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

[Dan Riehl]

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.

[yyy]

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.

[William]

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?

[yyy]

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.

[yyy]

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.

[TM Lutas]

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?

[William]

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.

[yyy]

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.

[Purple Avenger]

"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.

[William]

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.

[Dan Riehl]

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.

[yyy]

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.

[DaMav]

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.

[templar knight]

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.

[The Raging Patriot]

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.

[Sissy Willis]

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

[Micajah]

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.)

[LOL]

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...

[yyy]

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?

[Jim]

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

[templar knight]

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.

[LOL]

wingers wanting to commit violence because someone disagrees

what a shock

[Old Dad]

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.

[yyy]

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.

[gahrie]

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.

[templar knight]

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.

[Oregonian]

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.

[templar knight]

"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.

[Artie]

Let me get this straight, flat-earth rednecks, WMDs in Iraq exist but global warming doesn't?? Just checking.

[templar knight]

Apple Cunt, please address the question at hand. I responded already to your stupid comment. Read my response to LOL.

[templar knight]

AppleCunt, let's just say I anticipated your stupidity.

[Artie]

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!

[cat herder]

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.

[templar knight]

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?

[Old Dad]

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.

[Bozoer Rebbe]

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.

[Sweetie]

"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.

[Purple Avenger]

"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?

[The Raging Patriot]

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.

[templar knight]

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.

[templar knight]

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.

[templar knight]

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.

[The Raging Patriot]

Typical commie libs.

The silence is deafening ...

[Artie]

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...

[Another Gal]

"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?

[The Raging Patriot]

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 ...

[Bozoer Rebbe]

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?

[templar knight]

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.

[Jonathan]

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.

[Artie]

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!!