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.

Comments

[Legalize]

Wow, there is rambling incoherence, and there IS REAL rambling incoherence. Congrats on establishing, er - something?

[scarshapedstar]

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.

[Ekim]

Uh, the ice was thicker in one spot than another. That proves global warming is a hoax?

[Legalize]

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

[yyy]

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.

[yyy]

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????????????

[Legalize]

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.

[SDN]

Of course, you have signatures or any other kind of actual evidence for the whole 90% figure.....

[yyy]

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.

[LOL]

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

[Oregonian]

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.

[yyy]

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.

[c]

Facts have a well known liberal bias.

[yyy]

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?

[Mandatory Global Warming Classes Now!]

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.

[Chuck Pelto]

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.

[yyy]

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.

[William]

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?

[Marc H.]

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.

[yyy]

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.

[Rob Crawford]

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".

[LOL]

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.

[Rob Crawford]

"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!!!

[LOL]

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

[splashtc]

Thank goodness for blogs-to correct and expose the msm who likes to manipulate and control public opinion at will.

[yyy]

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.

[chip]

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.

[Cindi]

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?

[William]

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.

[Purple Avenger]

"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?

[William]

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?

[yyy]

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.

[Tom]

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.

[Legalize]

"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.

[LOL]

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.

[bob]

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

[William]

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.

[Oregonian]

"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

[LOL]

"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)

[LOL]

"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.

[yyy]

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.

[Oregonian]

"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

[templar knight]

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.

[Dan Riehl]

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.

[William]

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....

[bob]

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.

[Marc H.]

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.

[LOL]

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.

[Dan Riehl]

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.

[The Liberal Avenger]

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!