The Polar Bear Pic They Won’t Show You
h/t Instapundit – Ann Althouse calls attention to an image of Polar Bears making the rounds, again – it was allegedly taken by Dan Crosbie in 2004 and is currently number one on Yahoo’s photo list. The image I have up at right also involves Dan Crosbie from the same period in 2004 during a scientific trip during which they carried rifles to run off polar bears while planting equipment in the ice – ice that was much thicker than they expected it to be. (pertinent excerpted text at bottom)
But what’s this? Scroll down and you’ll see the same picture was first published with a credit to another person on the trip and the caption made it clear what was really going on.
Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves. photo © Amanda Byrd.
Wow! I didn’t know Global Warming caused …. waves, too! Update: Apparently Amanda is also something of a poet.
The image has been used in a variety of environmental campaigns over the years, sans the original caption, of course. Here it was used to solicit public comments to Save da’ Bears! They’ve now been, or soon will be listed as an endangered species. It seems the picture makes some people cry. Update2: Here it is in an Ezine. But the Global Warming folks know that, based on this report. Read the bragging over the media manipulation:
One of the credos of journalism is to seek balance in a story, to cover "both sides." But reporters’ dogged tendency to do so on the issue of a human role in global warming has had a detrimental impact on the public’s understanding of the subject, say many scientists who criticize media coverage of climate change.
In just the last year White said he has noticed a significant shift in media coverage of the subject.
"The reporting is better because I don’t see the ‘other side’ anymore."
And the polar bears make good ammunition - when the caption is inaccurate, of course:
White isn’t averse to using elements that people can grasp and relate to, like vanishing sea ice and what that means for polar bear habitat and survival.
"Scientists miss that, " White said. "Many of my colleagues complain that it’s all about polar bears — it is all about polar bears, it’s all about seals. You use the ammunition you have."
And they basically admit to exploiting Hurricane Katrina, too.
White also said Hurricane Katrina has been a major influence on the press’s new focus. While it’s impossible to say conclusively that global warming is to blame for Katrina’s strength, White said, the storm was nonetheless a huge catalyst for a growing press interest in warming and rising seas and their effects.
"I’ve come to appreciate the power of these seminal events," White said. "These are galvanizing events that focus people’s attention on the problems."
The text below is from first link above to a trip journal in which the picture originally appeared. Only the ice was so thick they almost gave up and the ammunition they were concerned with was reserved for polar bears, not saving them. The infamous polar bear pic has a home here with three others at Environment Canada.
The ice ends up being almost too good. It is a hard old floe, and takes us a long time to drill with the 2" diameter hand auger. After drilling 4 m, we think that we are almost to the end, but don’t have enough extensions. Not willing to give up on this floe, another site is selected, and there we penetrate the ice cover after only about 3.75 m. So the decision is made to go ahead with the deployment there. However, since it is late in the evening by the time we return, the deployment begins on the following day.
Up the next morning at 5:30, on the helicopter deck by 6 AM, and on the ice by 6:15 to deploy the ITP and IMB buoys. Although it was pretty foggy in the morning and visibility was limited, 8 of us were transferred to the ice in three flights (plus gear) for the operations. There were also two slingloads of cargo.
Cutting the 11" diameter hole in the ice was the hardest part of the ITP deployment. Cutting through the 4 m of old hard ice progressed reasonably well until we got past the halfway point. Then water turned the ice shavings into slush, and the auger flutes couldn’t remove the material. So the going got very difficult. We tried using four people (instead of the normal two) on the auger, but that still didn’t produce results. It helped considerably to set up the tripod and hang the auger from a chainfall, so that we could drill at a controlled rate. When the hole was cut, the anchor weight and wire were smoothly deployed, then the ITP profiler was attached to the wire.
Wow, there is rambling incoherence, and there IS REAL rambling incoherence. Congrats on establishing, er – something?
Yes, because the presence of waves precludes higher temperatures. Water can be warm, or it can move, but not both. Go to the beach sometime and see Riehl Physics in action.*
*Don’t believe your lying eyes.
Uh, the ice was thicker in one spot than another. That proves global warming is a hoax?
Yeah, the “waves” bit was my favorite part. OBVIOUSLY waves are rarely if ever caused by shifts in water temperature and / or currents. Waves always involve cold water, because by definition, warmer water does not move – ever.
/Riehl physiks 101
Yeah, that whole artic sea thing is a myth or people dying of hypothermia in the ocean waves..more liberal propaganda.
Dan never ceases to amaze.
And another thing.
Dan wants stories on global warming to be balanced, so when 90% of the scientists believe global warming is happening and largely due to human activity and 10% disagree, he wants to see the stories appear as if its really a 50/50 debate. I am sure if every scientist on the planet but an even dozen were all in agreement Dan would demand balance and an equal share of the coverage for the remaining dozen.
I want to know why he isn’t demanding equal time for holocaust deniers, those who have been abducted by aliens and those who have proof the moonlanding was staged????????????
I DEMAND that scientists give equal time to the thermometers supplied by Professor Riehl. These thermometers are impervious to liberal tampering: Firstly, there are no numbers on these thermometers; secondly one end of the scale depicts the image of a smiling sun wearing sunglasses, and on the other end the sun is shivering and wearing a heavy winter coat.
Of course, you have signatures or any other kind of actual evidence for the whole 90% figure…..
Well, we know the United Nations is nest of commie, liberal moonbats, so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change report doesn’t count.
The National Resesarch Council, American Meteorelogical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union and American Institute of Physics are worthless political con artists. Or, perhaps because the positions of these organizations do not represent 100% of members, they are to be discounted? Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Even the Federal Climate Change Science Program, commissioned by Bush group, admits global warming is occuring and has been influenced by human activity. It must have been secretly infested with liberal liars.
So, really, forget everything.
We all know that scientists and scientific organizations have a long history of making outragious predictions and going off on political tangets.
You people are idiots.
wow this is retarded
you can’t disprove that the earth is warming dan, that’s something that everyone even Inhofe agrees on. The party line has always been that it’s just a natural cycle
But it’s cooooool, you’re attempts to debunk wingnuttery by doing a satire of it are impressive
Dan’s in-depth investigative reporting reveals the presence of… waves?
“Riehl World” is proof that the bloggers who post the most generally have the least to say.
And the U.S. National Academy of Scientists, another worthless organization full of know it all scientists.
It’s amazing we can make any progress at all what will every major scientific body in the country and around the world totally corrupted by liberal moonbats.
I bet these scientists don’t pray to baby jesus either.
Facts have a well known liberal bias.
What I really want to know is if Ahmed Chalabi’s nephew told them he had indisputable evidence of global warming and the effect of fossil fuels, would they believe it?
Posts like this would never happen if people like Dan Riehl had been educated correctly. This proves yet againt that everybody – everybody – must see Al Gore’s film.
TO: Riehl
RE: The Next Picture…
….should show one of the nimnulls from Greenpeace or PETA hugging an undrugged, unrestrained P-bear in the wild. Should be an interesting shot.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. For the poorly educated, Polar Bears look on man as a meat meal.
should show one of the nimnulls from Greenpeace or PETA hugging an undrugged, unrestrained P-bear in the wild. Should be an interesting shot.
————————————————–
Oooh good one. Does that mean we should only care about animals that aren’t dangerous? Or, what does that mean exactly?
Um, nothing, just a stupid cheap shot that lacks all logic or relevance. Thanks. Helpful. Insightful.
A few questions for the driveby snarksters…
1. Given that the IPCC’s report states that current warming trends are irreversible, what is the point of all the hand-wringing?
2. Since the Kyoto Protocol a) specifically exempted China & India, whose CO2 emissions are spiralling steadily upward, and b) made no discernable impact on the emissions of the countries which did sign, what difference would US compliance make?
3. What evidence is there that projected warming would overall be a bad thing? For example, for every hectare of land swallowed by the sea or turned to desert, might there not be a hectare (or more) made arable? There’s an awful lot of land in Canada and Russia under permafrost right now.
4. Why would any rational person get his undies in a bunch over a 1 degree temperature increase in the last century? Where’s the proportionality?
Look up and down the panoply of snarky responses here, and you don’t see even one that actually addresses Riehl’s point, which is that the picture has been re-purposed, and what it actually shows has been suppressed. It is “accurate!!” (but false), an icon of truthiness.
It is, in short, a perfect picture of why politics is the enemy of science. Whether one’s politics are from the left or from the right really makes no difference when it comes to the torture of science. (Cf. “The Yogi and the Commissar,” by Arthur Koestler.)
See if you can detect any regret below that the photo is a manipulation. To the contrary, because they attempt to divert attention from the central lie, and foreclose the actual argument, these are defenses of manipulation.
“Yeah, the “waves” bit was my favorite part. OBVIOUSLY waves are rarely if ever caused by shifts in water temperature and / or currents. Waves always involve cold water, because by definition, warmer water does not move – ever. /Riehl physiks 101″
“Wow, there is rambling incoherence, and there IS REAL rambling incoherence. Congrats on establishing, er – something?”
“wow this is retarded…you can’t disprove that the earth is warming dan, that’s something that everyone even Inhofe agrees on. The party line has always been that it’s just a natural cycle…But it’s cooooool, you’re attempts to debunk wingnuttery by doing a satire of it are impressive”
BTW, my H.O. is that Earth is undergoing a major warming and that bigger changes are ahead. That has nothing to do with this post or with the re-purposing of the photo.
jk Falls Into MySpace
I hate to make fun of somebody who has strong beliefs and cares for animals. But I am betting that that is all I have in common with “Tab.” Tab has a MySpace page that plays music at you and…
4. Why would any rational person get his undies in a bunch over a 1 degree temperature increase in the last century? Where’s the proportionality?
—————————————
Because a five degree rise in temperature will result in a 50% extinction rate and a 10% temperature rise will result in a 90% extinction rate.
The projections for the next century are between 3% and 7%, conservatively.
I love how the people who declare that the SCIENCE! is behind their claims gleefully ignore the SCIENCE! when it says warming is nothing unusual or even dramatic. Medieval Climate Optimum? Roman Warm Period? Here in North America, every historic warm period was marked not by a Dark Age, but by a blooming of cultures. The Mississippi nearly became another “cradle of civilization” at least twice, during historical warm periods. Had the Adena/Hopewell or the Mississippians developed writing and more organized societies…
Then there’s the evidence that the warming is unconnected with human activity. Mars is warming. Jupiter’s developed a second red spot — mega storm — apparently due to warming. How the hell is CO2 released on Earth changing the climates on other worlds?
And there are the alternate theories — cosmic rays creating more cloud cover; natural cycles in the sun’s output — that could easily overpower the minuscule effect of human activities.
But none of that matters. And the AGW advocates gleefully accept stunts like this photo as “fake but true”.
A poor winger once asked:
“Since the Kyoto Protocol a) specifically exempted China & India, whose CO2 emissions are spiralling steadily upward, and b) made no discernable impact on the emissions of the countries which did sign, what difference would US compliance make?”
China’s emissions are 60% or less than the USA’s. Furthermore, if people in USA consumed less, China would produce less. India’s emissions are even smaller than China’s. Both of these countries have incredibly less emissions on a per capita scale. The USA leads the world in greenhouse emissions, nearly doubling the 2nd highest country (China). And if we measured by a per capita basis well…
Kyoto exempted India and China for a reason. Now obviously years from now when both these countries are more industrialized a new treaty is going to have to bind them. However, to say that lower emissions in the US will do very little world wide is foolishness, since the US produces more emissions than anyone else and will continue to do so for several years.
The irony is that people like to argue “Kyoto is punishing the US”. When in reality Kyoto actually punishes industrialized nations like Holland and Japan more, since they were already pretty “green” in terms of emissions but are expected to curb emissions by the same amount as dirtier countries like USA or UK.
“Because a five degree rise in temperature will result in a 50% extinction rate and a 10% temperature rise will result in a 90% extinction rate.”
Extrapolate that curve outward! Ignore the past! Just lay that ruler across two carefully selected points and run that pen out into the future!
IT’S SCIENCE!!!
as for the “b” part of your question winger
Kyoto doesn’t go into effect until 2008…
idiots i swear. Do your research, I’m tired of being your intellectual nanny
Thank goodness for blogs-to correct and expose the msm who likes to manipulate and control public opinion at will.
Oh please.
Talk about straw men, your whole argument of other explained warming and cooling periods or that well, hey, mars is warming is ridiculous. That’s like saying, hey, it’s cold outside today, so global warming is not happening. Of course someone already did that on this blog.
Why should I doubt the scientific community that has been studying this in earnest for two decades and instead believe a bunch of morons who disbelieve it because believing it would be inconvenient and becuase the sea levels haven’t risen YET and massive die offs havent happened TODAY that they won’t happen.
You either don’t understand what the scientific community actually has to say about climate change or you purposefully ignore it and make specious and fallacious arguments because you can’t argue the facts.
Typical.
Because a five degree rise in temperature will result in a 50% extinction rate and a 10% temperature rise will result in a 90% extinction rate.
The projections for the next century are between 3% and 7%, conservatively.-
————————–
O RLY? Prove that, please, or show me a link to somebody who can. I’ll bet there’s not much science involved in that statement.
Just how long was the ice age to have lasted?
Al Gore and his must see film? Funny, the guy was a failure in all of his political life, now we are supposed to go watch? Speaking of Polar Bears……whats the guy been drinking to be so puffy?
I note that yyy ignored the first 3 questions. As for the 4th, I don’t see how a 1 degree rise in a century inevitably leads to a 10% rise in the next. The projections are just that, projections – not proof. I fail to see why the industrialized nations should cripple their economies based on computer models, particularly given that the IPCC says the warming trend is irreversible.
LOL: Yes, China’s emissions are far below America’s. That’s not the point. The point is that their emissions are increasing dramatically. So are India’s. Do you really believe they will cease industrializing if Americans buy fewer of their goods? I think you’re confusing cause with effect: we buy their goods precisely because their growing economies allow them to produce enough for export. Mao’s Great Leap Forward had nothing to do with foreign markets, and everything to do with increasing their industrial base for their own benefit. Your hypothetical future treaty is irrelevant, because they won’t sign it. Why should they? Since when do the Chinese pay any attention to the worries of Westerners?
Nobody is arguing that “Kyoto is punishing the US”, because we didn’t sign it. I note you still assume that Kyoto would have an impact on US emissions if we did sign, even though it’s had no impact on the emissions of those who did sign. This smacks of wishful thinking.
“The party line has always been that it’s just a natural cycle”
That the whole of New York state was covered in 1,000′ thick glaciers 20,000 years ago kinda supports that speculation.
Who melted the glaciers? I’m sure there’s going to be a big caveman archaeological find any day now proving they had millions of SUV’s right?
Fine, fine, so Kyoto doesn’t take effect until 2008. So what? Are you claiming that Holland and Japan will take this dire threat seriously then, but are content to contribute to the problem for now? How inspiring. By that logic, I don’t see any case for criticizing the US: since we never signed, why should we worry about it any more than they do?
The effects of global warming are cumulative, the more greenhouse gases that are trapped the more the situation will be exacerbated.
A ten percent rise isn’t guaranteed, not even a three percent rise is guaranteed. What is fairly guaranteed though is the EFFECTS of the rise in temperature on sea levels, animal habitat and plant life. Thus, when science says that a ten percent rise over a century would be catastrophic, they have the models to prove it. They cannot prove that a ten percent rise in temperature will occur.
I find it really sad and tragic that you people supported going to war as a defensive measure on precious little evidence yet you are not willing to lift a finger or suffer any inconvenience to minimize something that can destroy life as we know it.
And who said China should get off scott free? Who even said Kyoto as it stands now is correct? I never said that. What I do say is that denying global warming until the sea levels rise or waiting another 70 years for the PROOF that temperatures will continue to rise, or waiting 200 years for proof this is a significant trend is idiotic. It’s like failing to defuse the ticking bomb in case it doesn’t go off.
The real reason that you disbelieve global warming is your hate of liberals and your hate of anyone who thinks the natural beauty of this planet is important and even, maybe, more important in the long run than cheap gase, SUVs or corporate profits.
Why don’t you check out what the INSURANCE INDUSTRY has to say about global warming. But once you read what they say, you will have to conclude that the actuaries are also liberal, left wing moonbats, otherwise you would be very worried.
Of course, you have signatures or any other kind of actual evidence for the whole 90% figure…..
Posted by: SDN
Read a book dipshit. That will introduce you to the many thousands of scientists who agree that warming is changing our climate and planet. Please stop listening to Limbaugh. You cannot go live with him when your house in under water.
“See if you can detect any regret below that the photo is a manipulation. To the contrary, because they attempt to divert attention from the central lie, and foreclose the actual argument, these are defenses of manipulation.”
No. Neither Riehl nor anyone else has established that there is any manipulation in that photo. The only contradiction is that there is one photog listed at one place and another at another place – both of whom were on the same team, at the same time, at the same place. EVERYTHING else is unsupportable speculation, coupled with the inane conclusion that because the ice may or may not have been “carved by waves,” global warming must be a fabrication.
Riehl, with no expertise and no credibility, determined that YES, waves caused the carving – thus “waves” must be a product of what is described as “global warming,” and because we see “waves” all the time, global warming must be something that just naturally occurs – like waves.
Further, “support” is found in the contention that because these scientists found ice that was thicker than they thought it would be … what? There is no conclusion; it’s just a “fact” tossed out as evidence, of … whatever. I suppose, Riehl is trying to draw the conclusion that becuase the ice was thicker than imagined HERE, the entire consensus conclusion that ice is melting, BROADLY, must be false. If one does not see the inherent fallacy in such an “argument” one has no business participating in the conversation.
Riehl’s only expertise is assuming what he seeks to prove – and he even does that like an amateur.
Kyoto doesnt go into effect until 2008, how can it have an effect now, when it plans to effect the future? Doing a simple internet search would give you these relevant facts, but I guess it’s better to be an idiot.
still some states have actually curbed greenhouse gases in a preparation for what they will have to do in 2008 and beyond:
http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/ghg_table_06.pdf
As you can see some countries aren’t complying well, but many are. So saying “kyoto had no impact” is intellectually dishonest. It would be better if you said “I don’t know anything about Kyoto” at least you would be honest
Im tired of debating with liars.
Climate science sure is important. It gets more important every time a climate scientist speaks nowadays. Nothing to raise an eyebrow about there!
The purpose of their models is not even to predict the future- it is to test assumptions. They are widely misused, just like the truthy photo at the top of this “discussion”
You snarked back about the previous warming periods, but did not address the point. It is a valid point, and your position is weakened by your failure/inability to address it.
It is perfectly clear that there’s self-interest and sanctimony on all sides of this issue.
A priori, it’s generally true that anyone who bangs on the table and screams ‘there is NO DEBATE!’ is FAR more likely to be either a fooled person or a liar than anyone who is willing to talk.
Glenn Reynolds speaks sense: http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2229.php
yyy, your assumptions are informative. Please point to where I suggested that global warming is a myth, or that I hate liberals. Projection of this sort suggests that you are less interested in debate than in proselytizing.
Effects are indeed cumulative, but the science I’ve read states that a) there is an upper limit to the greenhouse effect of CO2 concentrations, and b) water vapor, because of its greater prevalence in the atmosphere, is a MUCH greater contributor to the effect than CO2. Shall we outlaw clouds?
I’ll ask you one more time: since the IPCC says the trend is irreversible, what is the point of all the fuss? Are you personally willing to give up your car and your indoor electricity so the endangered critters don’t die out? If not, I don’t see what purpose your good intentions serve.
“Al Gore and his must see film? Funny, the guy was a failure in all of his political life, now we are supposed to go watch?”
————————————-
A failure, Cindi? Maybe you’ve been getting too much of your news from Rush Limbaugh.
Al Gore was elected four times to the U.S. House of Representatives, twice to the U.S. Senate, and twice to the U.S. Vice Presidency. He won a plurality of the votes in the 2000 presidential election and every subsequent analysis showed that he would have won the presidency if all the votes in Florida had been correctly counted. He was an outspoken critic of the rush to war in Iraq and an early voice warning of climate change. His positions on both issues have been strongly validated over the past few weeks.
Love him or hate him, it’s hard to deny that Gore has been highly successful and influential in his political life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000_Florida_results
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html
“Are you claiming that Holland and Japan will take this dire threat seriously then, but are content to contribute to the problem for now?”
Dude
that is not what I’m saying. Learn to read.
Holland and Japan are already “green” countries. (I already said this idiot)
They are “green” (i.e. not very pollutin’) cuz they both live in fragile environments relative to say the USA or China. Read some books about their geography or do some of your own research. I’m sick and tired of wingnuts on this website expecting liberals to point out how global warming or Kyoto works. You guys don’t even know the basic elements of these subjects and are content to just sit and snipe at the minutest of errors or make the most ridiculous of counterclaims.
Go on the internet, search for global warming or kyoto protocol and then read some websites. If those websites link to books, then goto your local library and check out those books. I’m tired of babysitting you children who are so intellectually dishonest, it’s astounding.
I mean, dan riehl criticized “the left” for making hitler comparisons and then links to a site that calls soros “worse than hitler”. And Not one single conservative on this website called him out on it. Anotehr poster and Dan in this post used an example of ONE cold area to prove that the earth is not warming and NO ONE on the conservative side said “hey, i think that’s wrong dan” NOPE. It seems any argument gets to slide with conservatives on this site, while liberals have to have all their ducks in a row.
Oh well, this site affirms the truth that conservatives are not educated (but pretend to be)
“A priori, it’s generally true that anyone who bangs on the table and screams ‘there is NO DEBATE!’ is FAR more likely to be either a fooled person or a liar than anyone who is willing to talk.”
Right so people who say “there is no debate about evolution”
“there is no debate about a heliocentric system”
“there is no debate about the big bang theory”
“there is no debate about atoms”
“there is no debate about landing on the moon”
I suppose we should teach our kids ‘both sides’ of American history too (you know what’s written in the book of mormon? plenty of americans believe it, so let’s teach ‘all sides’)
Please this is science, it’s not about “debate”, it’s about facts.
I’ll ask you one more time: since the IPCC says the trend is irreversible, what is the point of all the fuss? Are you personally willing to give up your car and your indoor electricity so the endangered critters don’t die out? If not, I don’t see what purpose your good intentions serve.
————-
The trend is irreversible but the MAGNITUDE IS NOT. Thus, we could, conceivably get by with a 2 or 3 degree rise over the next 100 years, rather than a catastrophic ten degree rise if we do absolutely nothing about human contributions to climate change.
I do not need to give up my car or my electricity, that is a straw man argument. I would gladly purchase a hybrid car that was affordable. The technology exists to significantly increase miles per gallon on automobiles but it isn’t done. It’s too expensive. Just like it was going to be too expensive to put in any emissions standards or air bags or you name it. People kept on buying cars. I would glady pay a few more dollars for electricity and I would much prefer to see long term thinking in public works projects and construction overall, eg green buildings than the short term thinking we have now. There is plenty that can be done to curb global warming without forcing us to live in caves or cede or economy ot the third world. But, we are doing virtually nothing. Until LAST YEAR the President of the United States did not even acknowledge human contribution to global warming, as far as I know.
“I’ll ask you one more time: since the IPCC says the trend is irreversible, what is the point of all the fuss?”
————————–
Where do you get this nonsense you post, William?
The IPCC made it very, VERY clear that our actions will have an enormous influence on just how bad things get over the next century. Allow me to quote from yesterday’s Washington Post:
Humans Faulted For Global Warming
International Panel Of Scientists Sounds Dire Alarm
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Some of the report’s most compelling sections focused on future climate changes, because the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will exert an effect even if industrialized countries stopped emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow. Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the Boulder, Colo.-based National Center for Atmospheric Research, who helped oversee the chapter on climate projections, said that in the next two decades alone, global temperatures will rise by 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
“We’re committed to a certain amount of warming,” said Meehl, who worked with 16 computer-modeling teams from 11 countries. “A lot of these changes continue through the 21st century and become more severe as time goes on.”
Meehl added, however, that a sharp cut in greenhouse gas emissions could still keep catastrophic consequences from occurring: “The message is, it does make a difference what we do.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020201754.html
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Sea level is rising…rising…rising! Oh, my, what are we to do…to do…to do!
Climate change has taken place numerous times, and is a cycle of the Earth itself. Is man having an effect? Of course, only a fool would say man has no effect on the Earth. But short of genocide of the entire human race, there is little or nothing that can be done in the short term to stop whatever is happening. Even your new “rock stars” the scientists agree on that. So you, and I mean you, liberal, should prepare yourself and your families for the inevitable.
The single best thing that we as Americans can do to stop global warming is to prevent third world refugess from coming to the West. They use very few resources in their home countries, yet add measurably to global warming by coming to the West.
So there. You liberals need to start a new program to stop immigration from the Third World to the First. This one thing would have a more profound impact on global warming than anything anyone has proposed.
So, if you liberals are really serious about global warming, you will start a program to stop this immigration that is causing more global warming. Now, we’ll see how serious you “progressives” really are. I eagerly await your responces.
I am all for Global Warming if for no other reason than to combat Liberal Brain Freeze. What a wonderful world it would be if their heads thawed out – and having them up their arses so long hasn’t seemed to help.
LOL: your ad hominems do not impress me.
I read your unfcc.int link. It does not say what you think it says. I address the bottom line: parties to the Kyoto Protocol are expected to reduce greenhouse emissions by 5%. From 2000-2004, they increased emissions by 2.9%. During the same time frame, US emissions increased by 1.3%. Hmmmmm….
Lol, your response is absurd. Incidentally, it is also ill-informed.
Atoms were once believed to be the last word in particles- hence the name. That debate was not closed. Good thing.
The big bang theory continues to be a subject for debate.
Back to the issue at hand, you are TRYING to cite trivial objections to my point. Don’t bother- you would accomplish nothing even if you were more successful. My point stands. Any adult knows that what I said is true. You demonstrate the fact that you are analytically challenged yet again. Life goes on.
Legalize, you did the same thing that some of the snarksters did: diverted attention from the deceptive nature of the photo.
The photo was shown as evidence of the effects of warm seas, but it is actually the effect of wave action. Riehl may have other points to derive from that, and it’s not my purpose to explore or defend those.
But the fact remains that wave-sculpted ice is a commonplace, and that this photo does not show the effects of global warming per se, but rather, of an ongoing and unremarkable ocean process. Political values have been attached to the photo by implication and context, and doing so is a deception. If the photo had a wider angle, you’d likely see that this ice castle is attached to a much larger floe. Have you wondered what you’d see if the camera had been rotated 180 degrees?
Again, I’m all for airing evidences of global warming (and as I earlier said, believe it is in full swing), but I am emphatically not for lying with photos, even if for a good cause. One can tell a lie with a picture without having to use words, and we must be both careful and critical when evaluating photos. This photo seduces us to believe something other than what it actually shows because of its context, while its legend omits important facts inconvenient to the political purpose. In other words, it’s propaganda.
wow some wingers are so dumb it’s amazing.
Isn’t it funny William that you post about my ad hominems right below a post where Dan “I hate comparisons to Hitler” Riehl makes a post that is nothing but an ad hominem?
On to the points — Kyoto is about reducing emissions to a pre-1990 level. It’s nice how you pick the only data that agrees with you and just ignore the rest. Kyoto’s objective: “By 2008-2012, Annex 1 countries have to reduce their GHG emissions by an average of 5% below their 1990 levels”
This means that the US has increased 17.1% on emissions over the 1990 level
While during the same time span Kyoto parties have a net of -12.4% compared to their 1990 levels. WHich means that Kyoto parties are actually exceeding (on average) their 2008 goals according to the treaty.
William, I’m waiting for you to post “I don’t know anything about Kyoto”
which is clearly the case.
Riehl makes a post that is nothing but an ad hominem
That could be as I have seen some of you around here arguing for what seems like forever and I realize actual argument is a waste of my time. SO I opt to have fun with you instead. That isn’t “an ad hominem attack,” it’s a coping device.
hehe! Dan, you’re a gem!
They carried rifles to protect themselves from polar bears, therefore global warming is a liberal lie!
Riehl World View!
therefore global warming is a liberal lie!
I didn’t use what I posted to say that. But you can’t address the real points. If the pseudo-science is so compelling, why do they manipulate people’s emotions? If they are so solid on their facts, why misuse information, as they do with the picture? You can’t answer that because you left your kool aid on the nightstand and when it was warm in the morning, you becamse convinced that man is causing Global Warming.
The earth temps may indeed be rising. Based on geological research, there’s absolutely no reason to think it won’t, just as it will also one day cool, again. Amazing thng nature. If you don’t have that, or you don’t have God, you have nothing. And that about sums up the substance behind your non-argument. Non-argument as you can’t confront the facts at hand – the media cited is manipulation and not information.
Oh Dan, you are too funny.
When you know you’ve lost the argument because your “side” can’t come up with anything other than personal observations and a list of 80 discredit Exxon schills, you decide you are above the argument, it was all about poking fun at us liberals.
ACTUAL ARGUMENT is a waste of Dan’s time, he says, but it is only because Dan does not possess any ACTUAL knowledge about anything he posseses. Except he knows for certain that the ring wing flat earth nutters are right about everything and the liberal moonbats are wrong about everything.
Thems the only facts and arguments he cares to make.
Alrighty.
Oregonian: I do not dispute that reducing emissions would lessen the temperature increase. yyy dismisses my point about giving up cars and electricity as a straw man, but I do not see how: if the US is to reduce emissions in any significant way, our current standard of living will have to go. Even supposedly “green” countries like Holland & Japan are expected to reduce emissions. Observe that the only countries not expected to reduce emissions are those whose poverty levels are catastrophic.
The Dutch already use bicycles to a far greater extent than Americans – and given the size of the US, Dutch levels of bicycle use are simply not practical here. How will they cut emissions by 5%, as Kyoto mandates they do? How would we, if not by giving up our cars? Even a confirmed green like yyy dismisses that idea out of hand. So where will this reduction come from? The answer as best I can see is by buying carbon credits from third-world nations. This will produce technical compliance, but it won’t do a thing to improve overall emissions.
Let’s cut through all the touchy-feely talk and get to the real issue: what is the environmentalist plan to save us from ourselves? I’m not interested in any talk about reading books nor watching Al Gore: if you cannot give me a concrete plan yourselves, I suspect it is because there isn’t one beyond “listen to your betters”. Why should I pay attention to the fears of those who substitute ad hominem and denunciation for any attempt at actual education?
They “manipulate people’s emotions” for the same reason George Bush manipulates people’s emotions, it works.
Global warming is a very difficult concept for people to understand, many fools will say what the fools on this blog say “what’s so bad about a temperature rise, it’s cold outside, my heating costs would go down, summer would last longer”
A picture is worth a thousand words, that’s why, Dan, when people see photos of oil slicked seaguls they feel negatively towards oil companies and why photos of baby seals getting clubbed to death makes people mad, that photos of polar bears, who will likely become extinct as a result of our activites gives the public a way to understand the damage that global warming can do. Same for computer images of tsunamis, hurricanes or anything else.
Or, maybe to make it really easy for you to understand its the same reason why right wing flat earth nutters like photos of aborted fetuses…it tells the story they want to tell.
That’s not true. Buying carbon credits from third world nations can lower overall emissions as long as the global cap is such that it will lower overall emissions.
For the “global warming” supporters out there, would you support a 50 year effort to create a planetary thermostat at a cost of $5T? It would be much, much cheaper than the nanny state meddling that’s currently being touted as a solution and it has the distinct advantage that you would be able to dial the temperature to an optimum level no matter whether we’re too hot or too cold and have the effects show up almost immediately. In other words, the current debate over what is causing the temperature shift would be rendered moot and the politician’s role would be reduced to raising the funds to pay the engineers and scientists to:
1. get cheap lift (via space elevator, EM rail launches, or extra-terrestrial manufacturing) so we can afford to loft the solution
2. create a durable, variable shading system sufficiently large to replicate at will any number of Mt. Pinatubo style cooling events
3. create a lensing or mirroring system to increase the fraction of solar output that is received by the earth to heat up the planet in the case where we have too low temperatures
4. determine what the global optimum temperature is.
The fact is that if we’re not currently at the global optimum, we could probably raise the global economy by many times the cost of such a system in normal times and it would help in the case of certain disasters to regulate planetary temperature (massive vulcanism, large meteor strike, and limited nuclear winter scenarios).
Frankly, I think that most of the “skeptics” would sign on to such a solution even while maintaining their position that anthropogenic climate forcing is a load of rubbish. I strongly doubt that anyone will seriously hold forth that the actual and variable natural temperature is the optimum temperature every year.
Any takers?
LOL: I’m not Dan Riehl. I accept no responsibility for his statements. Interesting that you justify your rudeness to me by pointing to the comments of someone else. It’s his blog: he can say what he likes. Hell, it’s a free internet: you can say what you like. That doesn’t justify your snark.
As for your points: yes, emission levels of Kyoto signatories dropped dramatically from 1990-2004; yet from 2000-2004 they went UP. That suggests to me that they have already done as much as they can (or care to) do. The treaty still requires further cuts. How do you propose they accomplish these cuts, and do you really believe the voters in those countries will accept those propositions? If they do not, you’re wasting your time.
William,
The first step in solving the problem is to acknowledge that it exists and that it must be addressed. Clearly, we are not even there yet.
I’ve given several examples of things we might do…we could mandate all cars get 40+ MPG, if we don’t want to mandate that, we could give huge tax credits to people buying cars that get this kind of gas mileage. We can build only green buildings, they cost more but are self sustaining so in the long run, are a much better investment. I have no idea what it would take to fully overhaul and modernize our electricity grid, would it be more or less than the $500 Billion we’ve wasted in Iraq. I don’t know, it sounds like a good investment, but it isn’t sexy and there isnt’ a visible NEED. What would it cost to get Amtrak up to speed, and give Americans 200 MPH trains? I don’t know, I do know the reason no one in the NY/DC/Boston corridor takes trains is because they are expensive and slow. I don’t know the macro economic impact of cutting carbon emissions on US industry but I have a sneaking suspicion that it could be managed somehow.
Industry hates regulation, regulations of all kinds, safety regs, environmental regs cost money. Pure capitalism doesn’t want this, but pure capitalism also needed five year olds to work, needed slave labor, could not under any circunstances afford to pay health insurance for its workers, and on an on it went. They adapted. Some regulation is necessary, too much is a burden and hinders growth and innovation. Where is the balance? That’s the trick. It has to be somewhere beyond strip mining and drilling in wildlife refuges though. One would hope.
“The technology exists to significantly increase miles per gallon on automobiles but it isn’t done. It’s too expensive.”
My VW Jetta diesel gets 50+mpg. That’s a car you can buy today.
Now those are interesting ideas. Whether they would be either sufficient to cut emissions to target levels, or acceptable to the majority of voters, I cannot say. Certainly modernizing the electrical grid is an idea even a dumb right-wing nutter like myself can support.
What say you skip the casual denunciations of capitalism? It is utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. There is no “pure capitalist” society in the world today.
Well, it’s time to drive to work in my SUV. It’s been fun.
just buy their opinions
Oh, stop it. Go read Volokh on that, it isn’t even a large sum for the papers they requested. It’s done all the time on both sides of every issue. Only our tax dollars pay for the pro-warming crowd in most cases. You think they work for free? Geesh! Get real.
The reason I put in anything about capitalism is because the ring wing ALWAYS screams that cutting carbon emissions will kill the American economy, set our standard of living back and let China and the rest of the third world. Now, like I said, I don’t know the macro issues, but history shows that industry pretty much ALWAYS resists regulation or any mandated changes that are going to cut into profits. I don’t say this makes industry evil, when you live and die by profits you have to make profits…but my point was that while these regulations do cost money, they have generally not created economic catastrophes, massive loss of jobs and so on that were predicted….So, when industry resists global warming because it’s going to ‘hurt the economy’ and ‘hurt American competitiveness” I am skeptical. I’ve heard it before and found that it usually is a bit polyanish shall we say.
The clincher for me is that the scientists who dispute the Gore style Global Warming are actually going to be paid, unlike all those scientists working to save the world from Global Warming who refuse to accept grants and will not take a dime for rendering their opinions. This is reinforced by the fact that you never see the environmental groups asking for moneys, or accepting it from foundations or governments. Unlike with the evil oil companies who won’t even give away free gasoline.
Yeah, well, a VW Jetta just sucks at pulling my trailer loaded with cattle to the market, Purple whatever. Or going down logging roads picking up wood to cut for my fireplace. Or getting to my best duck-hunting spot. I guess it’ll do for you boys going down to the disco, but it just doesn’t work out too well for me. I need my GMC Z-71 4-wheel drive.
Can any of you “humans cause global warming” types provide an answer as to what caused the warming after the mini ice age which occurred roughly between 1500 and 1700 Ad? Can you tell us what caused the warming centuries ago which allowed Vikings to settle villages in Greenland before encroaching glaciers caused them to abandon them?
Really, can you explain what caused the warming after each Ice Age? Was it caused by those pesky primitive people making too many campfires, or was the warming likely caused by natural cyclical phenomena?
And lastly, can you please explain how society can develop new, cleaner, so-called greener technologies after their economy has been crippled by the Kyoto treaty?
I’m just wondering.
Media compliance is nothing new. Way back in July of 1990 Andrea Mitchell was quoted by Insight as saying “clearly the networks have made the decision now, where you’d have to call it advocacy”:
http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2004/01/_blogging_is_no_4.html
yyy at 2:27 wrote: “Until LAST YEAR the President of the United States did not even acknowledge human contribution to global warming, as far as I know.”
Thank you for saying “as far as I know.” Not many Bush critics are willing to admit that they might be wrong.
Here is part of what President Bush stated on June 11, 2001 (that is, five and a half years ago), when he explained his position on the Kyoto Protocol, summarized the information obtained from scientists, and stated his policy for the foreseeable future:
First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.
There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.
Yet, the Academy’s report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.
Now, it is obvious to me that Bush has never failed to acknowledge the “human contribution to global warming.”
Is it obvious to you now?
Will you please make it a point to tell your friends that they should drop the incorrect but persistent claim that Bush ignores the science, denies global warming and denies that human activities have anything to do with climate change?
You need to tell them, since their usual sources of information won’t. In fact, their favorite news media constantly tell them that it’s the “first time” whenever Bush makes a statement that acknowledges climate change. See Instapundit and The Corner, Jan. 30, 2007. [Sorry, but this site apparently doesn’t allow links. You will have to look up the June 11 statement at the White House site and the Instapundit comment. My links disappeared in the “preview” screen, so I expect them not to be in the posted comment.)
William, please stop, you are digging a bigger hole:
“The treaty still requires further cuts.”
No it doesn’t. Until 2012 the average emissions need only be 5% less (on average over those years) than the 1990 emissions. Most ratifiers have accomplished this. In fact, even if their current emission levels were to increase slighltly, they would still meet kyoto’s demands.
Let’s recap:
You didn’t know when Kyoto went into effect
You didn’t know the emissions standard Kyoto used
You couldn’t do simple calculation from the chart I provided
You thought the US was doing better on emissions than kyoto ratifiers
You think that Kyoto requires “further cuts”. Where’s your source? It doesnt!!
Basically you’ve demonstrated your ignorance of Kyoto every step of the way in this discussion. Why is it so hard for you to admit ignorance on this issue? Stop pretending like you know what you are talking about when you clearly do not. Shut up and listen to the adults next time.
“Reduction targets expire in 2013.” Which means there will need to be a new treaty–but there will be. Kyoto is only one part of the UNFCCC, which has yearly meetings I believe. There are no “further cuts” than what you are talking about William. But if you can provide a source I’d love to see it.
For wingers who know nothing about kyoto here is a good first step:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol
I know not everything in wikipedia is 100% so spare me your gripes. It is a good starter for your education. Because many of you are so ignorant of Kyoto, and yet pretend to know what you’re talking about, it’s really frustrating. Come on wingers, you are smarter than this. Educate yourselves at the very least…
What I know is that Bush may have acknowledged global warming and human contribution to global warming but that he has done diddly squat to address it other than calling for more studies and whining, like these nutters to, about how trying to prevent potentially catastrophic destruction of the planet is not as important as US auto industry profits or the American short term economy.
I might go on to say that if even a flat earth, rapture waiting, sex hating, god talking to nut like George Bush acknowledges this, what’s wrong with the rest of the 28 percenters?
Well, it certainly appears that we are all over the place with cross recriminations. Some posters suggest doing your research. Well I agree. As someone who has read the TAR, and is reviewing the FAR (the source documents puportedly summarized in the “Summary for Policymakers” released by IPCC), I can tell you that there is a wide range of scientists whose work is cited in the TAR and FAR that offer in their reports qualifiers and statements clarifying that the “jury is still out” on man’s contribution to Global Warming.
An excellent short, early review on the science involved is to be found at:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf
This is a very good read, and strongly suggested for both sides of this discussion to review.
Jim
yyy, and what fucking percent do you think your fricking nuttiness represents? I swear you nitwads are ruining whatever little bit of good will you might have had. Before I started talking to you fuckwads I thought I might just want to work with you just a bit. Now, all I want to do is punch your fucking teeth out.
wingers wanting to commit violence because someone disagrees
what a shock
I gotta deal for Kyoto fans. Pick a start date, any start date. You pay me a buck a day for every day that the signatories are out of compliance. I pay you a buck a day for evey day they comply.
$1 x forever buys a lot of SUVs.
I’ve read Dan’s blog long enough to know that nobody is here for discourse, they are hear to bash the other side, period. Nobody’s mind is ever changed or opened.
I despise George Bush and everything he stands for. I despise the right wing, flat earth, women hating but loving of the ‘unborn’, evangelical, religious crusading freaks that want to teach the Bible in science class and impose their own perverted view of life and sex on the rest of the country.
Not to hijack a thread or anything…but I just can’t let this one pass by without refuting it.
Re Al Gore:
“and every subsequent analysis showed that he would have won the presidency if all the votes in Florida had been correctly counted.”
This couldn’t be more wrong. Every analysis has shown exactly the opposite, except for one highly contived scenario, that even the NY Times deemed implausible.
LOL,
Wanting and doing are two different things. What makes us different is self-control. So what’s your point? You offer nothing but invective. What do you expect in return? A coconut cake? You and the y-guy are just a couple of haters. Begone.
Look at the evolution of William on this thread.
He asks questions and then ignores the answers he is given. He throws out ridiculous claims and then shifts his tune when they are disproven. (“I do not dispute that reducing emissions would lessen the temperature increase.”) He throws out straw men (bicycles won’t solve the problem!) and ignores the many easy, practical steps that Americans can take. And, at last, when things are getting a little too hot for his nonsense, he hops in his SUV and drives away.
As the oil companies would probably say, “mission accomplished.”
The whole strategy for the fossil fuels crowd is to sow confusion and doubt about global warming. They know they can’t dispute the scientic evidence directly, but they’re doing everything they can to create the appearance of uncertainty. By making the problems appear too controversial and the solutions appear too expensive, the companies are hoping the American people will just throw up their hands and settle for inaction.
There’s no real hope of reaching the densest Dan Riehls of the world, which is why most of us don’t even try, but there’s a real opening now for a leader who will step forward and give the average American some honest information and honest leadership on this issue. That’s why Gore’s movie is so important. It cuts through the manufactured fog and gives the straight facts about what we are facing and what we can do.
If you’re seriously interested in understanding global warming, go see “An Inconvenient Truth.” Read the IPCC report ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ). Read the latest news from trustworthy, established news sources like the Washington Post ( http://www.wpost.com/ ) and the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/ ). There’s still plenty to learn about global climate change, just as there’s plenty to learn about gravity and the curvature of the earth, but the basic facts are clear and indisputable: Humans are rapidly changing the climate and anything we can do to decrease our use of fossil fuels will leave a better planet for our children.
Don’t let the Williams of the world cloud that basic truth.
“Trustworthy, established news sources like the NYT and the WaPo…”
You’re kidding, right! I wouldn’t let my cockatoo poop on those two rags. And there is no hope for the World period if we listen to people like Al Gore and the Oregonian.
And not one of you has responded to my proposal for the easiest and most pain free way to slow down global warming. Limit immigration from the Third World to the First. The growth in carbon emissions in the US is driven mostly by immigration, and so it is for Europe. Stop these people from coming to the West, where they use much more carbon, and leave them in their own countries, where they use much less. See, a pain free way to reduce carbon emissions.
Come on, you haters, respond. You can’t, can you, because then you would prove you really don’t think global warming is that bad. If it were, you would wish to stop this immigration.
Let me get this straight, flat-earth rednecks, WMDs in Iraq exist but global warming doesn’t?? Just checking.
Apple Cunt, please address the question at hand. I responded already to your stupid comment. Read my response to LOL.
AppleCunt, let’s just say I anticipated your stupidity.
My oh my, templar knight (must be a silly mason or something) is a violent flat-earth redneck. Why not channel your anger into something positive, like finding bin Laden. In the meantime, stay the course!
Oregonian,
If I wanted the religious dogma from the Rev. Gore and his Church of Gaia and it’s affiliates in the volkmarxism bund the items you listed would do spendidly. Ol’ Al listened well to Ron Hubbard who said if you want to be wealthy for life start your own religion.
However I took enough Geology, Geophysics and Meteorology to know that just about all the shite the true believers at the Church of Gaia toss out to “prove” their claims is little more then items cherry picked specifically to prop up their weak claims. I almost busted a gut when the Gaiaistas were screeching about islands disappearing in Bangaldesh! Bangaldesh is a freaking DELTA! Islands appear and disappear in deltatic formations all the time-it is NATURAL for them to do so. The Gaiaists also like to whip out their “hockey stick graphs” that cover a span of time that is equivalent to a blink of an eye in the life of the earth. Want a real graph of the temperature fluctuations over time? http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg You will note that in this simple graph three things. 1. The average temperature of the earth fluctuates. 2. The earth tends to be alot warmer then what we consider “normal” and certainly alot warmer then the Gaiastsas think. 3. For those who have any knowledge outside of the Gaiastas dogma will note that just about every major species “die off” has occured when the average temperature of the earth was cooler then the historical average.
I do have to laugh because the true believers in Rev. Gore are the same ones who deride, detest and claim to hate “religions”. Well, they sure have created one for themselves complete with holy scriptures, dogma, their own restricted diet that they must eat (Organic=kosher/halal), restrictions on clothing, etc. In fact they are reminding me alot of the Catholic Church back in the middle ages right about now. If you listen to the Gaiaists all of us who do not accept their “holy scriptures” and claim to believe in the Rev. Gore should be killed. They are so tolerant of dissent, aren’t they? The only thing I wonder is when they are all going to really practice what they preach. If they truly believe in what they say they do they need to start living it. That means going back to a 5th century agrarian existance in ALL that entails. That means no more cell phones, no more computers, no more ipods, no modern medicine, no food except what they can grow, no clothing except what they can make and no travel except by foot or horse just for starters. or they can make the ultimate sacrifice for Gaia and drink the grape koolaid and remove themselves and their “carbon footprint” off the earth. Of course we all know these hypocrites will never practice what they preach, including the biggest one of all Rev. Gore and his 20 million dollars of stock in OxyPete.
Why won’t you answer the question Artie? Scared? Afraid to be proven the hypocrit you are? Why no answer? Why won’t any of you in the “reality-based community” answer the fricking question?
Artie,
I thought about opening with “let me get this straight, pencil dick lefties,” but I thought better if it. Pencil dicks have enough problems without being insulted.
Anyway, WMDs existed and were found in Iraq–certainly not on the scale that was anticipated. And yes, global warming exists, as does global cooling–every 24 hours. AGW may or may not “exist.” No one knows.
That’s the point. No one knows.
Ice core samples and tree ring data consistently show that the earth has experienced numerous heating and cooling cycles.
Occam’s razor would lead us to believe that the current apparent warming trend is part of a natural cycle that has heated and cooled the planet since, well, since the planet existed.
Furthermore, the data indicates that much of the current heating took place before CO2 emissions significantly increased in the 20th century.
The issue is not whether the planet is warming. The issue is whether or not it is anthropogenic.
The evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
That is not to say would shouldn’t control emissions. As others have pointed out, coal and petroleum are too valuable as chemical feedstocks (though the enviros want to end the chemical industry as well – that’s the goal of chlorine controls) to use as fuel. Waste is waste. It’s expensive and creates a disposal problem.
We don’t even need more nuclear power plants – though they are certainly more environmentally benign than coal fired plants.
Right now we make enough electricity at night in the US that is unused and thus completely wasted to power all of our transportation needs.
Rather than Kyoto, I’d like to see the money spent on those protocols invested in battery technology.
Though even without subsidies, the power storage industry seems to be making significant gains.
Altair Nano has started delivering their nanotitanate based Lithium Ion battery packs to Phoenix Motorcars, a company that is marketing plug in electrics. Though the batteries are expensive, about $75K right now, they are in actual production and prices should fall. These batteries are safe, have great charging and discharging performance including at temperature extremes and can be recharged in 10 minutes with a 440V supply.
A123 uses nanophosphate technology and they’ve just established a partnership with Cobasys, a leading NiMH battery producer. Cobasys, itself a JV of Chevron and Energy Conversion Device, has been asked by General Motors to develop Lithium Ion batteries for use in plug in electrics.
Also, Eestor, a company developing an ultracapacitor battery alternative has announced success at producing the barium titanate dielectric used in their design at appropriate levels of purity.
If we switched to LED lighting (and, yeah, there are now pure white LEDs) and plug in electric cars we’d be much more energy efficient and cleaner.
Of course, there are environmental costs to batteries. That Lithium, barium, and titanium have to come from somewhere.
Since folks have discussed credentials, no I’m not a climate scientist. I did work in a scientific lab for DuPont for 21 years, including 6 years managing the lab’s waste streams, including haz waste. Besides my undergrad chemistry, bio and physics, I also have completed a third of the coursework for a masters in Haz Waste Mgmt.
“In the meantime, stay the course!”
This is the motto of the eco-chondriacs (coined by Mark Steyn). More hurricaines – it’s global warming. Less hurricaines – it’s global warming. Whatever weather event occurs – it’s global warming. I’ll know there’s a real global warming scare when our friends in Hollywood stop buying shore property and we see property values dive, and developers in Florida stop building houses because there’s no demand for a house that will be underwater within your children’s lifetimes. Follow the money.
“Yeah, well, a VW Jetta just sucks at pulling my trailer loaded with cattle to the market, Purple whatever.”
Yea, well…that other jackass’s Hybrid won’t do any of that either.
Your point?
I still see that no one has offered an explanation to my above questions.
Until those questions are answered, your “humans cause global warming” is nothing but a lot of hyperboloidal bullshit. The reason you “humans cause global warming” pimps don’t try to explain it, is because the explanation itself would fill your bullshit version full of holes.
Nuff said.
Bottom line: to say that several decades of shoddy data trumps millions of years of proven cyclical climate changes is absurdity on the highest order.
Is there a liberal or Lefty out there who will answer the question I’ve posed?
The single easiest, cost-free method of reducing carbon emissions is to stop the immigration of people from the Third World to the First World. These people use much less carbon in their home countries than they do in First World countries. At least for the next 20 years, we need to stop this movement of peoples, until we can get our carbon emissions down. Then perhaps we can revisit immigration policy.
My point, PA, is that I can’t use a VW Jetta. The people who can use them probably do as much as possible, but some of us have no use for them and never will. My GMC gets about 15 MPG, and I consider that to be quite adequate. You, on the other hand, might not think so, but you operate from ignorance as per what I need. If you can save, more power to you, and thanks.
Artie, Purple Avenger, AppleCunt, Oregonian, yyy, LOL, where are you? Answer the question. Respond. Show me your REAL concern for the World. Don’t show yourselves to be unconcerned, and hypocrits.
Typical commie libs.
The silence is deafening …
Why would anyone answer some flat-earth right-wing tool that repeatedly misspells the plural for ‘hypocrite’? Its easy to see why you idiots voted for Bush – twice. You can relate to idiocy. Moron…
“every subsequent analysis showed that he would have won the presidency if all the votes in Florida had been correctly counted” writ Oregonian
Oregonian, as someone else noted, is simply not in touch with reality.
Google it, dogpile it, ask it …. Didn’t your momma raise you you not to lie?
Again, typical commie lib. Can’t answer the question, so divert the topic and resort to name calling.
You’ve been intellectually owned and now you scream at your monitor and bellow low-brow names. Amusing and predictable.
Crickets are chirping …
What is the evidence that the current warming is anthropogenic when all the other hundreds of warmings and coolings took place before people started burning fossil fuel?
You won’t answer the question, because you really don’t care about the Earth, Artie. Doesn’t matter how you spell the word, Artie, you exemplify it.
It has now been proven that the Lefties really don’t care about the Earth at all. It’s all about politics to them. Redistribution of wealth schemes and socialist doctrine is what this is all about, and we shouldn’t be fooled by the rhetoric.
You lose, again, Artie, but I’m sure you’re used to it.
We need to fight them tooth and nail, expose them for what they are, and truth and right will prevail. I love it.
I’m agnostic on the global warming issue.
Apparently the insurance industry is worried:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/money/10835876/detail.html
BOSTON — The devastation of Hurricane Katrina and the growing concerns about global warming are having a life-changing impact on coastal communities in Massachusetts.
NewsCenter 5′s Amalia Barreda reported Wednesday that home insurance companies are pulling policies, saying places such as Cape Cod are too high of a risk.
Built in 1840, the Aschettinos’ house in Eastham, Mass., has withstood many storms.
(snip)
It is a similar story up and down the East Coast, with homeowner insurance rates skyrocketing 20 to 100 percent and with insurance companies abruptly canceling policies where homeowners never put in a claim.
Hingham Mutual said it sent nonrenewal letters to 9,000 Cape Cod homeowners considered to have high-risk properties. The company claims premiums on its own insurance, called reinsurance, have gone up 40 to 70 percent.
A spokesman said, “It’s very discouraging to pull out of that area. We’re only doing it because of the economics.”
The economics are rooted in models projecting the cape is due for a devastating hurricane — models the Aschettinos don’t trust.
“Those (models) are paid for by who? The insurance companies, so I question the results,” Paula Aschettino said.
You cons seem to forget that all you seem to be good at is losing wars and elections. And to the redneck talking about ‘commie libs’ – you are pathetic. A sad old caricature. What exactly does that mean? Stay the course, brave heros!!
Jonathan:
The insurance industry has a great advantage. They insure dopes against nonexistent risks–for cash.
For example, you might have insured against y2k. Bet you did. Have you paid your meteor premium?
Do you think they over or undersestimate the risk?
Artie, why will you not answer a simple question? Sure, I may be pathetic, but at least I’m willing to carry on an intelligent conversation. You can’t even answer a simple question.
Again, what caused the earth to warm up in the past?
Why is that you “stay the course” with personal attacks rather than answer the question? I’m thinking that it’s because personal attacks is all you have.
Until you engage in simple intellectual debate, you lack credibility and relevance.
We seem to be pretty good at kicking your ass in a debate, Artie, and proving you to be nothing more than hot air. If you were truly concerned about global warming, you would take the obvious steps, the easy steps, the ones that quickly make the greatest difference.
lol gotta love the triumphalism of the right
so stupid they don’t even realize it
Yeah, then answer the quesiton, LOL. If you refuse to answer the question, then what are we to think? What would an uninterested observer think? You know the answer, LOL, you’re posturing and looking like the fool you are.
yyy said, with sarcasm dripping from every syllable: “We all know that scientists and scientific organizations have a long history of making outragious predictions and going off on political tangets.”
Well, let’s see. DDT, alar, silicon implants, global cooling, Y2K, population explosion…no, no history at all. Idiot.
yyy then averred: “So, when industry resists global warming because it’s going to ‘hurt the economy’ and ‘hurt American competitiveness” I am skeptical. I’ve heard it before and found that it usually is a bit polyanish shall we say.”
The word is “pollyannaish”, and it means the exact opposite of what you want it to mean. Moron. Forgive me if the “skepticism” of such a retard as yourself fails to ease my mind as to the effects of shackling American industry over the latest fad chicken little hysteria of the day.
“(Bush) has done diddly squat to address it other than calling for more studies and whining”
At least he hasn’t been touring the country in his private jet telling everyone to quit using private jets, like Al Gore has been doing.
“It has now been proven that the Lefties really don’t care about the Earth at all. It’s all about politics to them.”
Totally. When I went hiking through Joyce Kilmer National Park this summer, I wasn’t really awed by the sheer primordial size of the trees that have outlasted empires, or regretful that earlier Americans were so shortsighted. I was just plotting to end capitalism.
You caught me. Damn…
Then why won’t you and the rest of the liberals on this thread answer the question, scar? The absolute easiest way to immediately cut carbon emissions in the US, and in the World at large, would be for the US and the rest of the First World to deport all illegal aliens, and then refuse to take any immigration from the Third World to the First World for the next 20 years. Carbon emissions would start to drop immediately, as these people would not use even half the carbon in their native countries that they do in the US and the West.
If you are convinced that the World is truly in the danger you say, you would do this, because it will quickly reduce carbon emissions, and buy us time to make progress on other issues. The World is at stake, you say, so surely you are willing to do this one thing that all of us can get behind.
I’m willing to bet my education in climatology, meteorology, and geology is equal to or greater than all the “global warming” crowd commenting here. I state this only because you seem to always call those who disagree with you “uneducated”. You ignore reality. The picture, as it is currently being used, pretends to show the poor Polar Bears trapped on a melted ice flow because of global warming. Polar bears can, of course, swim great distances and are not trapped at all.
The earth has warmed and cooled from the time it formed. It has been much hotter and much cooler than we currently find it. There have been much hotter periods, hotter even than the current projections, all without any influence from man since he was not yet an inhabitant. If the data regarding recent temperature increases is reliable (an uncertainty itself), to extrapolate this to century long predictions is simply not possible given the capability we currently have. In terms of geologic time, it is much like predicting severe flooding and a world underwater because it has been raining three straight days. Those of us with a rational view understand that it just might quit raining soon enough. Does man have an impact on the global temperature? Of course, just as worms, birds, bears, volcanoes, meteors, comets, and the SUN do. As an undergrad, back in the 70’s, the same groups were predicting global cooling, I.E., the next ice age. I have no more faith in these silly predictions now than I did then. There not based on science, they simply use the science that can be melded to fit their view. This view is politically motivated and designed to produce political power and money for the promoters.
If you wish to reduce mans contribution to co2 (what little part it is) then support nuclear power production rather than trying to force me to comply with whatever your desires are.
Just to toss another fact into the fire….
China will exceed the US in CO2 emissions by 2009.
“Why should I doubt the scientific community that has been studying this in earnest for two decades”
Because they get paid to study it. If there is no global warming the grants to study it disappear. People respond to incentives.
You’d think the liberal morons who hang around here would actually make a point sometimes. Maybe advance a piece of contrary evidence, or debunk something Dan’s written. No joy there, of course. Just snarky, self-congratulatory bullshit, as usual, not unlike their larger worldview.
Global warming on Earth is real.
So is global warming on Mars.
I wonder what the connection might be?
A Geologist Looks At Global Warming
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/12/geologist-looks-at-global-warming.html
What is the proper temperature for the Earth?
The proper amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Who decides?
Dan
Rush just mentioned this post.
Are we saying libs lie and mislead?
Say it ain’t true?!?
Rush just mentioned this post.
Cool – thanks, John.
I live here in Tennessee about 20 miles from Al GOres place. I bet he is rightly pissed about having to shovel the driveway today during this DEADLY COLD WINTER!!! Tell those in Colorado, the midwest, upstate new york, and New Egland about GLOBAL WARMING right now, and you might get lynched
At some point Global Warming fright will Jump the Shark. Posts like this delay that. Okay, so the iceberg melts due to warm WATER instead of warm AIR? So what.
I cant believe the arrogance of people who think they can change the climate.
We have the data that shows the earth warms then cools, I’TS ROUND!
“Folks, the global warming movement, if you’ll open yours eyes, allows you to see virtually every means, theory, and desire liberalism has for humanity. Just open your eyes and look at it and forget science. It’s not about that.” Rush Quote
If either side is interested in a review of both sides of this debate in a respected, peer reviewed journal, I refer you to the above link. As the abstract states: “A review of the present status of the global warming science is presented in this paper.”
Just the facts. No hype. Judge for yourself.
The right wing hates science and facts for the simple reason that most times science and facts are not on their side. Most of what they believe and want is either contradicted by the facts or cannot be proven but must be taken on belief.
They’re convinced global warming is a made up “fact” to secure liberal world domination so of course they don’t want to hear what a bunch of scientists say or surveys or research data show or any “facts” at all.
Take it on faith, baby.
Looks like the link was to my user ID. Anyway, here’s the link to the refereed paper on climate change research: http://www.springerlink.com/content/g87327815xg2u1h2
I don’t see how most of this page has anything to do with the post. Nice how you couldn’t keep yourselves from attacking each other or Dan and using phrases like ‘flat-earth redneck’. Whether ‘global-warming’ exists or not, or whether it can be proven or not, the point was that its come to the point of mis-quoting and stealing just to get an opinion across. Thats all it is, an opinion. It doesn’t matter how many people share it, that doesn’t make it true. You can take that from either side of your opinions. I wont say which side I belong to.
I am still waiting for the Ice Age predicted by all of the “experts” in the 1970s. Probably these “experts” solved this problem so that we missed the Ice Age entirely and have headed into global warming. Maybe we shouldn’t listen to experts and just try common sense. After I am shown clear evidence that the giant heating lamp in the sky (the sun) is not responsible for warming and cooling trends then I am prepared to listen to other theories. From what I have read the little research done on this shows that warming trends coorelate to sun spot activity. Duh.
I will state this once and only once.
“Many scientists agree that global warming is happening and changing out climate.”
THAT STATEMENT HOLDS NO SCIENTIFIC GROUND. none. nadda. zilch. Because? consensus does not exist in science. The global warming theory (yes, theory) cannot be tested and does not complete the scientific method. You can’t just “agree” that it’s happening without any real concrete evidence. also, computer models aren’t evidence. The models are built upon equations that are, in every sense of the word, useless. The different values in each equation are MADE UP because they don’t have any real numerical tested value to base them on.
NO CONSENSUS IN SCIENCE, it’s either tested and verfied or it’s nothing but a bunch of harmless hot air (pun intended.)
As usual, it’s brilliant, Dan. I noticed this the other day when Newsbusters linked to it and was too tied up on the Libby case to comment then.More great investigative journalism and more kudos to you.
That’s funny, I thought the scientific consensus was that women should get yearly mamograms after age 50, that tobacco use has a causal relationship to lung cancer and that a glass of red wine a day is good for your health.
I am glad to know now that nothing that doesn’t include 100% of all scientists on the planet in 100% agreement counts as a consensus and that any kind of ‘theory’ or ‘computer modeling’ is pure voodoo.
I wonder how we managed to make it to the moon on those wacky computer simulation models and so forth. Oh wait, I forgot, there is no scientific consensus that we did land on the moon, there are several scientists who dispute that it happened, therefore, it may not have happened. Got it.
You flat earthers get dumber every day. But let me be clear, not all rednecks are flat earthers, in fact it may be possible that some of the twenty eight percenters are not flat eathers, but on that there is no consensus.
The same people who are screaming that the earth is warming and we’re all gonna die were the same people who, back in the 70′s, were screaming that the earth is COOLING OFF and we were all gonna die.
As other people pointed out – the earth heats up. The earth cools off. This planet has at times been hotter than it is now, or colder than it is now. We have had Ice Ages that covered most of North America in glaciers, and warm periods that allowed people to farm in Greenland, a landmass currently covered in snow.
Point all of this out, and the Leftists disappear. Hmmmm. Amazing. Pull out a few facts, and the Left scatters like cockroaches from light. But they still come back to scream “BELIEVE! REPENT, OR YOU WILL DIE!” Environmentalism has become the new religion of the Left, and in their world, all non-believers shall be punished!
Your point is irrelevant. What does the fact that the Earth has cooled or warmed in the past have to do with what is causing this warming?
I understand you want to say that since the earth has warmed and cooled in the past indepedent of man’s activities or even existance that means global warming is natural and not manmade at this point in time.
Except the science doesn’t back you up, the scientific evidence supports the idea that this warming period is being caused in large part by man’s activities.
Straw man, straw man….nothing new.
I love the idea that sun spots are causing global warming though….too funny.
For those that use the “Scientists predicted global cooling, and they were wrong, so why should we believe global warming is real” approach to debunking climate change, please review the following article about the validity of that false argument:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
Allow me to elaborate. Obviously some didn’t get the gist the first time around.
Allow me to use an example : The Drake Equation – N=Nxfp ne fl fi fc fL The drake equation was built upon an old old group that sent a signal out in to space to see if there was life on other planets. A signal came back (which actually turned out to be a fake.) and the scientific community was astounded. Then…the drake equation was born.
The equation works like this: N = numer of stars in milky way, fp is the fraction with planets, ne is the number of planets within the range of a star that could possibly support life, fl, fi, fc, and fl are all relative to the planets in which life evolves, becomes intelligent, or if that intelligent civilization communicates.
So, they used this equation to try and come to the answer of “are we alone?” well, guess what. The values in the equation can’t be known. They can’t EVER be known because it involves something that cant be estimated or gathered. Therefore….the values are just guesses. When putting that in to computer model you get an answer that either comes to trillions or nothing.
The same goes with the computer models with global warming. They have a similar equation and despite that the scientists cannot truely come to any concrete value on what to input they just “guess” what could happen and put that in to a computer model. It’s all just speculation…a big political magic trick that has duped alot of people.
If you can’t believe the weather man who tries to predict the weather 5 days in advance (and most times than not, gets it wrong) then how can you believe people who are predicting 100, 200, or even 500 years in to the future? Truth is…you shouldn’t.
I can assure you that global warming will eventually happen… when our sun starts to run out of fuel and turns into a red giant burning our little planet to a crisp
Again, I’ll ask the question that “humans cause global warming” pimps refuses to answer.
What caused the several global warming events throughout earth’s history?
As far as the silly question; “What does the fact that the Earth has cooled or warmed in the past have to do with what is causing this warming?”
It’s bad science to take several decades of data and attempt to use it to trump data that goes back tens of thousands of years.
Again, will someone please answer the above question?
still consensus has nothing to do with science. even if 100% agreed, it would not make it true unless it was tested and verified.
Also, turning your back on the idea of “sun causes global warming” will only make you (the scrutinous) look REALLY REALLY stupid in the end.
Why? because the sun is the source of our heat. THE SOURCE OF IT. It grows and shrinks depending on the amount of hydrogen it is burning…and yes…that amount actually fluctuates. I mean….how can you say the SUN isnt involved in the warming of our planet when it is responsible for….WARMING OUR PLANET.
Sometimes the easiest answer is the right one.
Thanks for proving my point, numbskull. The people currently screeching about global warming cannot explain why the Atlantic Ocean has hot/cool cycles of 30-50 years. You can’t explain to me why El Niño shows up. You can’t even explain what caused the Ice Age to end, nor what caused the “Little Ice Age” or what ended it. You have no explination for the cyclic events in this planets heating or cooling cycles, and what’s more, YOU DON’T WANT ANY. Because actual scientific evaluation would be the ruin of your Church of the all-might Global Warming Theory. The fact that you actually do not accept the earth’s hot/cool cycles into the global warming debate tells me that you’re just another worthless kool-aid guzzing eco-freak, to whom facts are as uselss as real debate.
People here on this thread, much more educated in these things than you or I, have given you more than enough information to prove that the people blaming mankind in it’s entirety for global warming are full of crap. And yet you persist in your eco-religious frenzy to demonize anyone who disagrees with you. “Scientific evidence”, hand cherry-picked by people like you, doesn’t prove anything but that the earth is warming. Yes, fine, nobody disputes that. What we dispute is your religious insistance that mankind is to blame for everything, and we’re all gonna die unless we change our ways. I say bullshit. More to the point, people like you KNOW it’s bullshit, because you haven’t taken a single real step to do anything about it other than castigate those of us who know you’re full of crap.
It’s all well and good for algore to talk about global warming when he’s riding around in a private jet that puts out more greenhouse gasses in one flight than my truck does in a year, because he’s leading the religious revolution, followed by preachy nutjobs like you. Maybe when you crackpots actually do what you keep telling everyone else to do, we’ll begin to take you seriously. Stop flying. Stop using air conditioning, which sucks up more electricity than almost any other appliance in the house. For that matter, stop using electricity, most of which is created by coal or oil. Stop driving. Practice what you preach, or shut the hell up, because it’s hard for the grown-ups to deal with reality when children like you are screaming so damn loud all the time.
For those who are wondering, my comment was meant for yyy, not for anyone who responded after him.
What I want to know is how we were able to infiltrate every relevant scientific body on the planet with our ‘global warming religion’ to the point of getting all of these hundreds of thousands of scientists brainwashsed and writing papers and making statements on behalf of their members, doing research, and we can’t even keep a flat earther war monger out of the White House??
We liberal moonbats are soo smart we brainwashed all the scientists around the world but we can’t control a bunch of red state idiots in our own country?
Well yeah, that sounds about right, just like it is about par for the course that the reaction to anyone who agrees with what the science says should be told to give up electricity.
You probably worry about the unborn too, doncha?
Actually, i’ll answer this one. Listen up YYY
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
That determines ALOT of outcomes in ALOT of scientific studies. Many of these scientists gain their grants from the UN, the Socialist leftist movement, the enviromental movement, and other “international interest groups” that may send a nice fat check their way. It’s not a conspiracy theory to think money doesnt turn some opinions…it’s fact.
You find me a scientists that actually did these tests and came to certain findings with REAL evidence and did so without a biased benefactor….THEN i’ll believe you. Problem is…the scientists that actually DO go out to break the consensus come to the conclusion that man is NOT responsible.
As for the unborn? That depends….the non-existent? no…not to worried about them, but those lives just beginning in the womb? Yeah.
Look moron, when the founder of Greenpeace disavows his own organization because it’s filled with religious eco-freaks like you, you know you have a problem.
The evidence to dispute your pet theory is out there, you just choose not to accept it, much like you choose not to believe that the earth heats and cools on it’s own cycles. There have been plenty of URL’s given on this thread that you haven’t even bothered to deal with, as well as the questions of other people that you haven’t bothered to answer. The reason for this is simple – global warming is your religion. Any science that disputes your religion is heresy, and thus ignored. Your mind is made up, and you won’t change it. Fine, that’s your choice, but don’t be surprised when we point at you and laugh. Seriously, you disregard the millenia of evidence regarding heating and cooling cycles because it disputes what you believe. Why should we listen to you on anything else?
Have fun peddling your pet theory, idiot. I’m done with you. You’re like a wild-haired lunatic on a street corner screeching that the End is Near, and Jesus is coming back soon. You’re fun to poke at for a little while, but in the end, you’re just a boring, deluded twit.
ApplePie and yyy
I see you don’t want to answer the question: What caused the several global warming events throughout earth’s history?
Until you answer that question, you’re pointless and irrelevant.
I’ll make a bold prediction; you won’t answer the question. Instead, you will continue your attempts at diversion and personal attacks.
Oh, and I’ll just toss this out to everyone because I’m a “flat-earther dumb redneck hick redstater blah blah blah yada yada”
Let’s see, if the ocean rises a couple of hundred feet, that means we don’t have to worry anymore about Berkeley, LA, San Francisco, New York, or any of the other Liberal meccas. They’ll be underwater. So I’m supposed to care?
Lemme fire up my coal stove and rev up my truck! HEAT UP, BABY! HEAT UP!
Now even though I dedicate my time to debunking global warming and it’s obvious logical fallicy. I am not anti-enviroment. The best thing a person could do is replant trees.
) isn’t going to help the enviroment like some will preach. Not only is it non-impacting…it’s economically absurd. That is equivical to screaming “Screw your jobs or your livelyhood! We’re saving the planet!….even though we don’t have any evidence that says what were doing actually IMPACTS ANYTHING!”
Driving electric cars, using corn as gas, stop making SUV’s, converting urine in to electricity (I made up that last one
Do we need to stop driving SUV’s to help the enviroment? no…thats not practical. However, replanting trees and trying to implement a “paper farm” system IS economically acceptable and enviromentally friendly. Also, whatever happened to freakin recycling?
Fifteen years from now they’ll be back on their “Global Cooling” lies again and telling us that we’ll all have to move to the equator to escape the ice and snow.
http://www.cafenetamerica.com
“I wonder how we managed to make it to the moon on those wacky computer simulation models and so forth.”
Way to play the false analogy. The “computer simulations” used to get us to the moon were very simple calculations using deterministic physics. The simulations that are used for global warming are much like the simulations used for weather forecasting. They simulate a chaotic system with thousands of input variables. Many of these inputs have no data and are just “best guesses” while many more factors that affect the system are simply not included. Beyond this, we have very little understanding of the actual interactions between these variables. If someone sets out to create a model to prove man-made global warming, they begin with the premise that CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gasses have a significant effect on global temperatures and program that effect into their model. The trouble with these (or any other) models of global climate is that they do not accurately simulate historical data. We can essentially test the simulation by starting it with data from fifty years ago and seeing if it ends up at today’s conditions. All of the models we have been able to come up with rapidly diverge from actual data when this is done.
There are three steps to any scientific discovery: form a hypothesis, gather data that supports the hypothesis, then prove your hypothesis. The global warming crowd stopped at step two, and for good reason: their hypothesis that man-made greenhouse gasses are causing global warming is not easily testable. There is plenty of data that supports the hypothesis. We can point to increasing global temperatures and increasing CO2 levels that correlate to each other. Of course, for a short period of time, I can also correlate my increasing height to increasing global temperatures. This doesn’t mean I’m going to chop my legs off at the knee to stop global warming.
Are these GW idiots ignoring the POINT OF THE STORY – which, as I saw it, was how far the global warming fear mongerers will go? To use someone else’s photo, manipulate the setting, tell people it’s a crumbling glacier. In other words, they have no quelms about lying to convince people they’re right.
To answer the Raging Patriot’s question -it’s the SUN. Yes, the sun. You know, that big star that makes life on earth possible. More concrete research based on actual historical data (rather than speculation) points to increases in solar activity correlating with warming of our planet. Makes sense, eh? Since the cave men weren’t driving SUVs or anything to bring us out of that first ice age…
I am kind of worried. If conservatives are a dying breed, and global warming is sure to cause 50 – 90 % extinction, won’t that mean that conservatives will regain some of their population hold again, since 50- 90 % extinction is going to drastically affect the environmentally aware majority?
I kind of like that idea… I’m gonna go get my lighter.
Sure, ice on the polar caps and Greenland is melting. What that shows is it is warmer NOW than when the ICE WAS CREATED, during the Ice Age. Okay, so it’s warmer now than during the Ice Age. We know that. It takes many many years for the polar caps to catch up to a new average global temperature. How much ice disappeared between the Ice Age and 1800, and how long did that take?
Imagine how glaciers are created. Each year more snow falls than melts, causing the glacier to grow slowly. During a warm period, more melts than falls, and the glacier shrinks slowly over many years, not instantly.
I don’t dispute global warming. The hype, exaggeration, and claims of environmental armageddon are way over the top. Global warming is used for political reasons to get liberals elected everywhere, to implement all their other (non environment) crazy socialist schemes.
So if Liberal theory is correct, the earth will warm, and we will die.
Heard this before…but 180 degrees (no pun intended) different. I’m thinking 1975…Newsweek
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
30+ years ago they were calling it global cooling…now warming. How can anyone believe someone who follows scientist that reverse themselves? Oh wait, they voted for John Flip-flop Kerry.
***read the 3rd paragraph… sounds like Comedy Central wrote this for Weedend Update!
I work for an electrical utility. The “group” most concerned with purporting climate change had their big pow-wow on why America is most responsible for global warming… on THE coldest Jan. 26th in ******’s history (not naming my hometown, but a BIG city).
Now THAT was hilarious!
If you can predict the earths destruction 50…100 years from now, show me all the gradients of data that point to it. I’m hearing #’s tossed around like an auction, but no actual forecast. They have a 10-day forecast so where’s the 50-year, 100-year forecast?
So if Liberal theory is correct, the earth will warm, and we will die.
Heard this before…but 180 degrees (no pun intended) different. I’m thinking 1975…Newsweek
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
30+ years ago they were calling it global cooling…now warming. How can anyone believe someone who follows scientist that reverse themselves? Oh wait, they voted for John Flip-flop Kerry.
***read the 3rd paragraph… sounds like Comedy Central wrote this for Weedend Update!
I work for an electrical utility. The “group” most concerned with purporting climate change had their big pow-wow on why America is most responsible for global warming… on THE coldest Jan. 26th in ******’s history (not naming my hometown, but a BIG city).
Now THAT was hilarious!
If you can predict the earths destruction 50…100 years from now, show me all the gradients of data that point to it. I’m hearing #’s tossed around like an auction, but no actual forecast. They have a 10-day forecast so where’s the 50-year, 100-year forecast?
So if Liberal theory is correct, the earth will warm, and we will die.
Heard this before…but 180 degrees (no pun intended) different. I’m thinking 1975…Newsweek
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
30+ years ago they were calling it global cooling…now warming. How can anyone believe someone who follows scientist that reverse themselves? Oh wait, they voted for John Flip-flop Kerry.
***read the 3rd paragraph… sounds like Comedy Central wrote this for Weedend Update!
I work for an electrical utility. The “group” most concerned with purporting climate change had their big pow-wow on why America is most responsible for global warming… on THE coldest Jan. 26th in ******’s history (not naming my hometown, but a BIG city).
Now THAT was hilarious!
If you can predict the earths destruction 50…100 years from now, show me all the gradients of data that point to it. I’m hearing #’s tossed around like an auction, but no actual forecast. They have a 10-day forecast so where’s the 50-year, 100-year forecast?
Notice how the commie libs suddenly disappear when posed with a simple question?
A few posts back, I asked a question and made a prediction.
The question was: What caused the several global warming events throughout earth’s history?
The prediction: You (commie libs) won’t answer the question. Instead, you will continue your attempts at diversion and personal attacks.
The first part of my prediction has proven itself out, and I’m still waiting for an answer to the question.
I’m not holding my breath.
Read this and then lets play a little game……
“The right wing hates science and facts for the simple reason that most times science and facts are not on their side. Most of what they believe and want is either contradicted by the facts or cannot be proven but must be taken on belief.”
-yyy
Ok, lets get started. Go back and read all of yyy’s posts. Lets see how many hard facts you can find. He has lots of cute names to call people, and we all know by now that he/she is smarter than the rest of us. He has made that clear after his 800 worthless posts. Oh, I guess I gave the answer away. I read all of his posts and there was not a single hard fact. Now yyy, before you start saying that I have presented no fact either lets do a little comparison. You presented exactly ZERO facts. That is a fact.
Me – 1
You – 0
global warming is evident in Florida, When I was younger there were acres of orange groves well north of Orlando. Now it is all either bare frozen trees or farm land. there is an occasional orange tree but not the acres of groves. West of Orlando you could stop on the top of a hill and see for miles and it was all groves with an occasional house. When the trees were in blossom it was one of the most inspiring times the beauty of green trees and the permiating smell of orange blossoms
global Feuding, please refer to the following URL that discusses the fact that a global ice age was not predicted in the 1970′s by Scientific Journals…now, the popular press is a different story: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
Actually! Some parts of the ice in Greenland is thickening instead of melting. Same with the ice floes of Antarctica! Which didn’t used to be covered in ice or snow not to long ago (if you could say that 8000 years ago wasn’t that long ago, but I think Greenland was actually warmer about 1500 years ago.) The coastal region (known as the Queen Maud Land) was apparently ice-free about 6000BC.
The warming just comes in waves. I think in a few decades it will be getting colder and colder again….I’m pretty sure that at one time the oceans were WAY WAY deeper than they are now considering that you can go to just about any mountain range and find petrified remains of sea-crawling animals many many many feet above sea level. Scientists kinda forget that part.
This is in response to William Brannan.
The orange groves were still there in florida up until about a decade ago but were not wiped out due to Global warming. The death of the orange groves of florida were cause by Blight. There was a huge news story about it near the end of the 1990′s.
I am trying to increase global warming in everything I do. I keep a fire burning in my fireplace all summer long. As long as I keep my air conditioner on full blast, it is actually very cozy! Oak makes the best fire. I removed the catalytic converter from my SUV, so that I get more raw power out of it. I am hoping that my contribution will free up some valuable farm land in northern Canada and Siberia, perhaps even in Antarctica. There are a lot of starving people in Africa and many other 3rd world countries and I am sure they would love to lease some of that land to grow corn and wheat. I for one hate winter and if the global warming alarmists are right (I sure hope they are) because my goal is to put a cap in Jack Frost’s ass in my lifetime, so I never have to see him again!
Wow, So Dan Crosbie plagiarized Amber Byrd’s photo AND, lied about the setting, as part of his leftist agenda about the balony of human caused global warming ! I bet AlGore-Zowie wished that he had thought of that chicanery. He could have had yet another Lib Lie in his Whacko-Crock Movie ! He must have been preoccupied with RE-INVENTING the Internet or something ! Takes something worse than a NimNull to believe these Moonbats!
To the Raging patriot,
I don’t think Artie wants to answer you, so let me. The ice age melted when all those Industries built their pollution driven plants back then, and also my 4 SUV’s that I hot rodded around in helped to get rid of the ice.
Jason…your post gave me a good chuckle. Thank you; however, here are a few links of those organizations believing that anthropogenic global warming is real (courtesy Coby Beck of illconsidered.blogspot.com):
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
Additional links:
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
This orange grove evidence is some of the best. (most funny) With all the landscaping, loans, irrigation, labor and tractor stuff involved with farming, it is nearly voluntary where different crops are grown. Okay so they tear down an orange or avocado grove to build a mall or subdivision and that proves… you can’t grow oranges or avocados there anymore! Maybe it proves the farmer is an idiot or doesn’t want to pay for state of the art equipment like all the other groves. This global warming stuff will have jumped the shark before the next election.
If humans are causing global warming then how are we also causing Mars to warm up. Maybe there is more to it than the news media is publishing. The sun’s output is just a fraction more now than it was 40 years ago.
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/CO2_Science_rel/malin_etal.html
Crow, that’s comparing apples to oranges. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/
yyy is really Heidi Cullen on crack.
Nice work dumb-ass! Stop trying to take my glory.
Now go back to licking your favorite professors ass.
DJ,
Also, lets not forget the Neanderthal cave paintings showing SUV’s as a preferred means of chasing down those mammoths.
The earth has had numerous climate changes. I do not put credence in the current models since they have often been wrong. I can program a model to so what ever I want for the result. They fail to take in the myriad factors of climate change.
Here is a link about observable evidence of climate change. It may educate you.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279c.html
Thank you Lynn, I too have read the article; here’s information on the other side of the article… http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/
Newsflash – Hawaii recorded today that they have reached a record low. I believe it was 54 degrees today on Kahalui or something like that. Also, it was so cold today in chicago that they had to move the polar dip benefit for the special olympics for the first time since it’s been done. I think in it’s 8 years of jumping in to lake michigan on this day…they just jumped in a pool behind a bar instead
Oh, and my town got snow for the first time in the last 13 years. Thirteen years….thats a LONG time without snow and -I- live next to a mountain.
Michael, it really doesn’t matter to me what anyone believes. I am not on the faith train with the anthropogenic global warming cultists. I honestly, really do hope they are right though. I believe global warming is a good thing. Who’s idea was it to make the decision for everyone else that we have to consider it a bad thing? None of the sites that you posted revealed anything other than speculation. The common term that seems to keep cropping up is “Consensus.” I didn’t know consensus could be used in determining scientific fact. I thought the scientific method needed to be employed. I guess if the majority of the scientific community simply consedes that the Earth is the center of the universe, then it must be so. If enough of these so-called scientists would simply concede that nuclear weapons won’t work, maybe there would be no need for nuclear non-proliferation. What is unanimously missing in these sites that you gave links to is evidence which proves any hypothesis. I may join in on the consensus band wagon if any two Global Warming conspiracy nuts could give the same numbers. It depends on which article you read as to whether or not we have 10 years, 100 years, or 1000 years before we’re all doomed. There doens’t seem to be any consensus on how many degrees per year the temperature is expected to rise, how many feet the sea level will rise, or ANY factual evidentiary detail. Speculation is all I read. Trillions of dollars get dumped into research for the global warming threat only because it is portrayed as a threat. There are climatologists who are spending their entire careers living off grants to study global warming. When the scientific method is not even applied, I can’t even rate global warming as “junk” science. Junk is right, but science, not even close. Global Warming, as a political platform, is nothing more than an attempt to control our lives and to redistribute wealth from our country (which I love) to others in the world who want no more than to live on the welfare of wealthier nations. I have news for everyone out there. I am American and I am on America’s side. I don’t feel the need to redistribute any of my wealth to some small banana republic with a dictator. And just to be clear, I am absolutely all for global warming. No one has convinced me that it would be a bad thing. Our earth has been much hotter than it is now in the past and far more fertile during those periods.
Jason
The key political problem with proposing global warming as the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it, is that the world doesn’t end.
End of the world has to be something like a big meteor strike, tsunamis, total thermonuclear war, bird flu pandemic, the yellowstone super volcano erupting, etc.
Telling people, who already move to disgusting hot places like Florida and Arizona, that things might get a few degrees warmer in a hundred years is just not in the same ball park.
The scientific issues in global warming pit computer modelers against experimental scientists. As the saying goes, “there is no difference in theory between theory and practice, but in practice there is.” The computer geeks are completely confident that all the uncertainties, variances, errors, assumptions, random events, simplifications, and unknowns in climate equal +5 F by 2100. (I don’t know how they got the 2006 hurricane season predictions so wrong, that should have been easy by comparison.)
The main problem is that an “average global temperature” measured to an accuracy and precision of 0.1 C going back 100,000 years simply does not exist. Satellite measurements of global temp only go back 25 years, are very noisy, and show little discernable trend either way. Sketchy instrumental surface records go back 150 years, but no one claims they are a good sample of avg global temperature. Geological and anectodal evidence points to warming out of an extensive glaciation 20,000 years ago, and more recently, warming out of a little ice age. (So even the oft quoted 0.6 C rise over the last 100 years is suspect.)
What you are left with is that temperature hasn’t changed much in the last 25 years, it has been warmer and cooler in the past, and current climate changes are within normal variance for the earth. And coincidentally, fossil fuels are burned, volcanos erupt, people multiply, cities get warmer, sun spots come and go, the earth’s axis precesses, and one tsumani can kill 300,000 people in a moment.
This issue has, to the delight of business, backed environmental activists into a corner. The only proven technology available now to generate large amounts of power without carbon emissions is nuclear. Either the environmental activists embrace nuclear, or apparently global warming isn’t quite the end of the world as they now claim.
In short, fossil fuels are bad, business now “demands action”, the only immediate solution is nuclear, and this option gets the US off the dime about a real nat’l security issue of reliance on foreign oil.
Any questions?
Want to worry about global cooling due to lower solar output? Here are some Russians and Brits to help:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/01/global-cooling.html
Global Cooling
Jason | Monday, February 05, 2007 at 08:45 PM,
Do you really know what the consesus of the global warming modelers is?
Consesus of the global warming modelers: If the gravy train stops we are going to have to get real jobs.
michael | Monday, February 05, 2007 at 07:18 PM,
Warmer than it has been for millions of years? Probably more like hundreds of years. We have yet to fully return to the Medieval Optimum temperatures.
BTW what is the optimum global temperature? Who controls the thermostat? What is being done to prevent ice ages?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
yyy | Sunday, February 04, 2007 at 01:23 PM,
What is conservative about models that can’t predict the past let alone the future?
What is conservative about modelers who assign positive feedback to water vapor when it isn’t known if the feedback is positive (greehouse effect), negative (clouds), or neutral?
BTW water vapor is the greenhouse gas with the most effect.
TM Lutas | Sunday, February 04, 2007 at 03:11 PM,
Count me in. I’m a AGW skeptic.
“The only proven technology available now to generate large amounts of power without carbon emissions is nuclear. Either the environmental activists embrace nuclear, or apparently global warming isn’t quite the end of the world as they now claim.”
So you might think. Believe me, nuclear fission is beyond the pale for the tree-huggers. Even the new fusion reactor planned in France has drawn criticism from these people. Nuclear fusion will be cheap, clean, safe (the reaction simply stops if magnetic containment is lost) and nearly free of radioactive waste (about 20 tons of material once every 60 years – at a plant’s decommissioning). However, as you can see from the article below, Greenpeace will protest something simply for having the word “nuclear” in its description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
To quote the relevant piece from this article:
“Bridget Woodman of Greenpeace said ‘Pursuing nuclear fusion and the ITER project is madness. Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident.’ ‘Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy,’ said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. ‘Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today.’”
The last piece of this quote is very telling about the people at Greenpeace. We have a technology that has a chance to revolutionize power generation, eliminate massive amounts of CO2 emissions, stop nuclear weapons material proliferation, eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, and has no public safety issues. Obviously, the environment isn’t tops on Greenpeace’s list. They’re more worries about the money this will take away from their renewable energy pet projects, which show no promise of EVER being economically feasible for large scale power generation. This one quote encapsulates the true motives of the environmental movement, which is to ride the government gravy train for as long as possible.
The global warming issue is bogus! You can’t do science by consensus, that’s not science its just consensus. Here are some facts:
1. The polar icecaps on Mars are melting. That’s what was reported by the Mars Orbitor. Mars is 4 million miles further from the Sun than we are, do the math!
2. A scientist who studies the Antarctic Icecap notes that the cap is growing!
3. Does anybody stop to ask WHY Greenland is called Greenland??? Everyone seems to be so concerned that the icecap of Greenland is melting. Well, if anyone cared to stop and THINK they might discover that Greenland was so named by the Vikings who settled there over a thousand years ago. They didn’t seem to have a problem with the fact there was no ice…
Is there global warming? Maybe but if there is its due to the Sun not mankind.
Al Gore should leave climate science to the professionals and go back to his hipie beads and basket weaving.
Everyone should go read this article about warming and how the science is politicised.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0
then come back and explain why Mars has global warming without SUV’s
templar knight:
You obviously have a problem, not just about the environment but also people from 3rd world countries. From the way you talk you sound like an idiot. Illegal immigrants or refugees or whatever you call them are not the cause of the problem, it’s over consumption. That means people from the 3rd world or illegal aliens consume less than you because they have less money to spend.
Its people like you that make me hate Western people!
How a True Believing Scientist Conveys that Global Warming is all Nonsense
The best ever explanation of the global warming controversy is by Kerry Emanuel, a professor of meteorology at MIT that can be found at:
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
Although Kerry Emanuel claims to be a true believer in Global Warming, he carefully explains chaotic processes and why weather can’t be predicted even in theory, climate models don’t model clouds, clouds are the largest uncertainty in the models, etc. A search for “uncertain” found eleven instances in the article.
The money quote is below:
“Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank.”
Kerry Emanuel is not a moron, he knows the climate models are nonsense, points out that Senator Kennedy is a hypocrite about windfarms, and nuclear is the only immediate solution, but he can’t come out and say there is no global-warming-end-of-the-world as we know it, otherwise he will end up an outcast.
Anyone interested in “peer review” and how effective it is, see:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
the list is impressive. In particular, see the case of Jan Hendrik Schön at:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n
Science, Physical Review journals, and Nature all withdrew papers where he is listed as lead author.
Anyone remember global cooling in the `70s? How about all of those dire predictions after Katrina that 2006 would be the WORST HURRICANE SEASON EVER? How about here in the north east where, during the summer and autumn, all everyone heard about was the terrible winter that was coming? Heck, just Sunday, the weather channel said there`d be snow this Friday where I live. Today, they`ve revised the forcast to partly cloudy! Anyone see a patern here? Why are so many people so willing to trust everything they hear and treat it as if it has just come from the lips of God himself? If these scientists were attorneys or financial advisers, they`d have been run out of business long ago! How many times do they need to be absolutely wrong before people start to think for themselves? Oh yeah, by the way, anyone remember the story of chicken little?
There is a difference between weather (the temperature of one place at one time) and climate and climate change.
M.Simon,
“In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
Michael, you seem to be miising the point so I will try to explain it to you. The study of the weather IS the study of climate. The predicting of the weather IS the predicting of climate. The only difference between local weatherpersons and these scientists is the scale on which they work.
Yeah, Chicken Little was a cute movie
Wasn’t aliens behind that? heh heh…but I digress.
This is in response to DIANA! – I see that you think that overconsumption is the problem and that illegal immigrants are not. Well, there is a double edged sword in your statement. When you have more people running in to a space (uninvited and breaking the law) and those people start comsuming a certain product…it kinda starts to move towards OVERCONSUMPTION.
Example: You have a dinner for set out for 20 people. You have enough food for 30 just in case they bring friends. Well..what if after those 30 show up and then BAM! 30 people just barge in and start eating your food, drinking your drinks/water, and start crapping in your toilet and using your shower? All of a sudden….you dont have enough to feed all of them and now they are wasting all your utilities and have entered illegally.
ITS THE SAME THING.
If people > product then = overconsumption.
Some of these people need to stop coming or go back and use their own counties resources.
Hal Howell,
A couple of comments (in response to your facts):
1. apples to oranges: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/
2. If the shrinking of glaciers around the globe does not prove anything, how does one thickening sheet at the south pole prove global warming does not exist?
3. This is a myth; Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red who belived that one should give the land a good name so people would want to live there…remember, he was in exile. The land was never befitting of its name and the Vikings existence was a little harsh.
My point was that you cannot look outside today (or any one day for that matter) and draw a conclusion on climate change. The analysis needs to occur over a period of time.
Weather vs. Climate: http://weathereye.kgan.com/cadet/climate/climate_vs.html
Diana should visit one of these third world countries and take a look for herself. No trees. Very little or no clean water. You see, these countries do not have any government agencies like the EPA. They DEforest the land without being required to REforest the land. This is just one of many example where, I`m sorry to tell you Diana, these countries do overconsume.
Greenland, at one time, WAS devoid of it’s icey nature. In fact, many scientists and observers had found signs that the inhabitants years ago could actually grow types of fruit and had grape vineyards there.
I highly doubt that Erik the Red was a marketing genius, nor do I believe that he ran a medieval travel agency that named continents to make them more appealing to other people.
As for the Vikings….they LIVED harshly anyways. We’re talking about a group of guys who were settled in the norse beliefs and as men led tough, manly lives to reach the ever sought after Valhalla. I’m sure they would have disagreed with you in you saying their lifestyle is harsh. They knew nothing else but that lifestyle, so they wouldnt have known that, by our standards, they lived a hard life.
How long a period of time Mike? Only 25-30 years ago we were told we were going to freeze to death by now. Remember,concensus is not science. These theories about global warming have been neither proved nor disproved. So, until they can tell me what the weather will be like 3 days from now in Sheboygan with certainty, I`m not much interested in these predictions 20,30,50 years from now.
Bill, again, scientists did not predict we were going to freeze to death in the 70′s…that is an inaccurate statement.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
Mike, Idon`t know if you are old enough to remeber it or not but, yes, they did. The evening news often had stories of global cooling and the effects it would have over the coming years. It did not get the coverage global warming is getting because back then there was no CNN, MSNBC, FNC, etc. You only need to search newspaper headlines from the mid to late `70s to see for yourself. Look it up and then tell me who`s innacurate.
Her is a small clip from a simple GOOGLE search, Mike. Notice it states that as soon as the TRENDS in temps. changed, so did popular oppinion.
In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. The general public had little awareness about carbon dioxide’s effects: at the time garbage, chemical disposal, smog, particulate pollution, and acid rain were the focus of public concern, although Paul R. Ehrlich mentions climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968.[2] Not long after the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend stopped going down. Even by the early 1970s, there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide’s effects,[3] and it was known that both natural and man-made effects caused variations in global climate.
Here is a link to a great story on MSNBC, hardly a conservative news outlet, about the hysteria surrounding global cooling in the `70s.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/
By the way Mike, I just wanted to tell you, I`m not old enough to remember(BORN`76) these stories. I only know of them because I actually read and research things for myself in stead of following popular trends.
Non-anthropogenic carbon emissions:
Huge volcanos (like Krakatoa) belching up trillions of cubic meters of ash, carbon, and other “greenhouse gases”.
Undersea gas/geothermal vents.
Tons of animals farting everyday.
Tons of biomass dying and decaying (expressing methane gas as well).
Even at our industrial peak, non-anthropogenic CO2 emissions far outpaces anthropogenic.
As for Templar Knight’s suggestion concerning immigration – well…. Americans have an ecological footprint of about 22.4 acres of land needed to support the average American as opposed to a Sumatran Tribesman eking out a Luddite-Primitive existence on a mere 1.2 acres of land.
Therefore, the less useless bodies and illegal immigrants we have in this country using our resources, the smaller the footprint being used. His argument is sound.
Also, if the enviro-monnbats were to embrace fusion and advanced fission technology, and reject the NPT (because if the libs get thier way, the Middle East will be armed to the teeth with nukes by 2020) – we will have far more nukes than they do, and far more reliable power than they do.
Imagine a world where powerful SUVs roam the land – driven by hyper-efficient electric motors which plug into the nuclear grid…
Imagine a world where we learn to use our own resources more wisely, and no longer rely on the Mullahcracy for our energy lifeblood…
Imagine a world where liberals are free to continue thier hypocritical ranting about how it is unfair for us to have our McMansions, our McSUVs, and our McLives whilst the rest of the world lives in squalor…
Indeed!! If the libs are that put off by Western Civilization (as Diana claims to be) … why not pack off to some third or fourth world nation with your $150 North Face jackets, your Columbia fleeces and Abercrombie and Fitch sleeveless shirts (and don’t forget to pack the satelite TV so you can catch “Lost” and “Heroes” and “American Idol”, and your Starbucks Barrista machines to make your latte-frappa-mocca-chinos) whilest living in the bushes with the Hottentots?
Oh wait a sec! I almost forgot… Most of you libs are as much partakers of the American Way of Life as the rest of us. Or are you really fooling us, and indeed living as Comrade Mao did, or the other Marx Brothers of Socialism?
Wow! It got quiet in here all of a sudden.
Sorry Bill…had a meeting for work; there is a difference between what the drive-by media publishes or reports versus information published in scientific journals: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
Also, I too read and research articles from sources that present arguments for climate change and those against it.
Would these companies be considered enviro-moonbats as well?
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=envandsoc-en&FC2=/envandsoc-en/html/iwgen/key_issues_and_topics/global_environmental_issues/climate_change/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/envandsoc-en/html/iwgen/key_issues_and_topics/global_environmental_issues/climate_change/dir_climate_change_12042006.html
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9007616&contentId=7014482
scientists can be paid off as easily as the next politician. (grants)
what about the scientists that say global warming is bunk? what makes them so much less credible?
I agree Mike. However, most if not all of scientists publishings in the `70s concerned global cooling. Contrast that with today where everyone is concerned with global warming. Thanks for the link.
Here is an interesting read for everyone, regardless climate change views, on scepticism: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/how-to-be-a-real-sceptic/
i have a link for you mike…
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
I’m hoping global warming is real… my acreage here in Colorado will soon be ocean front property that I’ll be able to sell for obscene amounts of money to all the hollywood elite that contribute more than anybody else to global warming by having multiple houses, flying around in private jets, limos that I’m sure don’t get 40 mpg, etc., etc. … I’m not sure how I will spend all that money! Bring it on!!
cuz, well theres fossilized sea shell in sweetwater lake near glenwood springs here in colorado…so i think your chances ar good!
Muerte, thank you for the link; I will read it this afternoon.
no prob mike, i read your link….. pretty interesting
“My point was that you cannot look outside today (or any one day for that matter) and draw a conclusion on climate change. The analysis needs to occur over a period of time.”
Michael
The period of time you refer to, what is it? It is much longer than your lifetime. To detect a trend that will be with us for centuries will require centuries of reliable and understandable data. You remember, garbage in = garbage out. No matter how many links you provide to however many scientists (many on the GW gravy train) or to companies (it is a PC world inside these companies), the most important fact remains. We do not know why earths temperature goes up and down. We do not know what part CO2 plays in it. We can not predict the temperature of the earth in the future with any more accuracy than we can predict tomorrows temperature. You can study every single word written in support of and opposed to your position, and anyone that asserts the earth is warming or cooling or staying the same is lieing to you. No one knows. The consensus of liars does not change this. There are many many who know this and are afraid to speak out. There are many more who have no concern for the truth, only for their pocketbooks.
As to your “mythbusting” regarding the global cooling predictions in the 70′s, you are just plain wrong. I was an undergraduate student studying climatology and geology at that time. It was the prevailing thought about climate. It was not the “religion” global warming has been turned into. But it was used to frighten people and, you guessed it, turn fear into $$$.
Until, and unless, you can explain global warming and cooling in the past, you can not possibly explain what the current trend is or what is causing it.
Is earth warming and is it a long term trend? I have no idea. Neither do you or any “scientist” you care to link to. The most important thing a scientist, or any other person, should know is what they don’t know.
COLA BEARS
Even the National Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States began to study whether Polar bears ought to be added to the list of Endangered Species. Is it true? Are these bears in such danger, are they being killed off by retreating ice, is the SUV…
Well it certainly sounds to me that Global Warming as they say is caused by C02 emissions, right? Well I have a WONDERFUL idea to help stop Global Warming, and if you really do care about the environment, you will not hesitate to help out immediately! When humans exhale, we give off carbon dioxide, which is what causes global warming in the first place. If you think about it, you are always breathing, several times each minute. Then just think about how many people there are! If we could just get every environmentalist, liberal, and every other fringe kook out there to just all stop breathing – permanantly… Just think of how much less C02 there will be! (Not to mention that there will be that many fewer liberals!) We can save the world!
-ashley
This is fake….global warming is so fake. It is just a cycle that comes and goes every 200 years you people. It is the way our climate works. We just have dumber people nowadays that want to make these claims. STFU n00bs
OMG most of you people are retards..
give me a break,..
I remember in the 1970s we knew it all and 90% of the worlds leading scientist said the earth was headed for a DEEEEEPPPP FREEZE OMG NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
they even had a whole USA today or news week mag set to it.. no commercials no other stories just how humans and co2 gas would freeze the earth and keep people from growing corn/wheat or feeding cows…
we are all going to starve…
or what about when they said OMG!!!!! we are all going to starve to death when we hit 6 BILLION people.. what we at now… somethign like 12 billio? or more… cant remember OOOOOO WAIT!!!! what about the time they said if we set off 1 atom bomb we would destroy the earth.. i think we have set off nearly 200 around the world so far… in underground testing and in the south pacific.. heck france just set one off like 3 or 4 years ago..
OOOOO WAIT!!! BUT WE KNOW SO MUCH MORE NOW….HAHAHAHA
look back in just US history.. heck one time the US gov. back in the 1800 closed the US patent office why? because we had invented everything that could ever be invented….. HAHAHa
this is just more stupid crap to follow.. here is something for you tard wackos… no matter what we do in the US… chine doesnt have to do it.. in fact … it is said that in less than 5 years.. China will have more cars in china than we have PEOPLE in the US… think about that for a sec….. even if we got rid of all the cars in the free world… china will replace them and more in LESS than 5 years….
again… this could all be part of a cycle… i personally think God was a heck of alot smarter than we are… and knew what the heck he was going.. it is funny when you think that humans think they are so powerful they can do anything… yet we cant even cure cancer.. BUT we can destroy earth.. OMG my sides hurt from LOL
Thank you James.
I was wondering when a “STFU n00bs!!” was going to pop up. You have literally made my afternoon by saying that. I’ll leave the office with a smile now.
All the liberals should just stop breathing. Nail two birds with one stone.
James…Cycles don’t happen by themselves. They happen because something is causing them; therefore, you have to look at forcings (external boundary conditions or inputs to a climate model.)
What would you say are the current forcings contributing the current warming of the earth?
How about the sun? That’s a pretty significant external input.
Michael, you ignore the elephant in the room. You ask someone (James) to describe what we do not know. What you do not know and will not answer. What caused global warming and cooling in the past?
Also, while your explaining this… Have you ever asked how we know the “average” temperature of the earth? It is reasonable to determine this from historical data for a period of years. Hard to say what it really is today.
“Scroll down and you’ll see the same picture was first published with a credit to another person on the trip”
It’s not the same picture. They are two different photos of the same thing.
Yes the sun…its already been established solar flares contribute greatly to the climate flux. Not to mention vents both in the ocean and earths crust (volcanos etc) which have been documanted to put out 3 to 5 times what every vehicle on EARTH puts out in a year (a year). and last but not least, the huge amount of natural methane from natural sources (animal farts, ever been near a cattle farm? stinky…)
To say that the evil SUV is the root of all the global warming theorys is ludicrous. why did the earth warm up after the last ice age 60000 years ago? why are there sea shells in lakebeds in colorado? montana? nebraska? where were the suvs when that warming cycle occured?? concensus is not science…to prove a scientific FACT it must pass a three step process…so far global warming due to human and only human reasons has only been to step one…then shot down…
I’m going to wiegh in here and, Behold! I will niether point fingers or call names!
First, it it is a a fact we are presently in an interglacial period. (I know I am belaboring the obvious here but bear with me) It so happens that as interglacial periods go, ours is a quite mild one.
The last inter-glacial, that occurred some 130-110 thousand years ago, was much more of the standard type. The Earth then was CONSIDERABLY warmer than it is now. Sediment core samples and fossil tree rings, among other physical evidence very strong indicate the level of the sea was 6-8 meters higher than it is now. Let us split the difference and call it 7 meters; that’s 24 feet. The Arctic Ocean was, at that time navigable (had there been any ships)at least most of the year. how then, did the polar bears live? Simple; there were no polar bears, there were brown bears that lived on dry land in a cool climate. When the climate cooled the bears were naturally selected for lighter colored pelts and better fat retention; they, in other words, adapted, as species will under changing conditions.
Human beings, it that time, produced greenhouse gasses only in the form of farts and campfires.
Attempting to prove how much human activity has to do with the present(undeniable) warming trend is highly problematic for the simple reason that there is NO BASIS OF COMPARISION!!!
We are unable to set up an “alternate Earth” in a belljar that is identical to our own except it is innocent of human beings….. then compare the results.
Second, The Kyoto or similar Protocals, in order to be anything like effective, must be followed assiduously for centuries. Is there anyone, anyone at all, that truly believes that all the nations of the world, are actually going to do this? For hundreds of years? And nobody is going to cheat? Human beings being what they are? Is there anyone, able to tie thier own shoelaces, niaive and idealistic enough to buy that?
The bottom line is simple and clear, the level of the seas will rise.. How far, how fast, I know not, but rise they will. The Human race will do what every other species does in the face of a changing enviroment: adapt or die.
diana,
I’m sorry you were offended, but my intent was not to disparage anyone, but to prove that the people who are claiming that the Earth is about to end are full of crap. If they truly believed the World was about to end, they would be willing to do whatever is necessary to prevent the destruction of the World, including what I said, which was not at all a proposal from me, but a foile used to prove these people are not really that concerned about global warming.
I’m not that concerned about global warming, and I do not advocate such a program, but used it as a foile. If you hate me for that, so be it.
Actually Kyoto is utterly worthless and without any use or value in the slightest degree for reducing any carbon emissions or any presumed global warming in any place. Totally without value, even its proponents admit this when being candid. It’s just an international money redistribution scheme that deliberately left China and India out of the loop of requirements.
The truth is, we need to be responsible, intelligent, and moral stewards of the world we have. That means pollute less, handle your resources better, and take care of what we own. I love the idea of voluntary recycling, various alternate energy sources being exploited, and people carpooling or bicycling to work. I also love the idea of us using the oil we can get to, drilling where we can, and building homes and businesses. I understand that truckers can’t drive tiny electric cars to work, I understand that when I need to build a fence I can’t stack the materials on my bike.
What we need is people on both sides of this issue to step back, take a deep breath, and start over with some intelligence, discernment, and real concern over the issues instead of shreiking hysteria based on ludicrously bad science and a dubious political agenda on one side and a reactionary rejection of anything that remotely has a whiff of patchoulli on the other.
Just read the new UN report on Global Warming that clearly state that global warming is a global and VERY dangerous threat to mankind. Thousands of scientist don’t have wrong. You are wrong. Stop living in a lie.
if the un told you the world was flat would you believe them too and the 1000 scientists they paid off. you wake up and stop blindly following
Bravo muere!!
Isn’t it ironic that liberals will use the UN when it assist them in making their argument? What about the UN sanctions against a certain country? I don’t hear them siding with the UN on that! BTW I think the UN ought to go set up shop in say… Lebanon with out our yearly financial contribution and then they can bash the US all they want… Has anybody else determined what a useless “body” that the UN is?
“James…Cycles don’t happen by themselves.”
Yet again, factually wrong. One of the most fascinating facets of chaotic systems is their fractal nature. A chaotic system tends to look the same no matter what scale you’re observing it at. For instance, the trend of the Earth’s average temperature over hundreds of millions of years looks remarkably like the trend of local temperatures over a couple of days. This in fact would look quite a lot like the temperature trend of a single point in a clear field on a windy day, if we had a temperature detector with a fast enough response time. Its not hard to describe: the temperature moves up and down, but is fairly well bounded within a certain range. As the cycles get slower and your averaging area gets larger, this range contracts. The global warming advocates argue that the warming trend we can see now is caused by man because it is too fast for the million-year cycles and too slow for random climate changes. However, these trends are simply another scale in the fractal nature of global temperatures.
Another beef I have with the whole argument is that we seem to be worried about a 0.7 deg C rise over the past hundred years. The temperatures we measure to get these averages are all over the map, and span more than two orders of magnitude larger than the change in the average. Ask any instrumentation or communications engineer if their equipment will work when the noise is over 100 times the signal strength and they’ll laugh at you. Extrapolating a trend from data like this is junk science, and the scientists doing it should be ashamed of themselves. They’re either incompetent or simply ignoring the inadequacy of the data.
Interesting story on the polar bear picture!
Love you
Robin
All that over a picture of two polar bears standing on a wave-carved (little doubt there if you know what waves do to ice) ice flow. Its a beautiful picture no more, no less and it says nothing about climate or weather since we have no other data. If that picture was taken in January (it wasn’t unless the potographer was using a hell of big flash) then one could say wow, its warm for January. It looks more like the pic was taken in summer. Arctic warming is called summer.
John
Man made global warming is a myth. It is all about money and power.
It seems that just about everyone is more interested in character assassination to prove their point than in listing any proven facts THAT RELATE to the real issue. What HAS occured in the HISTORY OF OUR PLANET, climate wise, does not, NECESSARILY, mean that the SAME CHANGES brought about by nature, will occur again at all, or at what RATE OF SPEED. What IS known now, and is VERY DIFFERENT from past history, is that human population growth is increasing EXPONENTIALLY. This means that the effect of MAN MADE POLLUTION on global warming is increasing by GEOMETRIC PROGRESSION, year after year. This is a DRAMATIC CHANGE over what has been the history of our planet’s climatic history. To ignore this, or claim that it is some kind of conspiracy created by liberal dingbats, is simply sticking our heads in the sand. Yes, the press has often misrepresented the facts and blown things all out of proportion. But, if we are at all concerned about our children and grandchildren’s future, it is something that must be addressed NOW. If the small nation of Iceland can convert their energy fuel usage to hydrogen, eliminating dependence upon petroleum, and they are doing just that NOW, than we must also. This is true for a variety of reasons, not only to address global warming. We dangerously depend upon volatile middle eastern nations, full of radical terrorists, for our oil. This must all end, NOW! We CAN do it, if our government and industry REALLY gets behind the effort, and there’s not just a lot of empty words from politicians and industry leaders trying to hoodwink us. Remember General Marshall and President Truman’s “Manhattan Project” of the ’40′s? Just like that project, it will take a great deal of effort and lots of money, but it’s doable, NOW. Dr. Donn C. Bogert
good info
Since it is common knowledge that the rest of the world hates us I suggest we keep doing what we are doing and have a good life style and enjoy ourselves. Besides my house is at over 500 feet in elevation and will never be flooded by the ocean. Too bad if you bought that expensive beach front property and you loose a couple of feet of shoreline.
If we can grow our economy to 24 trillon (double from today) we can really have a good time and use more of the worlds energy. I hope we can get about 50 nuke plants up and running so I can turn my thermostat down to about 72 degrees on a 105 degree day in Texas. My electric bill might even then be half of what Al Gore’s bill is each month.
Sorry to run off and not comment more but my private jet (G5) is ready on the ramp and I need to run off to another Global Warming conference with my girlfriend. We will be staying at a very upscale hotel in Geneva, Switzerland. Boy do they have a nice sauna there.
Those Polar Bears are cute on that iceburg.
Chuck, you the Man! I can only work and wait patiently. There is no way G. Warming can stop me now. I want what you have,but only after EARNING IT> God Bless The United States of America.
Has anybody considered that regardless of why or if global warming is happining, the earth or “Mother Nature” will adapt just like it has every other time. And as for species going extint, so what, only the strong survive anyway, if man is not strong enough to survive and adapt then so be it
It takes an idiot or a fool to believe the global warming hype. The majority of scientists do not believe in man made global warming and I am a bit tired of people saying that 90% of them do. The debate about it ended when the so called “facts” started to be debunked. Now the man made global warming propagandists refuse to debate any more and have declared them selves the victors, typical leftist bilge. They say the subject is closed because it has been proven by a consensus. This is proof that the whole thing is politics and not science. Consensus is strictly a political term. Science puts forth a theory and welcomes all attempts at disproving the theory in order to insure that the original research leading to the theory is in fact correct. The whole tactic being used is in itself proof that there is no science involved in this political movement.
This is the natural enviroment for Polar Bears. The pads on the bottom of the Polar Bears feet allow them to walk and even climb on ice. They are either in the water or on the ice.
If earths weather did stopped changing. Then there would be a problem…
Dr. Bogert, you must also be a part of the Liberal Mis-Information machine. You say that “human population growth is increasing EXPONENTIALLY.” You even capitalize EXPONENTIALLY!!!!!
According to the US Census Bureau, the world population growth rate hit a peak of 2 percent growth rate back in the early 60′s and has been decreasing ever sense to where it is now, below 1.5% growth annually. I’m no math major but 1.5% growth is not EXPONENTIAL GROWTH.
So I researched the population numbers of polar bears and I discovered that their numbers are increasing despite global warming. Go figure.
There is no left or right. There is only right and wrong. As long as some of you cling to your left and right security blankets there can be no logical discussion.
i think polar bears eat carabou, if there is such thing. i think that polar bears when they get sick…they eat each other. i hope this is a good comment although i don’t know what this is about. so i’m just going to write this. but now i’m going to say maybe they eat snow or other kinds of plants. maybe they’re herbivores or maybe they’re not. i can’t tell. thankyou for letting me write this letter whoever you are. e
Why do so many people think that enviromentalism is some liberal made-up issue? It has nothing to do with political position in terms of whether you are conservative or liberal. I know many conservatives that are concerned about the environment and many liberals that are not. Sweeping it under the carpet as a “liberal issue” is just a form of brainwashing.
Anyone who can understand that they wouldn’t want an exhaust pipe coming right into their living room because it would be nasty to breathe can understand environmentalism on a small scale. Why is it so hard when you extrapolate it to a larger environment than your living room?
All the things proposed by enviro-weenies contribute to the increase of greenhouse gasses. We are told to walk or ride bikes- this causes you to increase your metabolism and increases the CO2 you put out. How about composting? Decaying organic material releases carbon into the atmosphere. Planting lots of trees? Trees use CO2 during the daytime for photosynthesis, but at night the actually release CO2 (small amount). And all the fallen leaves decomposing release Carbon, not to mention when they die and decompose. Electric cars? These have to be plugged into our existing electric grid, the power plants run on coal and natural gas (primarily). Face it, everything we do puts gas in the atmosphere, the only solution is forced reduction of the human race (slaughter the excess population)- but then the decomposing bodies would release gasses into the air AAARGGHH! What are we to do?
On a side note, I just love the whole carbon offset scam- reminds me of snake oil salesmen. “Just pay me and I’ll do the rest, no need to change a thing you are doing!” We can continue to use more and more, but just by the simple expedient of preventing those pesky third world poor people from using any we feel good about it. They aren’t really using their share, so we’ll use it for them.
My turn…
FIRST, I am a computer scientist. I KNOW that the Global Warming predictions are based on COMPUTER MODELS (software simulations of what MIGHT occur [not what WILL occur]).
I think I’m safe is saying that there are NO TWO computer models which generate the SAME results (predictions). In other words, there’s NO CONSENSUS in the computer models.
This is, primarily, because the models are GUESSES of how our weather/climate systems work. News flash: we don’t KNOW how they work – we’re just guessing…
Now, as to the many of you who proclaim that we don’t have a parallel Earth (without humans, SUVs, cow flatulence, etc.) – so we can’t run comparitive studies — We DO… Well, sort of… We have the other planets in our solar system.
If our computer models do NOT take into account that which is happening to the other planetary bodies in our solar system, then they are falsely skewing the output.
If one does NOT consider what is happening to, say, Mars (and scientific EVIDENCE [not consensus] indicates that IT is getting warmer), then your entire model is flawed.
You are all missing out on one important FACT in this entire Global Warming scare…
The Chicken-Littles amongst us are in a NO LOSE situation. If the Earth’s temperature continues to rise – they will say, “See, we told you so.”. If, however, the Earth’s temperature goes DOWN, then they will say, “It’s because of OUR efforts to stop Global Warming that we have succeeded in reducing the Earth’s temperature. But the battle’s not over. Unless we continue this fight against Global Warming, we’ll be worse off than we were before.” (or some other such nonsense). They have NOTHING to lose in making their outrageous (factless) assertions.
Oh, and on the subject of automobiles…
First, why did the Government FORCE us to put catalytic converters on our cars?
Catalytic converters convert NON-Green House Gas (Carbon Monoxide [CO]) into Green House Gas (Carbon Dioxide [CO2]). IF Green House Gasses are SO BAD, shouldn’t the government repeal the mandate for these catalytic converts? That would eliminate a BUNCH of CO2, wouldn’t it?
Second, if hybrids have greatly reduced emissions, WHY do we want THEM in the HOV (aka “Car pool”) lanes? Shouldn’t we WANT these low emission vehicles in the “regular” lanes (since they pollute so little), and get the big polluting SUVs into the car pool lanes – so they get where they’re going as quickly as possible – with the least amount of pollutants released into the air?
That is, of course, if the REAL goal is to reduce auto emissions (as opposed to attempting to control choice through political means [taxation, etc.]).
And, with respect to those “car pool lanes” – if the alleged purpose is to get drivers to “car pool” (that is, to reduce the number of cars on the roads) – then shouldn’t “car pools” be defined as TWO OR MORE LICENSED DRIVERS IN A VEHICLE? How, exactly, does a soccer mom, taking little Billy to soccer practice reduce the number of cars on the road?
Is it really your assertion that were it not for the car pool lane, Mom and little Billy would BOTH be driving their cars to soccer practice?
Why should SHE (they) be allowed in the “car pool” lane? Perhaps it’s time for an electronic transponder device, which requires TWO driver licenses to be inserted into it to make it emit the “car pool lane authorized” signal (without which, the equivalent of “red light cameras” take pictures of you, your car, and it’s license plate, and send you a ticket in the mail [for violating "car pool" regulations])!
Again, that is IF the REAL purpose of “car pool lanes” is to reduce the number of cars on the highways.
Oh, and how can ANYONE say that “the debate is over”? Hell, AlGore and the United Nations can’t even reach a “consensus” as to the “worst case” scenario for the rise in sea levels…
AlGore’s movie (and many other Chicken-Little “scientists”) assert that sea levels could rise 18 to 20 FEET.
The United Nations (no right-wing group, by any measure) says that sea levels could rise 7 to 23 INCHES (that’s 2.9% to 10.6% of AlGore’s prediction, or to make AlGore look even worse [if that's possible]… AlGore’s predictions are 1043.4% to 3085.7% greater than those of the United Nations…
Where’s the “consensus”?
Who are we to believe, and WHY?
While I am not a computer scientist, I am a trained meteorologist currently working in the environmental field. I understand the capabilities of weather/climate computer models. If meteorologists can’t tell us what is happening next week, how can anyone tell us what will happen in 30 years?
I see the politics of emissions everyday. Political entities are steadily pushing green house gas reductions on industrial facilities with each passing negotiation. There are many fringe markets hoping to make money from these changes. These same political entities are not concerned with controlling the largest source of CO2, mobile emission sources, cars and trucks. By heaping additional, unnecessary regulatory hurdles before industrial manufacturers, governmental agencies are doing what governments do, create more tax revenue and dollars to be redistributed without accepting the blame. Groups blame the industrial facilities for increasing the cost of fuels, but the connection between increased fuel costs and increased operating costs for fuel manufacturers caused by increased regulation is never pointed out in our even handed media.
We need to remember that CO2 comprises less than 0.05% of our atmosphere. There have not been any discussions to control the release of the most pervasive green house gas, dihydrogen oxide. This gas is many time more capable of capturing BTU’s from the atmosphere and radiating them to surrounding molecules. This gas will further our spiral to becoming a dead planet much faster than CO2. I am, of course, discussing water vapor. Lets see Algore begin a crusade to remove this gas from the atmosphere.
Exactly…
I’m reminded of the high schoolers (I think) who circulated a petition to BAN the “dangerous chemical” (dihydro-monoxide). This “dangerous chemical” is found in thousands of food (and other) products, AND is the second leading cause of DEATH in children under the age of 19.
Needless to say, they we easily able to get a gullible and uninformed public to sign the petition to ban WATER (er, dihydro-monoxide). Hell, there are on-line petitions all over the internet.
Sounds very similar to the gullibility and lack of (factual) information with respect to “Global Warming”, doesn’t it?
Odd, but I don’t see the Chicken-Littles of the “Global Warming” crusade supporting any REAL alternatives. Sure, there’s Ethanol (hey, let the poor Mexicans suffer with skyrocketing tortilla prices, now that corn has become more valuable for Ethanol than for food). Then, of course, there’s their old standard, “conservation”. Now THAT’S the way to grow the economy and ensure technological progress – take giant steps BACKWARD…
Hey, I know, how about a “comprehensive immigration policy” that REQUIRES sufficient resources (Gas, Water, Electricity, Roads, Schools, Prisons, etc.) to accommodate the immigrants (and those of us already here) BEFORE they are allowed to stay (oh, and for the record… My wife is from Mexico, so you can forget that “you’re a racist and a bigot” attack before you even begin typing).
Heaven forbid we should expect the Government to conduct an Environmental Impact study before inviting tens of thousands MORE illegal aliens to come here (by granting those who ARE here amnesty).
It never ceases to amaze me how the loony leftys don’t check their “facts” before regurgitating them. One supposed result of global warming is, according to Al Gore et. al., the DESERTIFICATION of the planet. Desertification occurs when there is LESS moisture, such as during ICE AGES when more and more water is locked up in ice and snow. As the planet warms the result will be MORE EVAPORATION and, if anything, LESS DESERTIFICATION. It’s simple logic. Something the loony left cannot grasp, even with both hands.
Yes, we should work on cleaner technologies that allow us to once and for all kick the foreign oil habit – let Chavez and the Arabs/Persians drown in their oil. Yes, we should do what we can to reduce our impact on earth, but when you think about it, the only way to do that is to reduce population. Any volunteers? I’m serious – the only way to achieve zero carbon output is to STOP BREATHING. You loony leftys go first and let the rest of us know how it works out for you in a month or so.
Here’s the one word that best describes climate change – INEVITABLE. If those whining about anthropogenic warming had any ability to research a topic they’d know that the alarm has switched from global cooling to global warming four times in the last 100 years or so. I bet most of them don’t even know what the most potent greenhouse gas is (I’ll tell you later), or that ozone is a greenhouse gas so saving the ozone layer leads to global warming. I bet they don’t know that without greenhouse gasses the earth would actually be a cold, dry lump of ice, essentially, much like Ganymede. Why is the earth just right for life? WATER VAPOR, the most potent of the greenhouse gasses. But there’s a feedback system – the more water vapor, the more clouds, the more energy gets reflected back to space.
So why is it Gore et. al. want us to fall for their anthropogenic warming myth? Well it keeps the “scientists” (and believe me I use that term VERY loosely) that are preaching the anthropogenic warming gospel in high-dollar grants. Imagine what would happen to their government grants if they admitted the topic they’ve dedicated their life to is a fraud? And Gore and his ilk? Why, they want to be the ones controlling the trillions of dollars that are to change hands as “carbon trading” and “carbon offsets”. You know what those are, don’t you? Person A pays big bucks because he’s polluted so much to country B, which as a developing country has inefficient processes which they use the money to make more of so their pollution increases too. Meanwhile Gore and his cronies take a big chunk and laugh all the way to the bank as we pay good money because of a hoax that their system does NOTHING to fix, in fact it only makes things WORSE!
Oh yeah, one last point – if man is causing global warming on earth, who is causing CORRESPONDING GLOBAL WARMING ON MARS? Martians?
Oh, by the way, the debate IS over – the warming period has peaked along with the increasing solar output that was the primary cause of it. The current active hurricane cycle will continue as it regularly does, until it NATURALLY returns to the quiet phase some time in the future. We are still overdue an ice age. Polar bears are NOT dying off, in fact they’re doing quite well, as are the harbor seals on the west coast despite the fact loony lefty environmentalists are trying to convince everyone they’re threatened. The “hockey stick” Gore made such a big deal about in his movie? DEBUNKED. Though there was some reduction in ice at the north pole, a natural process, the temperature at the south pole is DROPPING and the ice and snow are ACCUMULATING. On all of these matters, yes, the facts are in, the debate is over. The left is LYING. The sky is NOT falling. And last, for the record, I hope sea levels DO rise about 100 feet or so as that will turn my home into beachfront property and the value will SKYROCKET!
AGW is a complete hoax. There actually is no science behind it, only computer modeling. Computer modeling is not science. The best computer models contain six to seven variables for climate determination, when there are more than thirty total. Sceince cannot predict the weather for two weeks in advance. They cannot predict climate any better.
Weather is nore chaotic, but fewer factors effect it than climate. AGW has become a religion for some on the left, one that any disagreement cannot be tolerated on. There are many books that outline in specific terms the many holes in the AGW hypothesis (which cannot be tested in a laboratory, and thus is not true science). Some of these are Bjorn’s Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, Robert Balling Jr.’s The Satanic Gases, Patrick J. Michaels’s Shattered Consensus, and S. Fred Singer’s Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years. I would also watch the Great Global Warming Hoax that appeared on the BBC about a month ago. This movie can be found on YouTube. Finally, the human hurricane forcasting computer Professor William Gray of Colorado State has written several articles that destroy the link between more hurricanes and global warming.
Don’t watch Al Gore’s movie thinking that it is definitive or even correct on anything. It is a piece of slick propaganda. Make sure that you view it skeptically. Consensus in science DOES NOT MATTER. Fact does, and often the majority of scientists don’t have it. A short history of science will demonstrate that. Good night and good luck.
I guess global warming would ultimately result in the reduction of humans which would suit the environmental crowd.
So, what’s the problem?
Agreed, consensus doesn’t mean jack…………..?
GW cannot be proven using the scientific method. Specific pieces can be proven, but those pieces don’t add up to GW, lol lol lol lol!
you see facts are these little things that there is no consensus on like: greenland was settled because of its agricultural potential, OR that of the 3 stages of matter, pertaining to water, ice (solid) takes up more space than liquid ( and dont even start..NO! antartica is not mostly land, its ice) OR when you smash a CFL lite they smell funny, i think theres mercury in them OR finally a hybrid car LOL LOL LOL LOL cannot pass the state emissions test. LOL LOL LOL
Cannot wait to meet a real Social Liberial…… on the field of Battle….. its comming……. you know it i’ll be waiting.
Free Carbon Offsets: http://www/freecarbonoffsets.com
The land ice is melting faster than it ever was and the polar bears have no chance to survive because there will no land ice left and they can’t swim very well
Here’s a new song called “Save the ice bears”
You can hear it and download it from
http://www.morgle.com/savetheicebears.htm
wow…i am doing a report on these intresting animals and there is alot on them…this site is helpful, but sad. the pic. r sad and i love these animals to death!
SAVE THE POLAR BEARS!