses, any kind of shrubbery, now!

Oh, yeh, and eat meat not vegetables. We must save the vegetables from destruction! No wait, plant lots of vegetables (to feed the animals that we're gonna eat instead.)

/need I?

586 Galroc  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:23:13pm

re: #578 Jimmah

There's an awful lot of "I don't need to even consider this because..." going on here. If a scientists is on record for ever having made a pro AGW statement, his work can be dismissed without consideration it seems. Is there anyone outside the AGW sceptic fringes that you lot would regard as a reasonable source? Somehow, I doubt that there is.

It has nothing to do with statements, it has everything to do with questionable science getting through the peer review process.

I am also limiting my criticism to a small number of scientists and their papers which are the original 1998 Mann hockey stick paper, a follow up 1999, 2003 Mann, and then the 2006 Ammmann defense of Mann paper.

587 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:23:27pm

James S. Coleman Professor of International Development Studies,
University of California, Los Angeles

(...)

Having read the scientific literature I was appalled at how the scientists- like Stephen
Schneider- openly admitted they were creating alarm for a
phenomenon which they themselves recognized was highly
speculative. My lecture not surprisingly also ended up as an
attack on this scientific attempt to bamboozle the public.
My friend John Flemming who was then chief economist at the Bank
of England, and also chairing a subcommittee of one of the UK's
research councils, told me on reading the lecture that I would
get nowhere by taking on the scientists who, at a meeting he
attended to distribute funds for climate research, had
explicitly said that they were not going to behave like
economists by disagreeing with each other! Of course, the
cornucopia of research funds that the climate change scare has
generated provides a baser rent-seeking motive- well-known to
economists- for thus closing ranks. It would take me too far a
field to describe the shenanigans of the International Panel of
Climate Change, but just judging from its flip-flopping around
about even the likely extent of global warming, I think it is
fair to say that the scientific basis of any great global
catastrophe following from the undisputed increase in greenhouse
gasses which has and will accompany economic growth is highly
insecure.1


(...)

download as pdf-file

588 Optimizer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:24:40pm

re: #584 MacGregor

Isn't this what everyone thought before the concept of agw?

Probably some. But I don't think they pushed it as unquestionable "settled science", or used a Divinity School drop-out turned politician to hawk it...

589 zuckerlilly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:26:30pm

Ooops, I've lost my headline:

THE NEW CULTURAL IMPERIALISM:
The Greens and Economic Development
by
Deepak Lal
James S. Coleman Professor of International Development Studies,
University of California, Los Angeles

590 Optimizer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:48:28pm

It turns out that McIntyre has a relevant post on his blog right now:

[Link: www.climateaudit.org...]

IPCC

I've observed on many occasions that IPCC does not itself carry out any due diligence. A clear statement of this occurs in Mann's 2003 answers to questions from Inhofe (noted up at CA here). There were a series of questions, starting with:

30. Did IPCC carry out any independent programs to verify the calculations that you made in MBH98 or MBH99? If so, please provide copies of the reports resulting from such studies.

Mann:

It is distinctly against the mission of the IPCC to "carry out independent programs", so the premise of the question is false. However, the IPCC's author team did engage in a lively interchanges about the quality and overall consistency of all of the papers as the chapter was drafted and revised in the course of review.

Whether a "lively interchange about the quality and overall consistency of all of the papers" is sufficient to comply with EPA guidelines to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of information is surely a question that merits attention by somebody.

The supposed "transparency" of the IPCC process - pointed to by EPA in support of reliance on IPCC reports - has been the topic of many threads here as we follow the lugubrious stonewalling by IPCC and UK agencies, particularly with regard to Ammann's secret comments to IPCC and Review Editor Mitchell's secret review comments. IPCC principles state clearly:

All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to reviewers on request during the review process and will be retained in an open archive in a location determined by the & openness can continue and inform scientific research and debate.IPCC Secretariat on completion of the Report for a period of at least five years.

However, Caspar Ammann of NCAR in the US [Optimizer: this is the second author in Jimmah's RealClimate link] submitted secret comments about IPCC AR4, which he, CRU and IPCC have collectively refused to disclose. Most recently, CRU stated in response to an FOI request:

In regards the correspondence from Mr. Ammann, s.41 is applicable as we have consistently treated this information as confidential and have been assured by Mr. Ammann that he believes it to be confidential and would expect it to be treated as such. The public interest in withholding this information outweighs that of releasing it due to the need to protect the openness and confidentiality of academic intercourse prior to publication which, in turn, assures that such cooperation & openness can continue and inform scientific research and debate.

"Confidentiality of academic intercourse prior to publication" may be OK for journal publication, but IPCC reports are not journal publications and IPCC policy required that Ammann submit on-the-record comments.

AR4 Chapter 6 Review Editor John Mitchell has likewise refused to disclose his review comments, providing a bizarre sequence of untrue prevarications. First, he said that he had destroyed all the review comments on the basis that he had no obligation to preserve them (in face of express IPCC regulations otherwise); then he said that they were his "personal" property. When he was asked whether the Met Office had paid for his time and travel to IPCC meetings, a new excuse merged. Disclosing the comments would interfere with relations with an exempt sovereign international institution (IPCC), which appears to me to be exempt from any FOI anywhere in the world and which refused to permit the Met Office to disclose Mitchell's review comments.


Just a bunch of top-notch world class scientists, taking proper care of their "mountain of information"? I think not.

591 abu jimbola  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:10:34pm

AGW is an unmitigated crock of horseshit and deserves no further discussion.

592 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:48:35pm

re: #591 abu jimbola

AGW is an unmitigated crock of horseshit and deserves no further discussion.

Well, that settles it. 'Abu Jimbola' has spoken. No need to worry about any of that 'science' crap.

593 [deleted]  Fri, May 1, 2009 8:06:25am
594 MacGregor  Fri, May 1, 2009 8:42:45am

Good morning Charles. I just posted this in another thread and thought it appropriate. Good work with the fly swatter.

Shr_Nfr observes temperature have declined recently while CO2 has increased. My arguments and charts about solar variation driving climate support that. The charts also agree with the revised IPCC graph which Charles presented.

Reason dictates if the sun goes out, we freeze no matter what CO2 is doing. It would be like an electric guitarist without an amp. He can hit the strings hard as he wants but nobody's gonna hear it.

The sun heats the planet which creates CO2. CO2 has hit 7,000 ppm, 2,000 ppm while humans evolved. The planet has not burned up and we are near a historical low. Solar cooling periods historically bring a decrease in CO2 within a decade or two. I've provided links to all this in my posts.

Inferring CO2 would drive climate if the sun goes out seems highly unreasonable to me.

595 zuckerlilly  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:25:52am
596 MacGregor  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:36:41am

re: #595 zuckerlilly

Ignoring data to support an ideological agenda deserves the scorn of the scientific community .

597 zuckerlilly  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:46:53am

Charles,

I can deeply understand your mistrust especially when I take in account that you had a very close look into the creationism/ID network which is also opposed to the AGW.
But the motivation for creationists/ID is very different from those who are neither creationists nor right wingers (in my case I’m an adherer of the church of the fsm ;-)) but are skeptics. I’m deeply concerned about the rising of activists/political motivated/populist natural science opposite fact based natural science. If facts are modeled around an activist/political motivated/populist goal then natural science is on the same (un)scientific level as ID. Creationists/ID are well aware that this non-science is one of their competitors for a totalitarian regime and for stripping people of their freedom. And like all those totalitarian (religion is always totalitarian and AGW is a secular political religion as defined by Eric Voegelin) ideologies they try to reach their goal by terrifying the people. This has nothing to do with proper natural science. To silence and threaten everyone who questions the results of such flawed “science” is not the way science should work.

If we build our political decisions on the basis of a flawed or corrupt science we will not only loose our freedom and democracy but also our wealth.

598 Optimizer  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:49:56pm

re: #469 Optimizer

I said I would keep an eye out regarding the claim that 95% of GHG warming comes from water vapor (Charles' fact-check article claimed that this was bogus, and that all such claims go back to a single web site).

I stumbled upon some relevant commentary (actually, it's recent Congressional testimony, by a Princeton Physics professor). It didn't
prove or disprove that claim directly, but unintentionally exposes the hypocrisy of the alarmists disputing that water vapor is the king of GHGs. The whole thing is an excellent summary of the greater issue, but here's the relevant excerpt (emphasis mine):

The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.

Since most of the greenhouse effect for the earth is due to water vapor and clouds, added CO2 must substantially increase water's contribution to lead to the frightening scenarios that are bandied about. The buzz word here is that there is "positive feedback." With each passing year, experimental observations further undermine the claim of a large positive feedback from water. In fact, observations suggest that the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative. That is, water vapor and clouds may actually diminish the already small global warming expected from CO2, not amplify it. The evidence here comes from satellite measurements of infrared radiation escaping from the earth into outer space, from measurements of sunlight reflected from clouds and from measurements of the temperature the earth's surface or of the troposphere, the roughly 10 km thick layer of the atmosphere above the earth's surface that is filled with churning air and clouds, heated from below at the earth's surface, and cooled at the top by radiation into space.

[Link: www.capmag.com...]

In summary, the magnifying effect that the climate models use in order to claim that CO2 has a big effect rely on the fact that water vapor is the big dog. They claim that the CO2 raising the temperature a little causes an increase in the water vapor, which THEN will raise the temperature a LOT. Astounding.

Notice how the "mountains of scientific evidence" being accumulated do not aid the alarmist cause. The key phenomenon in their unvalidated computer models is being disproved. That's why they refuse to debate the issue, and insist that "the debate is over" (even though they're talking about a science in it's infancy, and accept billions of dollars in research grants to develop it further).

599 Optimizer  Fri, May 1, 2009 6:35:46pm

re: #595 zuckerlilly

Digging up the roots of the IPCC

Key excerpt:

Once the scientists have drafted their reports, they are circulated to government officials of all the countries involved. The scientists and officials come together to agree, line-by-line, the wording of each summary report for policymakers.

Like I said, the IPCC is a political organization. This ought to alarm anybody but the most naive.

600 Optimizer  Fri, May 1, 2009 6:47:59pm

re: #597 zuckerlilly

"Touched by His noodly appendage", eh? ;)

Yes, the ID crowd is trying to use the authority of science to push their religious agenda. The AGW crowd is trying to use the authority of science to push radical environmentalism (wherein mankind is considered a parasite upon the Earth) and as a tool to try to sieze control of the life blood of the industry of the world for the cause of global socialism. Having failed miserably in the last century, it's socialism's last chance.

If the AGW guys succeed, it will take decades to recover from the damage, both politically and economically - if it's possible to recover at all.

601 zuckerlilly  Sat, May 2, 2009 7:38:01am

re: #600 Optimizer

"Touched by His noodly appendage", eh? ;)

;-)

...if it's possible to recover at all.

I doubt that we would recover and this is the goal for the new ideoliogists: destroy western democracies.

They simply ignore every other explanation how climate change could occur.


Economic impacts of CO2 cutting:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4


"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

EPA greenhouse gas finding allows Congress to duck legislative responsibility

Obama's science adviser Dr. John Holdren

incredible...

602 zuckerlilly  Sat, May 2, 2009 7:56:05am
603 zuckerlilly  Sat, May 2, 2009 8:25:37am

"The few climate-change 'skeptics' with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all... It has delayed - and continues to delay - the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge."

John Holdren

John Holdren's publication history

May I call him a "crackpot"?

Knock, Knock: Where is the Evidence for
Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming?
(pdf)

Summary of climate researcher Prof. Robert Carter, in the Journal of the Ecomnomic Society of Australia

‘The new religion of global warming …. is a great story, and a phenomenal best seller. It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense. And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed. We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really do need to save the planet’.

Nigel Lawson, p. 106, ‘An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global
Warming’, 2008.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
A Water War Is Brewing Between the U.S. And Mexico. Here’s Why A water dispute between the United States and Mexico that goes back decades is turning increasingly urgent in Texas communities that rely on the Rio Grande. Their leaders are now demanding the Mexican government either share water or face ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 133 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Harper’s Magazine: Slippery Slope - How Private Equity Shapes a Ski Town …Big Sky stands apart for other reasons. The obvious distinction is the Yellowstone Club, a private resort hidden in the mountains above the community that Justin Farrell, a professor of sociology at Yale and the author of Billionaire Wilderness, ...
teleskiguy
3 days ago
Views: 314 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2